John Dewey is a remarkable scholar but is fundamentally an empiricists.
He thinks that all truth comes from experience. Even more so, he seems to have an unquestioning faith in the scientific method. A method of trail and error, what works is what comes from experience.
There are many epistemological issues relating to this worldview. Needless to say it leaves many questions to be answered. Is experience the same as truth? Can't ones experiences lead one astray from certain types of knowledge? Isn't there anything outside of subjective experience?
I'm sure Dewey would give us a valid defense of many of the classical critiques of empiricism. Nevertheless, I think we should be careful and think about the implications of claims built around empiricists epistemological claims.
This post is designed to be brought up as a discussion in class. It's less of a reflection and more of a starting point for a discussion.
As someone who values tradition, Dewey's notion of experience, and your recognition of the power of empiricism pulls me in two directions. As Parker Palmer notes, there are three components to every classroom--the student, the teacher and the subject. Dewey seems much more interested in the student than in the teacher. In the Dewey v. Hutchins debate, the canon compels--it has received its vaunted status for good reason. But only canon or only experience seems short-sighted. As I said in class, I'm torn between wanting to say "Amen" to two very different trajectories. You have identified some of the limitations of Dewey, even as his appreciation of the learner and what s/he brings is now so integrated into our understanding of good learning.
ReplyDeleteOn a pedagogical note, I appreciate that you attempted to launch our discussion and I realize that we didn't start here, so I apologize.