Perhaps Bruce and I are too deeply rooted in UK academia where quality of
argument is embedded in our marking schemes. I recall a Monty Python
sketch where you could pay for a good argument. All John Cleese got from
Terry Jones was a series of "No, you aren't" or "No you didn't". Cleese
then makes the point that a "Contradiction is not an argument"... and of
course Jones replies "Yes it is".
The point being that saying Skinner is a fool is not an argument( and
would recieve low grades), and it would be a stupid thing for someone who
has read Beyond Freedom and Dignity to suppose. However I can agree with
Bruce, that you do not have to have read the whole cannon to feel that you
can find flaws in a behaviourist viewpoint. In many ways the adversarial
tradition requires you to take your opponent more seriously and address
detail in ways that looking for consenus does not allow. I am still
reading Yrjo's thesis and I do not think Yrjo pulls any punches and is all
the more intereting because of it: Headings like "the futility of
learning" and "at the limits of cognitivism" provided both challenges and
smiles.
Our UK public debating chambers are not "in the round" but face to face
adversarial (eg Palace of Westminster). A well known British historian, A
J P Taylor said he had "strong opinions, weakly held" and he seemed a
great educator because of it.
I am quite happy with the fact that the Durban conference on racism is
breaking up rather than looking for a cosy consensus (it didn't work in
Kyoto). There will be other opportunities to talk. But different strokes
for different folks.
Martin
Martin Owen
Labordy Dysgu- Learning Lab
Prifysgol Cymru Bangor- University of Wales, Bangor
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 10 2001 - 15:49:08 PDT