return to WCA Archive
Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n067 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: What does Steiner say we must do?
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - re: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine-Sampson
003 - Lee Story USG <story zk3. - re: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine-Sampson
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n067.1 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: What does Steiner say we must do?
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 02:11:53 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Rigby, you wrote,
>In order to act upon Steiner's indications, one must give them a certain
>amount of credence. If not absolute truths, they must be at least taken as
>relative truths for a given time, situation and purpose. Steiner education
>is a case in point. A teacher in a Steiner school would at least accept
>Steiner's indications about the nature of the child as a set of working
>hypotheses, otherwise there is little point in being there. Having taken
>this step, the experience in the classroom and the experience of relating to
>colleagues all working within the same framework tends to transform working
>hypotheses into an accepted belief system (to the extent experience bears out
>the indications).
This is the step where the system fails. Ideas are not tested critically. A
teacher tests one of Steiner's ideas by using it and seeing how he or she
likes it. In an atmosphere of Steiner fundamentalism, the usual Waldorf
school environment, it is not likely that the teacher will be able to make
an objective judgement about the value of the technique. Should there be
difficulties, mentors will urge greater effort and deeper study of Steiner.
He or she will receive support for trying to conform to Steiner, not for
critiquing him objectively, which implies the possiblity of judging the
idea to be wrong. Very important things like the age to teach reading
cannot possibly be tested by a teacher for him or herself. Answering
questions like this requires a wider experiment. The Waldorf movement has
steadfastly neglected to perform valid research on the efficacy of its
methods, despite 75 years of promoting them.
later, you, Rigby, said,
>
>The most troubling aspect of the Steiner school system for its critics,
>however, appears to be its view of the fundamental nature of the child, which
>naturally is based on Steiner's indications about human nature. And
>Steiner's indications about human nature are based on a comprehensive and
>complex cosmology that derived primarily from his personal visionary
>experiences. Simply stated, a Steiner school teacher views a child as a
>spiritual entity in the process of incarnating--a process that extends until
>about the age of 21, with the ego being the last aspect of the human being to
>"come in." This viewpoint tends to call out from the teacher a high level of
>attention to, and respect for, the individual child.
That last sentence we can all agree with, but the rest, as you say, derives
from Steiner's "personal visionary experiences." This is not a reliable
source of information.
>Several critics here believe that Steiner schools deliberately keep this
>underlying metaphysical philosophy hidden, with the result that most parents
>are being deluded. This isn't my experience. Teachers generally don't
>prosyletize but they are responsive to inquiries. Most parents are well
>aware that there is a spiritual world view underlying Steiner education, even
>if they don't know and don't want to know all of the details. They respect
>the decision of the teachers who adopt this belief system and they have
>confidence in the educational process that results from it, to the extent it
>supports multi-faceted growth in their children. They recognize that
>Steiner's philosophy is not part of the curriculum--there is no
>indoctrination. (Critics will say that there is implicit indoctrination, a
>kind of subliminal shaping of the nature of the children in a way that sets
>them up to become followers of Steiner later in life.)
It doesn't necessarily "set people up to become followers of Steiner,"
though I think that result is fondly desired by many in the movement. It
does cultivate magical thinking at the expense of rationality, a policy
with is more harmful to society than most people realize.
It is incorrect to say that there is no indoctrination. E.g.: When students
are told "the heart is not a pump," they are being taught not science but
Anthroposophical doctrine. Is this not, then, indoctrination?
>As a result, parents of Steiner school children represent a wide spectrum of
>religious backgrounds--various Christian denominations, Judaism, and Sikhs,
>to name those that I have personally known about.
The diversity of families at a Waldorf school results from the appeal of
the system to the parents, and the system's presenting itself as acceptable
by all faiths, not from the parents' knowledge of the Anthroposophical
world-view. When I surveyed the parents of the San Francisco Waldorf
School, most did not agree with Steiner's crackpot scientific ideas.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n067.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: re: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine-Sampson
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 02:32:14 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I copied the posting to Dr. ter Riet, and he responded:
Dear Mr. Dugan,
Let me briefly comment on Dr. Wallace's words.
1. Normal people require between 5 and 10 mg of vitamin C daily to prevent
the (slow) development of scurvy. (Some) humans have been able to live
healthily for periods of some 6 months without any vitamin C. (Sources:
Bartley W, et al. Medical Research Council Special Report Series No. 280,
1953. See also Hodges RE, et al. Am J Clin Nutr 1969;22:535-48).
Now to our review in the BMJ of 1991.
2. Wallace writes that we "took the word of the authors for how the study was
done, even when the methods were not stated in the papers." It is not clear
to me what the use of any (scientific) publication would be if one does not
take the words of the authors. Of course it may be the case that authors
polish their reports and data or even write downright lies, but these
practices do not seem to be unique for alternative medicine. What is Dr.
Wallace's opinion on our reviews of acupuncture (we used the same (sloppy?)
methods, but drew more 'allopathic' conclusions)?
3. Let's not forget that issues such as statistical power and confidence
intervals (only one issue) pertain to the precision of studies not to their
validity.
4. Although Dr. Wallace criticizes (rejects?) our criteria list, he uses its
results to reach conclusions. He considers 80 points the lower cutoff for
believability, but if that does not do the job, he is willing to focus on the
three best studies only (cutoff 88 points) and, in this way, is able to reach
the conclusion that he seems to prefer.
5. It is not more difficult to manipulate 'objective data' (lab results) than
to manipulate soft data (complaints). Dr. Wallace seems to be worried about
the possibility of information bias (blinding). Checks on the maintenance of
double blind conditions would have been helpful indeed. On the other hand,
nothing seems to be so easy as to maintain double blindness in a trial that
compares 'two placebos'. I am much more worried about these issues in trials
of beta-blockers and the like.
6. All three "professors" were (and still are) Medical Doctors.
Having said all this, I must admit that the criterion 'number of patients
analysed' that we used in our BMJ paper may be excessively mild. Especially
some papers ( I do not exactly recall which) by Wiesenauer M. had this
problem of not reporting the number of patients who were randomized but only
the numbers Wiesenauer considered 'valid' for analysis. Still, leaving out
those papers does not seem to drastically alter the general picture.
For me it remains difficult to believe in biological interaction without the
involvement of at least one molecule.
Gerben ter Riet, MD, PhD
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n067.3 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: re: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine-Sampson
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 13:43:33 -0400
Dan Dugan writes:
> I copied the posting to Dr. ter Riet, and he responded:
(from Dr. ter Riet's response:)
> 2. Wallace writes that we "took the word of the authors for how the study was
> done, even when the methods were not stated in the papers." It is not clear
> to me what the use of any (scientific) publication would be if one does not
> take the words of the authors. Of course it may be the case that authors
> polish their reports and data or even write downright lies, but these
> practices do not seem to be unique for alternative medicine.
I would read Dr. Wallace's comments to mean that Dr. ter Riet's team
took the -verba-l word of the authors rather than insisting that the
papers contain clear statements of the experimental conditions.
Dr. ter Riet can presumably answer this one. It's not clear to me
what would be the scientific value of papers so badly drawn that one
must contact the authors for essential additional information.
> 3. Let's not forget that issues such as statistical power and confidence
> intervals (only one issue) pertain to the precision of studies not to their
> validity.
Ouch! As purely a matter of the etymology of the word "valid" this
may be about right, but as a partial prescription for experimental
science it gives a wholly wrong impression. A thought-experiment may
clarify:
Suppose we wish to test a coin which we suspect is biased, and is in
fact biased such that we can expect 75% heads. Two tosses happen to
give one head and one tail. This is a perfectly valid experiment
("study"), but one with little statistical significance. (We can
expect the given result to occur about 37.5% of the time, even with
our very biased coin.) The experiment, as it stands, is "valid", but
is simply not worth reporting.
> 5. It is not more difficult to manipulate 'objective data' (lab results) than
> to manipulate soft data (complaints).
The advantage of hard data is that manipulation can more easily be
detected, because the experiment can often be much more precisely
repeated than one based on complaints, interviews, testimonials, etc.
It seems to me that the scientist is justified in relying primarily on
"soft" data only when [1] that is the only data reasonably obtainable, or
[2] that is the only data relevant to the hypothesis being investigated
(e.g., one must ultimately accept interview results to questions like
"do you see blue?" or "do you feel good?")
> For me it remains difficult to believe in biological interaction without the
> involvement of at least one molecule.
Sure does; except of course the molecules may all be in one brain....
Cheers, --lee
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n067 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n068 --------------
001 - TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.ed - Re: The Science and Scientism of Color
002 - TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.ed - Re: The Science and Scientism of Color
003 - TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.ed - The Science and Scientism of Color, PART 2
004 - TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.ed - Re: The Science and Scientism of Color
005 - RigbyL aol.com - Medicine and Science
006 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Medicine and Science
007 - Stephen Tonkin > The message given to the students is that their own direct
>>sense perceptions are not to be trusted, but only the undemonstrable
>>assertions of the teacher.
>
DAN:
>Wait a minute, Tom. So much of what we know about the world is not
>perceptible to unaided senses.
TOM: Does that include angels, elemental beings, God, your soul, yourself
when you die, quarks, atoms, electromagnetic radiation? (For starters.)
And what does the "aiding of the senses" have to do with it? They sound
like crutches or wheel chairs. Are we that handicapped in our sense
perceptions?
>DAN: By your reasoning, we shouldn't teach kids
>about germs, either, because they can't see them.
TOM: Correct! And because we cannot PERCEIVE germs, we must necessarily
CONCEIVE them. Therefore, whatever we teach students about germs, atoms,
quarks, angels, elementals, etc. is necessarily taken from the field of
perceptions that we do see and these unseen entities are then fashioned by
our blind intellects and projected into convenient metaphors or fictions.
In Steiner's epistemology, the perception unites with the concept to form a
"Vorstellung" (translated as "mental picture" or "mental representation").
The problem comes when we attribute to the mental picture the entire
reality of the concept. That becomes idolatry. How is there any difference
between the idol worship of quarks in scientism and the idol worship of
angels in anthroposophy?
DAN: There is a big difference
>between the accepted theories of science and dogma. For one thing, theories
>change, and dogma doesn't. For another, the theories are based on
>experiments that can be reproduced, dogma isn't. So I think you're making a
>straw man of science here. Your dichotomy between observation and blind
>faith is false. Understanding scientific theories is not "blind faith."
Now I know why Arline Monks waved that copy of Newsweek at you and
said you were out of date. You seem to worship Karl Popper as an icon of
true scientific methodology, yet you also seem to be unaware that Karl
Popper's many erroneous assumptions about scientific experiments have been
pointed out by the emerging school of Bayesian statistical analysis. (For a
good introductory text, there is "Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian
Approach," by Colin Howson and Peter Urbach, Open Court Publishing, 1991).
There is still great value in Popper's ideology, but here in 1996
AD, the value is primarily in studying his place in the history of science
in the 20th century. The only field that I can think of today that could
possibly utilize Popper's idealistic principles of faslifiabilty and
reproducibility in scientific experimentation is in the field of Classical
Mechanics.
The problem for Popper's ideology becomes apparent when it is
applied to experiments that rely on statistical inference and Fisher-type
significance testing. Interestingly enough, some of these belong to the
class of experiments that you put forward as validating modern allopathic
medicine and debunking homeopathy.
The other emerging field of "non-linear dynamics" or "chaos
studies" is also discrediting Popper's assumptions that have been the basis
for significance testing in all experiments dealing with living organisms.
(Things are quite dead in Classical Mechanics--- gravity treats the motion
of a living body the same as a dead body). When Popper tried to objectify
statistical inference, he stated that if an event was highly improbable,
then we are justified (albeit subjectively only) that it is impossible.
However, Chaos Studies shows that improbable events may become predominant
events depending on a change in initial conditions which would have been
rejected as impossible under Popper's subjective "feeling" about where the
significance test cut-off point should be. That is to say, not only could
experimental outcomes (at the "back" end of an experiment) occur that
Popper would have rejected as impossible, but also at the "front" end of
the experiment, the tiny incremental difference in initial conditions might
very well be "absorbed" inside the given confidence interval that was given
for the tolerable range of the initial conditions. Therefore, it is very
possible that the experimental protocol was not fine enough to recognize
such a difference in initial conditions and therefore, a Popper-worshipping
scientist would conclude that there is no detectable difference in initial
conditions; therefore two different outcomes are impossible. If two
different outcomes are observed then something must have gone wrong with
the experiment, and therefore good as well as bad results would be thrown
out as at least inconclusive if not downright spurious.
What is looming over science now and for well into the next century
probably, is akin to let us say, Chrysler being forced to recall a certain
make or model of its pick up truck because of a defective part in all the
models. Although many experiments may still pass the recall test, a large
number will be seen to have excluded valid data because of the subjectivity
of the significance test assumptions. That is the weak link in the chain of
experimentation--- so weak in many cases that the chain is actually broken.
Unfortunately, there is no way to put the chain back together. For
example, a scientist might decide to narrow the significance level range so
that it might account for such very fine initial conditions. But if the
threshhold is lowered too much, then of course any outcome will be proven
or disproven and the whole experiment collapses. What is becomeing clear
is that it is not possible to test something like homeopathy with the
subjective preconceptions of significance testing. Hence the whole idea of
proving or disproving homeopathy is a canard. It cannot be proven or
disproven. The only scientific observation to draw from such testing and
counter-testing is that some people believe in homeopathy and others do not
believe in it.
So far, I have alluded to Bayesian analysis as "putting Popper on
the ropes." That is but one of the many punches that have Popperites
reeling, foaming and bleeding from the nose and mouth. The death blow was
actually dealt in 1931 by Kurt Goedel whose Incompleteness theorem proves,
among other things, that Popper's twin idols of falsifiability and
reproducibility in scientific experiments are as obsolete now as the quaint
neo-Victorian idea that we could see electrons with a big enough optical
microscope in the days just before Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle was
established. The key concept underlying this approach is whether or not
there is implicit or explicit self-reference in the theory that the
experiment is trying to prove or disprove.
Tom Mellett.
P.S. I've decided to answer your points in sections, since I don't want to
clutter up e-mail boxes with super-long posts. I'm also going to respond to
Lee Story's post. So the next installment will start to answer his points
as well.
>> So I then handed out some prisms to the teachers and told them to
>>look directly into the prisms and observe. They saw that colors arose on
>>the boundaries between light & dark surfaces and that there was no green
>>---- unless two dark boundaries came close enough together so that yellow
>>and blue could mix. I told them that they were discovering just what Goethe
>>discovered when he looked through a prism. I then demonstrated a colored
>>shadows experiment from which it can be seen that if white light is
>>supposed to be made up of colors, well, so is darkness as well.
>
>Here you're carrying out the Anthroposophical tradition of mis-education,
>by the book, Steiner's book. (I've studied his Light Course, read Goethe,
>and Lehrs, and Proskauer.)
Dan, have you ever taken the time to lookthbrough a prism? Are you saying
that colors do not arise on the boundaries between relative light and
relative darkness? Are you saying then that the R-O-Y-G-B-I-V sequence of
colors, listed in order of decreasing wavelength is complemented by a
B-I-V-M-R-O-Y (M for magenta) which
Steiner wants us to reject Newton so we can be
>"free" (I read "ignorant enough") to accept his premise that light is pure
>spirit, and can't be analyzed into components.
Light as pure spirit to me is just as abstract and meaningless a concept as
is light as a particle or light as a wave. I reject all three metaphors as
unscientific, because when I see light as expressed in various colors, I do
not see spirit; I do not see waves; I do not see particles. I do not see
energy. I see the colors. Period. Notice I am using the first person
singular pronoun to describe this phenomenon. You are now entering the
realm of the Physics of Self-Reference, where the Karl Popper criteria of
falsifiability of theories and the reproducability of experiments do not
apply. Now as far as the analysis of light into different components is
concerned, that is the usual Physics of Non-self reference,' where Popper's
criteria do apply. Unlike Goethe, I do not believe Newton's theory ois
wrog; but Kurt Goedel proved that any self-consistent theory( such as
Newton's Color theory ) is incomplete for a an explanation of all the
phenomena. Unfortuneately, Kurt Goedel in 1931 proved by means of his
Incompleteness Theorem that when there is self-reference in a logical
system there are undecidable propositions
>
>> The teachers were astounded, befuddled and excited. They themselves
>>had never taken the time to look through the prism directly. Instead, they
>>had relied on the dogma that they had received from on high by the
>>scientific "experts," whose mistake was not in the science , but in
>>thinking that such abstract inferences such as light waves could be taught
>>to adolescent children, who are demanding a direct phenomenology in
>>science. When they don't get it, they turn off to science, and girls turn
>>off even more than boys, because girls are much less gullible than boys!
>
>This is disgusting, Tom. Unable to rise to the challenge of teaching the
>truth about refraction, you substitute Anthroposophical confusion. You
>should be ashamed.
Unfortuneately, the gene of shamelessness runs through the Irish side of my
family. Therefore, since I am said to be determined by my genes, I am
congenitally unable to feel the shame that you advise me to feel. With that
in mind, perhaps you can teach me the scientific basis of shame and perhaps
I might come to feel it? For example, is "shame" a wave phenomenon or a
particle phenomenon? (Or could it be a new kind of yet undiscovered
anti-quark that possesses anti-charm or anti-truth or anti-beauty?) What
is "shame" the opposite of? Does it exist somewhere on the electromagnetic
spectrum? If so, tell me its wavelength or frequency and perhaps I can go
to the physics lab here at UT Austin and generate the phenomenon. This
fall, I
Can you tell me the truth about refraction? Perhaps I might learn
something I don't already know. And why do you call the opposite
"Anthroposophical confusion?" I never mentioned Steiner at all to my class
because the color theory is Goethe's and Goethe died 30 years before
Steiner was born! If you must call it confusion, then be more accurate and
call it "Goethean confusion."
>
>I don't accept your premise that abstract concepts can't be taught to
>adolescents, nor do I accept the Waldorf premise that abstract concepts are
>harmful to pre-adolescents.
So then, Dan, if you're so smart about these things, how come you ain't
teaching science teachers? Furthermore, the premise is not mine. I was
told by 12 of the 12 middle school PUBLIC school teachers in my class that
the abstract concepts of light as waves are impossible to teach at the 6th
or 7th grade level in PUBLIC schools. I then gave them the plausible
reasons why they all experienced this impossible state of affairs in their
pedagogy. And I think they should know what they are talking about
because they are the teachers in the PUBLIC school classrooms. Are you then
saying that these PUBLIC school teachers are stupid as well as their PUBLIC
school students? And as far as being harmful
Waldorfians do teach abstract concepts from the
>earliest ages. They teach the abstractions that they like, like elves and
>fairies. The Anthroposophical abstractions are made-up, feel-good fictions
>that support Steiner's dogmatic cosmology. The scientific abstractions have
>been wrung from nature by hard working scientists, shattering dogmatic
>cosmologies as they go.
Oh, puh-leeze, Dan. Give me a break! Why the sudden wistful plunge into
mawkish sentimentality about "hard working scientists." Do I detect a
note of self-pity here?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n068.2 ---------------
From: TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu (tom mellett)
Subject: Re: The Science and Scientism of Color
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 11:23:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dear Dan and the list,
I managed to send off my first section of responses, but realized
that I still had attached my incomplete responses to the rest of Dan's
points. So let me now work on completing these other thoughts. You will
find intentional coherence up to my first signature and P.S.
Tom Mellett.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n068.3 ---------------
From: TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu (tom mellett)
Subject: The Science and Scientism of Color, PART 2
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 12:24:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Here is the second half of my response.
===================
DAN:
>>Here you're carrying out the Anthroposophical tradition of mis-education,
>>by the book, Steiner's book. (I've studied his Light Course, read Goethe,
>>and Lehrs, and Proskauer.)
TOM:
>Dan, have you ever taken the time to look through a prism? Are you saying
>that colors do not arise on the boundaries between relative light and
>relative darkness? Are you saying then that the R-O-Y-G-B-I-V sequence of
>colors, listed in order of decreasing wavelength is NOT complemented by a
>B-I-V-M-R-O-Y (M for magenta) sequence
...which does not follow the order of decreasing wavelength?
What is interesting about the prism experiment is that I am now making a
point of asking Ph.D. professors of physics whether or not they have ever
looked through prisms directly since childhood. So far 6 out of 6 have said
no. So much for the teaching of direct sense observation in science
education.
DAN:
>Steiner wants us to reject Newton so we can be
>>"free" (I read "ignorant enough") to accept his premise that light is pure
>>spirit, and can't be analyzed into components.
TOM:
>Light as pure spirit to me is just as abstract and meaningless a concept as
>is light as a particle or light as a wave. I reject all three metaphors as
>unscientific, because when I see light as expressed in various colors, I do
>not see spirit; I do not see waves; I do not see particles. I do not see
>energy. I see the colors. Period. Notice I am using the first person
>singular pronoun to describe this phenomenon. You are now entering the
>realm of the Physics of Self-Reference, where the Karl Popper criteria of
>falsifiability of theories and the reproducibility of experiments do not
>apply. Now as far as the analysis of light into different components is
>concerned, that is the usual Physics of Non-self reference,' where Popper's
>criteria do apply. Unlike Goethe, I do not believe Newton's theory is
>wrong; but Kurt Goedel proved that any self-consistent theory (such as
>Newton's Color theory) is incomplete for an explanation of all the
>phenomena. Unfortunately, Kurt Goedel in 1931 proved by means of his
>Incompleteness Theorem that when there is self-reference in a logical
>system there are undecidable propositions.....
.... Of course we decide undecidable propositions all day long; the point
is we do not decide them on the basis of some intellectual logic, but
rather out of an emotional feeling for the truth, i.e. a belief. (Someday,
I would like to go into the seminal work of Arthur M. Young (1905-1995),
the inventor of the Bell Helicopter and author of _The Geometry of Meaning_
and _The Reflexive Universe_ for a explanation as to why I believe that
Newton's Color Theory and Goethe's Color theory are not opposed to each
other, but are literally at 90 degrees to each other. In modern scientific
parlance, they are orthonormal theories and therefore, they are both
mutually independent of each other).
DAN:
>Waldorfians do teach abstract concepts from the
>>earliest ages. They teach the abstractions that they like, like elves and
>>fairies. The Anthroposophical abstractions are made-up, feel-good fictions
>>that support Steiner's dogmatic cosmology. The scientific abstractions have
>>been wrung from nature by hard working scientists, shattering dogmatic
>>cosmologies as they go.
TOM:
>Oh, puh-leeze, Dan. Give me a break! Why the sudden wistful plunge into
>mawkish sentimentality about "hard working scientists." Do I detect a
>note of self-pity here....
.... as well as a level of "comic book" science? Are you implying that
Rudolf Steiner was not hard-working? That he himself did not
singlehandedly shatter the dogmatic cosmology of modern scientism? What I
like about your assertions, Dan, is that they are so true, not only of
Waldorf but also of yourself. I can sit back and read all your projections
onto Waldorf and Anthroposophy as true, but I can also see that you
yourself are not able to apply such criteria to yourself. This is very
characterisitc of modern scientific assumptions, which have a priori
filtered out any reference to the self. They must do this in order to avoid
the inescapable dilemma of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem.
So my only problem with your attitude is that you are stuck at the
same level of superficiality in logical scientific thinking as are Waldorf
teachers and most anthropops. The very fact that you have a conflict and
maintain this conflict is proof positive that you all have something in
common. Two boxers in a ring could not fight each other unless they had
common ground, i.e. the same boxing ring. Similarly, the way you reflect
the dogmatic assertions of WEs and ANTs back onto them is to me proof
positive that you are an expert at dogmatic assertions yourself. Otherwise,
how else could you maintain this list?
The only difference is that their dogmatic assertions are coming
from an implicit logic of self-reference so they don't really care about
all the inconsistencies of logic that you correctly point out. On the other
hand, you worship the consistency of modern science which arises out of a
non-self reference and therefore can't handle the incompleteness that
results except by constantly projecting away from your own self onto the
Waldorfians and Anthropops.
My question is: how long are you going to remain down at their
level, down in their sandbox? Or do you believe that you yourself cannot
rise above their level of scientific superficiality in your own life? You
may have your own particular reasons for acting so dumb, Dan, but I don't
believe you're stupid. So as my daughter is fond of telling her parents:
"Wake up and smell the 90's!"
Tom Mellett.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n068.4 ---------------
From: TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu (tom mellett)
Subject: Re: The Science and Scientism of Color
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 13:38:29 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Tom Mellett:
>
> The message given to the students is that their own direct sense
> perceptions are not to be trusted, but only the undemonstrable
> assertions of the teacher.
>
LEE
>This is certainly one possible problem, but shouldn't your statement
>be generalized a bit? Observations lead to hypotheses, which are
>related to other hypotheses to become scientific theories. A great
>deal of ingenuity is often shown in the devising of additional
>observations which point up problems in those theories.
TOM:
Yes, absolutely correct! And the problem with Newton's theory of color, as
it is taught today from 6th grade to Graduate School in Physics is that
the students and teachers and scientists never look through the prism
directly to make additional observations, which when made, actually point
out problems in Newton's theory! I would then like to see students at 6th
grade level being taught how to observe so that they can eventually see
these problems. Unfortunately, the de facto religion of modern scientism
wants to squelch their powers of observation and have them making
non-observable intellectual inferences way before they are ready to do so.
LEE:
>Thus we go 'round and 'round in what we hope is an ascending spiral (and not
>merely Sambo's tigers chasing their tails). Eventually we reach
>positions which rely on a great deal of observation, both our own
>and others'.
TOM:
The ascending spiral can be achieved, provided we understand that
the science of self-reference demands a suitably equivalentl methodology
that can handle self-reference. One such methodology is to be found in
Goethe's "Experiment as Mediator between Subject and Object." (written by
the way seven decades before Rudolf Steiner was born). Modern science
today filters out self-reference completely, therefore, when it arrives at
question dealing with implicit or explicit self-reference, such as
Darwinian evolution, the Big Bang theory, the Anthropic Principle, etc. the
answer given is a tautology, which is represented by your: "Sambo's tigers
chasing their tails." This is infinite regression, which occurs when
undecidable propositions are attempted to be decided on the basis of
non-self-referential logic---- the "normal" logic of modern science.
LEE:
>I would agree that if we are teaching science, and not merely teaching
>children enough to make them satisfactory technologists, then we should
>spend more time on individual observation and simple theory-making,
>and less on historical narrative of observations and the explication
>of complex theories which have already been "made". The elements of
>Newtonian mechanics, electricity and magnetism, and optics can certainly
>be done in this way.
TOM: Unfortunately, we have reached the point (in physics anyway),
that the teaching of physics, up through senior college level at least is
ONLY teaching the history of physics. And that of course includes Newtonian
mechanics, e & m and optics. These subjects cannot be taught in any way
shape or form except as "already made" theories and observations which only
support these theories. Whatever anomolies may exist that may refute the
theories are either never touched upon, or if they are it is at a graduate
or post-graduate level.
LEE:
>One problem with a phenomenological/naive approach to optics
> (meaning one in which the subject is built up from an individual's
>observations of light-phenomena) ...
TOM:
Tell me which is more naive? Expecting a 6th or 7th grader to make
intellectual inferences about phenomena they cannot possibly observe or let
them look through a prism and come up with their own direct sense
observations?
LEE: and color is of course that the subject is a
>sidelight of electromagnetic theory which really needs a general
>background in waves phenomena, QM (for the photoelectric effect and
>stuff like that), etc.
TOM:
Why do you assume that color is a sidelight of e&m;? Could it be the other
way around as well? That e & m is a sidelight of color? Or, more to the
point, could you entertain the notion that Goethe's Color theory and
Newton's are orthogonal to each other, and that therefore, each is a
"sidelight" of the other? Newton's theory arises from the Physics of
Non-self Reference, while Goethe's Theory arises from the Physics of
Self-Reference. They are not opposed; they are complementary.
LEE:
>The problem would seem _not_merely_ to be that teachers are making
>undemonstrated (I presume you don't really necessarily mean
>"undemonstrable") claims,...
TOM:
No, let me make it clear. I do mean absolutely, totally, 100%
undemonstrable, i.e. impossible to demonstrate, not merely difficult to
demonstrate.
LEE:
...but that the students do not experience the
>whole methodology of natural science, but rather only a collection of
>fragmented results. I'm sympathetic, but would suggest that the
>Goethe/Steiner phenomenological approach is likely to end up
>presenting either even more fragmentary results, or simply ignoring
>the difficult central theories of physics (relativity, QM/QED, QCD,
>etc.)
TOM":
The great irony in your statement is that rank and file physicists
themselves are simply ignoring the central inescapable difficulties of QM
becasue they raise the spectre of the phsycis of self-reference, which they
have not been educated to deal with. Hence the utterly fragmented state of
modern physics, chemistry and even biology today.
LEE: Of course, school physics ignores "real" physics right now.
TOM:
Try this on for size. On the 14th floor of the Robert Lee Moore
Building (RLM) at UT Austin where the departments of physics, astronomy and
math are located, you will find the Center for Non-linear Dynamics, a
research lab headed up by Dr. Harry Swinney. It's chaos research. One of
their experiments is to model the red spot of Jupiter. Their technique?
Graduate students in physics get Crayola crayons, select the colors they
like, and melt them in a pyrex bowl which will be rotated, the formations
video-taped, studied and hopefully, the red spot modelled. What is so
significant about their methodology? By necessity, they are forced to make
direct phenomenological observations of their experiments. The "theory" of
such an experiment is itself a phenomenon on the same scale as the observed
phenomenon. This is none other than Goethean Science, where the theory is
the phenomena; the phenomena are the theory. Why? Because the so-called
"real" physics explanation on the basis of molecular interactions or even
QM is completely useless and irrelevant to this research. (It would be
interesting to take a poll of scientists and non-scientists alike and ask
what they consider to be "real" physics, or "real" science).
So therefore, if a young 6th grade student expresses an interest in
non-linear dynamics, I'm sure as hell not going to deprive him of learning
to observe color directly the Goethean way because I must dogmatically
teach only the non-observable Newtonian way. Since both theories are
independent, they ought to be taught equally, with the Newtonian concepts
coming in high school at the earliest so that the students have an ability
to trust their own sense perceptions from a Goethean phenomenology first.
>I'd say that the core problems are figuring out how to:
>
>[1] teach the best theories and best experimental practice as
>soon as the students are ready for it, and with a minimum of
>"re-learning" caused by crude preliminary approximations. (Crude
>ex post facto approximations, i.e., rules of thumb based on a
>sound theoretical foundation, are okay.)
>
>[2] provide enough observation _and_ secondary/tertiary sources
>(reports distilled from classic experiments) that the students
>don't have to trust their teacher like religious disciples.
Sounds good, but how can students not be forced to trust their teachers
like religious disciples, when these students and their teachers in their
education are not taught how to observe for themselves? It is like the
cycle of child abuse that keeps on repeating and repeating.
Here I think I'll stop and answer the rest of your letter in the next post.
Tom Mellett.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n068.5 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Medicine and Science
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 15:57:29 -0400
Dan Dugan --
You recently posted a critique of homeopathic meta-research by Dr. Sampson
and a reply to the critique by Dr. ter Riet, both of which you elicited.
Good work! This is an excellent example of using of this medium to surface
contrasting viewpoints.
I am not qualified to enter into the debate over the scientific evidence for
the efficacy of homeopathy, but the discussion does remind me of a couple of
points. First, in meta-analysis of the scientific basis for conventional
treatment of spinal disorders that I described recently, I noted that the
work was begun with 4,000 published articles, of which about 3,300 were
discarded as being of no use for the study. I take this as an indication of
the extent of difficulty in finding valid studies in the professional
literature generally, not just relative to "alternative" medicine.
Second, I recalled an episode from about 20 years ago, when my wife was about
to have a lump in her breast biopsied. The surgeon wanted her a priori
permission to proceed with a mastectomy if the tissue were found to be
malignant. Since my professional work had me involved with the medical
profession and I had some familiarity with health services research and
methods of statistical inference, I embarked on a thorough literature review,
confident that I would be able to give her an objective picture of her
options.
What I discovered primarily in the literature was a debate between those who
favored radical mastectomy and those who favored more conservative
approaches. All sides in the debate had their own scientific evidence and
arguments to debunk the evidence of others. They even accused each other of
falsifying data. I gave up the quest for an objective picture and told my
wife that she was in the hands of God, who was not at all to be confused with
her surgeon.
When I was in graduate school at the University of Michigan, years and years
ago, I had job with the Astronomy Department, in which I converted
spectrographic tracings to data on punch cards (using a coordinate reading
device driven by an analog computer, to give you an idea of how long ago this
was). From time to time the head of the department, a world-renown
astronomer, would come in and fix up the spectrographic tracing before I made
the conversion. He would mutter to himself something like, "Obviously, this
dip in the curve is due to a cloud passing over the telescope," and with his
pencil he would correct the reading. I had, and still have, no doubt that he
was properly using his expertise to compensate for measurement "noise," but
in a formal sense he was falsifying the data.
So, based on my own experiences, I have concluded that not only is there not
as much science in medicine as people would like, there is not as much
science in science as most people think.
Best regards,
Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n068.6 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Medicine and Science
Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 14:40:43 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>So, based on my own experiences, I have concluded that not only is there not
>as much science in medicine as people would like, there is not as much
>science in science as most people think.
I think this is probably true. But what I don't understand is why some
people who are skeptical of science/traditional medicine are not skeptical
of alternative medicine as well? Why is something that can't or hasn't been
proven therefore preferable to something that attempts or claims to have
proof?
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n068.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 16:21:04 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
I recently discovered that something I had written on the Waldorf List
has found its way, in full and without the courtesy of even informing
me, onto the list run by Mr Dugan.
First, the piece Ms Lainson quoted from me:
>I'm not sure what to think of it. Is it simple make-believe or is it
>more
>than that? I suppose the act of casting spells would certainly make
>parents who worried about "witchcraft" uncomfortable.
>
[snip]
>Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 18:34:30 GMT
>From: Stephen Tonkin
>Subject: Michaelmas Dragon Game
>I would like to share our Michaelmas celebrations:
[snip]
>After a shared meal in the courtyard, the classes from 4 upwards
>assembled in a clearing in the forest for the "Dragon Game".
>
>The four eldest children in the school (13 and 14 yrs old) each led a
>group which had to exercise their abilities and resourcefulness on a
>quest to find and capture a dragon. Each group was accompanied by a
>"wise (wo)man of the woods" who gave necessary advice and was able to
>answer one question from each group member.
>
>Tasks included finding 7 gold "protection" amulets and distributing
>them -- insufficient for the whole group; crossing poisoned ground
>without touching it; finding and learning a "dragon-taming tune";
>finding the natural ingredients necessary to cast a spell of
>protection from the dragon; composing a dragon-beating chant;
>answering a riddle from the dragon; asking the dragon riddles to
>confuse it; using the spells, chants and tune; freeing a team-member
>captured by the dragon; capturing the dragon without touching it;
>leading the dragon back to the clearing. All this had to be achieved
>by the whole team -- it was the leader's task to make sure that the
>qualities within the team were used to best advantage.
Well, if Ms Lainson had bothered to ask, I could have told her about her
alleged "witchcraft" -- it consisted of this: Having to find the fruit
of 5 different plants (of the pupils' choice -- no preordained "magical"
herbs or anything to get Ms Lainson's "Salem sense" provoked) and
finding a pebble of each of 5 different type of rock (again, pupils'
choice) and keeping them safe to show to the human being who was dressed
in a cloak and papier-mach/e dragon-head. The entire "dragon game" is a
sort of "initiative test" with a little imagination thrown it to make it
more enjoyable. It took place in a public place with absolutely no
secrecy.
Ms Lainson then goes on to say in a later post:
>It's frustrating that in the Waldorf list
>itself everyuone is actively discouraged from raising any questions.
Perhaps Ms Lainson could inform us which questions she asked me, during
the time that I was on the list or any other time, that I refused to
answer?
My memory, perhaps imperfect, is that Ms Lainson did receive answers
but, if they were not the answers she had hoped to get, she was
dissatisfied.
I contend that Ms Lainson is being disingenuous since she did not ask me
about the "dragon game".
>Readers are told over and over again that nothing in Waldorf can be
>challenged.
A little twist of what was actually said -- I certainly have been known
to say "If you don't want Waldorf Education for your children, it is
remarkably stupid to send them to a Waldorf School" and similar phrases.
Not really the same thing.
Waldorf Education is frequently challenged and these challenges must be
met -- it is one way of ensuring that it does not stagnate.
>only
>opportunity I might have to discuss some of these concepts with people
>who
>know anything about Waldorf is in a list specifically such as
>waldorf-critics.
No, Ms Lainson well knows that I actively *encouraged* challenging
questions whilst I was on the Waldorf List. What Ms Lainson failed to
recognise or accept was that the purpose of that list is/was to inform
about what happens in W.E. Its purpose is/was not to discuss whether or
not what happens fits in with the various dogmas and personal agendas
which most human beings carry.
Recognising that the list was not set up for that purpose, I offered to
receive and answer that sort of question by private email -- a number of
people took me up on that. I do not recall Ms Lainson being one of them
-- again, my memory may be imperfect.
I should also make the point that any answers I could give were my
personal answers -- there are a multitude of different perspectives
within Waldorf Education and mine is but one of those. We teachers can
and do disagree with each other. Contrary to what is often believed,
there is no "party line" -- at least, there shouldn't be (IMHO).
However, that aside, I was interested to see a number of
misapprehensions, errors, etc in the particular archive in which my
description of the dragon game appeared. I don't have time (or the
inclination) to enumerate and refute them all, but some typical examples
follow:
>
> Steiner doctrines which are taught as science include: that "the four
> elements" are significant in chemistry;
Indeed they are: Solid (Earth), Liquid (Water), Gas (Air) and Plasma
(Fire) are recognised states of matter, are they not? This is merely
one use of the Earth, Air, etc terms.
The use of the word "element" is, I agree, confusing in the context of
the common usage, but a little open-mindedness will show that the Earth
Air Water and Fire perspective _includes_ the Solid, Liquid, etc
perspective as well as other things.
As an example, consider the role of heat, gas, liquid and solid in the
processes by which limestone is heated in a kiln, the resulting
quicklime is hydrated, and the resulting limewater has CO2 bubbled
through it to return it to CaCO3. Now consider the amount of real,
observational and useful science which would be involved and learned
from doing this.
It's too easy to get hung up on terminology -- I don't see a great
criticism of the common reference to "alkali" in chemistry, but alkali
just happens to derive from words meaning "earth" in another language
(Arabic).
that the human body is organized
> into the metabolic-muscular, rhythmic, and nerve-sense systems;
So what is wrong with this? What organs or body functions are excluded
in this "subdivision" of the body's systems? Let's take the rhythmic
system -- it includes what "normal" science (I am not using the phrase
in Popperian or Kuhnian context) the circulatory and respiratory
systems.
Unless these criticisms are stated in context and one actually tries to
understand *why* things are done in the way they are, I find them to be
more than a little misleading.
It's akin to criticising astronomers for stating a time of sunrise, or
that a planet is in retrograde motion. This way of loooking at things
may not be strictly true from a heliocentric perspective (which,
incidentally, is yet another oversimplification) but it is a very useful
way of describing things when you are doing so from Earth!
> History,
> for example, is taught on the framework of the "seven root races" from
> Madame Blavatsky's Theosophy.
Really? I don't recall *ever* teaching it from this perspective. In
fact, until I read it here a few minutes ago, I didn't even know that I
was "meant" to do so.
Various other allegations are made -- I will leave it for the interested
reader to check whether or not Waldorf teachers _actually_ do, or
Steiner _actually_ said those things which the likes of Mr Dugan, Ms
Lainson and other critics claim. I contend that, if these people make
these claims they should be able to substantiate them -- and I don't
mean doing so by "proof by assertion" and other associated
pseudoscientific methods.
>I've tried over and over again to get full sets of lesson books,
>and every time been turned down due to the cult paranoia.
Or is it perhaps that the pupils don't want to part with them as they
value them? I am a Waldorf teacher and I don't have a full set of
lesson books. Lesson books in our school are made available to
government inspectors, they are sent home with the children at the end
of the year, they are put on display at open days, exhibitions, parents
evenings, etc -- how is this "cult paranoia"?
In addition to leaving the interested reader to find incidences of
unsubstantiated "facts" in postings to this list, he may also like to be
on the lookout for pseudoscientific arguments. Among those I found in
the archive (wca9510.htm) containing my post were:
Error of fact
Creation of mystery; distortion; omission; leaving out important
details, explanations.
Failure to specify: no reference or source is given and the statement
is not attributed to anyone.
Appeal to widespread belief
Ignoring plausible hypotheses
Affirming the consequent
Appeal to sympathy
Innuendo
Set up a false assumption: a preposterous 'fact' is asserted, so that
the writer can knock it down.
(acknowledgements to Dr Coker of University of Oklahoma who lists and
describes 30 common pseudoscientific arguments, from which these were
taken)
With so much being made of the so-called "weird science" of Waldorf
schools, I find it informative to find so much pseudoscientific argument
infesting a single month's archive.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n068.8 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 11:02:28 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>I recently discovered that something I had written on the Waldorf List
>has found its way, in full and without the courtesy of even informing
>me, onto the list run by Mr Dugan.
>
>First, the piece Ms Lainson quoted from me:
>
>
>>I'm not sure what to think of it. Is it simple make-believe or is it
>>more
>>than that? I suppose the act of casting spells would certainly make
>>parents who worried about "witchcraft" uncomfortable.
>
I was not, nor have I ever accused Waldorf schools of practicing
witchcraft. I raised the issue because I have lived in very conservative
communities where parents are always on the lookout for signs of
witchcraft. Anything remotely suggesting the occult would cause they to
react negatively.
>From a PR point-of-view, it is something that Waldorf schools might like to
keep in mind.
>>It's frustrating that in the Waldorf list
>>itself everyuone is actively discouraged from raising any questions.
I brought it up for two reasons. One, I had the feeling there were people
who wanted to discuss certain issues, but were too intimidated to bring
them up, so I thought I would. Two, I came into the discussion with an open
mind, but left with a negative one based on how the list was run. I
developed the impression that some advocates of Waldorf were rather
dogmatic. I was testing to see how dogmatic they were, so I did ask some
questions to see the responses. Sometimes the reasons certain things are
done in Waldorf schools seemed rather silly and I was curious how people
would explain them.
But all of that doesn't matter now. I'm not on the list and I don't forward
anything. I was never comfortable doing it, but on the other hand, people
do forward stuff from list to list all of the time.
And yes, I have seen some dogma coming from the other direction on the
Waldorf-critics list. Something about this whole topic brings out an
attitude I don't really care for. I want discussions, not arguments. A
sense of humor would be greatly appreciated.
> Steiner doctrines which are taught as science include: that "the four
> elements" are significant in chemistry;
I didn't write this or anything from this point on in Mr.Tonkin's
references. All the discussions about science and history were not mine.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n068 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n069 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Pseudoscience
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 20:20:11 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
I have just been browsing the June archives -- I hate to drag the list
into "old hat", but there are some things which are just too good to
ignore:
Robert Flannery wrote, quoting a Dan:
>>Calling WE an Arts education is like calling an ROTC program a
"leadership
>>program" without mentioning the specifically military orientation of
the
>>program.
>I also appreciated this analogy tremendously.
Yes -- "proof by analogy" is one of the techniques used and favoured by
pseudoscience. It is strange to find it promulgated by people who
purport to be "debunkers".
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n069.2 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 15:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Sun, 4 Aug 1996, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
>
> I recently discovered that something I had written on the Waldorf List
> has found its way, in full and without the courtesy of even informing
> me, onto the list run by Mr Dugan.
Yes, Ms. Lainson was removed from the WALDORF and STEINER lists for
just this sort of misbehavior. Subsequently, Mr. Dugan was removed
for the very same reason.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n069.3 ---------------
From: lefty apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 1996 23:39:07 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Suzanne Lainson writes
>
>But all of that doesn't matter now. I'm not on the list and I don't forward
>anything.
It might be more accurate to say that you don't forward anything _because_
you are no longer on the list.
>I was never comfortable doing it, but on the other hand, people
>do forward stuff from list to list all of the time.
Caving in to peer pressure, eh?
It should be pointed out that the restriction on forwarding messages
without notification and permission is quite clearly set out in the charter
of the WALDORF list, a copy of which every new subscriber receives.
Suzanne was a subscriber to the WALDORF list during the time the charter
was developed, discussed and adopted.
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa] (lefty apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n069.4 ---------------
From: DSabsay aol.com
Subject: Re: Homeopathy defended by flashy philosophizing
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 04:20:09 -0400
On Sat, Aug 3, 1996 TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu (tom mellett) writes:
> [snip]
> What is becomeing clear is that it is not possible to test something like
> homeopathy with the subjective preconceptions of significance testing.
> Hence the whole idea of proving or disproving homeopathy is a canard.
> It cannot be proven or disproven. The only scientific observation to draw
> from such testing and counter-testing is that some people believe in
> homeopathy and others do not believe in it.
What is actually becoming clear is that you will go to any (armchair) lengths
to defend homeopathy. One wonders where all the emotional conviction comes
from.
The check has been in the mail for 200 years. Homeopathy is a scam, and
primarily benefits those sell it. It is pure sophistry to insist homeopathy
is a special type of medicine whose practitioners are exempt from keeping
records and statistics and doing real double-blind tests.
Selling fear about contemporary medicine will not make homeopathy any more
medically real. If homeopathy could really do what it claims, a researcher
could, for example, use an MRI unit to detect the difference between
homeopathic vials of "memory" water and "amnesiac" (microwaved) water. It is
pathetic that the advocates of homeopathy have not moved beyond the concocted
rules that exempt them from objective, replicable, blinded trials. A nobel
prize is waiting for you.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n069.5 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Homeopathy defended by flashy philosophizing
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 17:53:32 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
DSabsay aol.com writes
>On Sat, Aug 3, 1996 TEAM-PHYZZ mail.utexas.edu (tom mellett) writes:
>> [snip]
>> What is becomeing clear is that it is not possible to test something like
>> homeopathy with the subjective preconceptions of significance testing.
>> Hence the whole idea of proving or disproving homeopathy is a canard.
>> It cannot be proven or disproven. The only scientific observation to draw
>> from such testing and counter-testing is that some people believe in
>> homeopathy and others do not believe in it.
>
>What is actually becoming clear is that you will go to any (armchair) lengths
>to defend homeopathy.
That is a non-sequitur as a response to the post you quoted. There is
nothing in Tom's post that is defensive.
Th non-sequitur is, of course, one of the characteristics of
pseudoscientific argument.
> One wonders where all the emotional conviction comes
>from.
Your innuendo is that Tom is displaying emotion and hence his argument
must be fallacious -- innuendo is, of course, another refuge of the
pseudoscientist.
>
>The check has been in the mail for 200 years. Homeopathy is a scam,
Whilst it may fall outside the realms of scientific investigation, that
is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions as to whether or not it is
a scam.
Drawing conclusions from insufficient evidence is, of course, yet
another pseudoscientific tactic.
>and
>primarily benefits those sell it.
The identical argument could be made about music (and many other arts)
_if it was examined from a scientific viewpoint_ -- are we then to
conclude that music is a scam?
> It is pure sophistry to insist homeopathy
>is a special type of medicine whose practitioners are exempt from keeping
>records and statistics and doing real double-blind tests.
I agree -- but that does not mean that homoeopathy is a scam.
>
>Selling fear about contemporary medicine will not make homeopathy any more
>medically real.
I agree.
> If homeopathy could really do what it claims, a researcher
>could, for example, use an MRI unit to detect the difference between
>homeopathic vials of "memory" water and "amnesiac" (microwaved) water.
That is another non-sequitur -- the second part of the sentence does not
logically follow from the first conditional clause. Yet another
pseudoscientific argument, I fear.
> It is
>pathetic that the advocates of homeopathy have not moved beyond the concocted
>rules that exempt them from objective, replicable, blinded trials.
Again, I agree, except I would prefer double-blind trials. However,
since those who use homoeopathy are, in general, convinced that it is
efficacious and it is the crusading skeptic who is making the charges of
charlatanism, I would suggest that it is right that the funding of these
trials is met by the skeptics. (This is different to saying that the
burden of proof lies with the skeptics -- this would lead to a
pseudoscientific situation (the interested reader may work out how) --
if it was the homoeopaths who were crusading against the skeptics, I
would suggest that the burden of funding lies with the homoeopaths)
I also agree that there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the
efficacy of homoeopathy. It is a pseudoscientific argument, however, to
attempt to equate absence of evidence with evidence of absence.
There is also no way I can scientifically prove that I have had a
paticular thought at some time -- that does not mean that I have not had
that thought, but merely that this particular thing is unprovable by
scientific method -- it is outside the remit of science.
(I am not using that as an analogy for homoeopathy, but as an example of
one of the numerous self-evident things, the proof of the existence of
which fall outside the remit of science (the interested reader may draw
up his own list). Any attempt to prove or disprove these things will,
of course, be pseudoscientific.)
--
Stephen Tonkin : UK Amateur Telescope Making Pages
:
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n069.6 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: The Science and Scientism of Color
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 1996 15:00:51 -0400
Tom Mellett writes:
> The ascending spiral can be achieved, provided we understand that
> the science of self-reference demands a suitably equivalentl methodology
> that can handle self-reference. One such methodology is to be found in
> Goethe's "Experiment as Mediator between Subject and Object." (written by
> the way seven decades before Rudolf Steiner was born).
I think the modern scientist is well aware that subjectivity is
unavoidable, but (s)he tries to isolate it by partitioning the
investigation: there's hypothesis-formation, which is highly
subjective, and there's hypothesis-testing, from which (s)he
(often) attempts to banish the self. It's most common for one
person to propose a theory (based both on experimental results and
on highly subjective intuitions), and other people to test it.
"Who mouths inanity disorders thought for all who listen. There must be
some minimum allowable dose of inanity beyond which the mind cannot
remain reasonable. Irrationality, like buried chemical waste, sooner
or later must seep into all the tissues of thought."
--Richard Mitchell, from _Less Than Words Can Say_
Now let's look at psychology. In my opinion (probably not worth
much), behaviorism follows this partitioning model, and posts modest
but quite solid gains in knowledge. Analytical psychology (Freud,
Jung, Fleugel, ...) diffuses the subjectivity throughout the study,
and ends up more poetry than science. There is a similar difference
between conventional "mainstream" and Goethean science.
I have Vol.12 of the recent Selected Writings of Goethe in English
translation, and have read several of the articles. He has, as I
would expect, some wonderful insights.
> Modern science today filters out self-reference completely,
> therefore, when it arrives at question dealing with implicit or
> explicit self-reference, such as Darwinian evolution, the Big Bang
> theory, the Anthropic Principle, etc. the answer given is a
> tautology, which is represented by your: "Sambo's tigers chasing
> their tails."
This seems grossly overstated. The ideas you mention are among the
most radical and most comprehensive of 19th and 20th century science.
Darwin's theory is not a "tautology". Although there's reason to
complain that almost any observation can be made to fit, its success
in the prediction of additional paleontological discoveries is
sufficient to make the idea of "natural selection" the most important
single advance in biological theory in the last 200 years, quite
despite the fact that it is a good deal less precise than recent
biochemistry (which it inspired, and which goes a long way toward
describing probable evolutionary mechanism).
I would offer similar comments on initial-state cosmology and the
various anthropic principles, since the former is certainly an
excellent exercise in casting off the limitations which custom and
tradition place on our reason, and the latter can be made fairly
precise in some post hoc interpretations of probability.
In all these cases, what you see as a fundamental problem in dealing
with "self-reference", I see as merely typical of theories which
attempt to unify and explain the past: the primary "experiment" has
already been done before we arrive on the scene, and it is not as a
whole repeatable; we can only collect the results, and try smaller
analogous experiments which can increase our confidence in the
processes at work. It's tough!
> This is infinite regression, which occurs when undecidable
> propositions are attempted to be decided on the basis of
> non-self-referential logic---- the "normal" logic of modern
> science.
Well, Tom, I've read the words of at least a dozen people who have
tried to tie the incompleteness theorem to supposed limitations on
human reason which do not limit human "intuition". Most of these have
been more-or-less-eloquent amateurs on the various Usenet philosophy
newsgroups, but some well-known philosophers and mathematicians
(Dennett, Penrose, etc.) have also made intimations in this
direction. Years ago I Goedel's paper in German and in English
translation, plus various abbreviated (Rogers) and simplified (Davis)
and more computationally-oriented (Minsky) arguments, and I think that
the connections you (and they) posit are at best crude analogies, and
at worst, and most likely, totally spurious.
As Goedel's title indicates, he demonstrates the presence of
"undecidable propositions in certain formal systems", of which
_Principia Mathematica_ contains the most prominent example. That
these prop.s are "true" (from a second-order viewpoint) can be claimed
because by a second-order proof procedure we can show that any
consistent extension of these systems will contain them. Within any
one closed logical system (or even any countable collection of them),
as long as the system is sufficient to encode elementary Peano
arithmetic, we can expect to find undecidable propositions, but only
within that one system. This is a significant property of first-order
logics, but says nothing about what we can ultimately deduce.
One computational version of this is of course the celebrated Turing
machine "halting problem", which states that (given acceptance of
Church's thesis) we cannot construct one single machine that will
determine, for every arbitrary Turing machine described to it,
whether that second machine will ever halt. Once again, we can
alter the first machine so that it solves the problem for a specific
description, only to find that there is another description for which
it fails.
Then we ask: "What guides us to select the modification which will
solve the given problem?" Is it spiritual intuition? Magic? Some
sort of "living spark"? Of course not. It's the form of the problem,
and our accumulated heuristical experience in making modifications
which work on that form of problem. But it seems likely that we too
will eventually fail...will reach an undecidable proposition for which
we simply cannot figure out how to supplement our postulates and
inference rules in order to make it "true within the system". Will
some sort of "science of self-reference" (which you suggest but do
not describe) help us then? I don't see any reason whatsoever to
think that it will.
> TOM: Unfortunately, we have reached the point (in physics anyway),
> that the teaching of physics, up through senior college level at
> least is ONLY teaching the history of physics.
This is not true when the course has a good laboratory component, and
especially when it includes some investigation of as yet very much
unsettled questions (which, come to think of it, abound).
> These subjects cannot be taught in any way shape or form except as
> "already made" theories and observations which only support these
> theories.
I have no idea at all what you mean to suggest by the word "cannot".
> Whatever anomolies may exist that may refute the theories are
> either never touched upon, or if they are it is at a graduate or
> post-graduate level.
Nonsense. Every school or undergraduate lab experiment produces
anomalous results which the expert teacher can use as a basis for
reconsideration of experimental design, discussion of statistical
significance, and when all else fails, suggestion of alternative
hypotheses.
> LEE:
> >One problem with a phenomenological/naive approach to optics
> > (meaning one in which the subject is built up from an individual's
> >observations of light-phenomena) ...
>
> TOM:
> Tell me which is more naive? Expecting a 6th or 7th grader to make
> intellectual inferences about phenomena they cannot possibly observe or let
> them look through a prism and come up with their own direct sense
> observations?
Tom, I don't think I made my usage clear. "Naive" is not a
perjorative here, so I did not anticipate this sort of reply. The
phenomenologist prides himself on original, unprejudiced,
initially-theory-free, "naive" observation.
Of course it's harder to attempt to correlate Einstein's theory with
reality than to measure the fall of a stone, and harder to learn to
make predictions based on electromagnetic theory _and_ the psychology
of color-vision than merely to observe carefully. To be (budding)
scientists, the student must attempt _both_!! To do less is to teach
our children intellectual laziness.
I agree that observation is often slighted, and that science labs
are too often little more than predetermined rote.
> LEE: and color is of course that the subject is a
> >sidelight of electromagnetic theory which really needs a general
> >background in waves phenomena, QM (for the photoelectric effect and
> >stuff like that), etc.
>
> TOM:
> Why do you assume that color is a sidelight of e&m;? Could it be the other
> way around as well? That e & m is a sidelight of color? Or, more to the
> point, could you entertain the notion that Goethe's Color theory and
> Newton's are orthogonal to each other, and that therefore, each is a
> "sidelight" of the other? Newton's theory arises from the Physics of
> Non-self Reference, while Goethe's Theory arises from the Physics of
> Self-Reference. They are not opposed; they are complementary.
I wouldn't say that color is a "sidelight" of E&M.; Certainly it has a
very significant psychological component which may be chemical/
electrical or something else, but in any case is significantly
separate from the light-phenomenon being "observed". I deny your
apparent implication that there is some sort of barrier to
conventional science at the point where it would address the human
mind (at least that's what I get from your "physics of self-reference"
references).
> LEE:
> >The problem would seem _not_merely_ to be that teachers are making
> >undemonstrated (I presume you don't really necessarily mean
> >"undemonstrable") claims,...
>
> TOM:
> No, let me make it clear. I do mean absolutely, totally, 100%
> undemonstrable, i.e. impossible to demonstrate, not merely difficult to
> demonstrate.
You had best give an example of such. (Crude approximations and
single-viewpoint descriptions such as "the earth goes around the sun"
do not seem relevant here.)
> [....] One of their experiments is to model the red spot of
> Jupiter. Their technique? Graduate students in physics get Crayola
> crayons, select the colors they like, and melt them in a pyrex bowl
> which will be rotated, the formations video-taped, studied and
> hopefully, the red spot modelled. What is so significant about
> their methodology? By necessity, they are forced to make direct
> phenomenological observations of their experiments. The "theory" of
> such an experiment is itself a phenomenon on the same scale as the
> observed phenomenon. This is none other than Goethean Science,
> where the theory is the phenomena; the phenomena are the theory.
> Why? Because the so-called "real" physics explanation on the basis
> of molecular interactions or even QM is completely useless and
> irrelevant to this research.
This is fascinating and delightful, but contrasts only in expense ($$!)
with the use of particle accelerators and electron microscopes.
Scientists have been making small models for centuries. (Remember N's
apocryphal apple?) I deny that "molecular interactions or even QM"
are irrelevant to the weather of Jupiter, though of course they may be
irrelevant at the granularity of a small-scale surface model.
> Since both theories are independent, they ought to be taught
> equally, with the Newtonian concepts coming in high school at the
> earliest so that the students have an ability to trust their own
> sense perceptions from a Goethean phenomenology first.
Don't you detect self-contradiction in that statement, or at least a
Steinerian prejudice toward the notion that children cannot reason
"abstractly"?
I dunno what this all has to do with Waldorf, though the discussion is
fun, and seems very relevant to science and mathematics education in
general... Cheers, --lee
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n069 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n070 --------------
001 - "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Another trick / Lamb's suggested policy / a direct outcome
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 10:53:30 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Dan,
if stuff like this gives you stomach hurts (my favourite remedy:
Weleda Gentiana lutea Rh 5%, 10 drops - 5 times a day) why do you
read it?
Get better...
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n070.2 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Anthroposophists and the WCA List
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 10:53:30 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Rigby,
don't worry, I'll stay!
I must admit that I did not have so much fun participating in this
list since my high school days when, being an convinced atheist
(then!), I attended _catholic_ religious instruction. The teacher
then was a jesuit priest and as such a master of rethorics. I learned
a lot from him, in particular to enjoy a good rethoric fight.
My personal goal in exchanging arguments has never been to draw the
opponent to my side (which would be a hopeless endevour with Dan
Dugan anyway) but to test your own conviction. Will it stand up to
the opponent's arguments? I think this is why many "religious"
leaders fear free discussion more that the devil the holy water.
I'll go ahead now, after moving I have a week's messaged to catch up
with.
See you soon
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n070.3 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: a cult-like religious sect
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 10:53:31 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Dear Dan,
>I stand corrected, one should avoid libel. Please invite the gentleman in,
>we'll discuss it with him here.
The greatest idea in years, our school doc on internet.....
ROFL.....
Sorry, but only the phantasy of _this_ guy just _touching_ a
computer is simply to funny.
He is a special character, that's true.
Still giggeling...
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n070.4 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine-Sampson
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 10:53:30 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Sorry folks,
bad luck , I was just moving and had my computer disconnected for a
week or so, but now -I'm back!!! (It could have been earlier, but my
wife insisted that curtain rails etc. were more important things than
my PC...)
And now, my Hit of the Week:
>>SCHWAB
>>>The bottle in my hand is labeled: Weleda Formica D5.
DUGAN
>>The problem is the vitamin C bottle contains vitamin C, a useful substance,
>>and your bottle contains nothing of any value, fraudulently advertised.
>DR. WALLACE SAMPSON, M.D.
>Regarding the homeopathic herbal material in Switzerland, you are
>correct.
But the charming doctor is _not_! Formica D5 is, as the name says,
based on a dilution of _formic_acid_ (You know, those cosy littly
insects who life in stacks in the woods). No trace of any "herbal
material".
The doctor's knowledge of homeopathic medicine seems to fly at a
rather low altitude. I do not know how far Latin is still compulsory
for US doctors, but no swiss medicine student would ever have
designated something named "Formica" as "herbal material".
I have the strong feeling that this doctor is just replicating the
"homeophathy = fraud" song without further investigating.
Sic transit gloria mundi...
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n070.5 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Medicine and Science
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 10:53:31 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>But what I don't understand is why some
>people who are skeptical of science/traditional medicine are not skeptical
>of alternative medicine as well?
Skeptical, I was, about four years ago, after "traditional" medicine
had made me sick and sicker. Anthroposophic medicine was then the
only alternative I had, and in spite of some _very_ strong
skeptisism, I tried it. It worked fine, and my skeptisism slowly
vanished.
But even to my anthroposophic doctor I have returned more that one
prescription because I wanted to know _excatly_ what the effects and
side-effects were. My sketisism concerning medical matters has a very
light sleep...
Best wishes
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n070.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine-Sampson
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 1996 02:41:41 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
PETER SCHWAB
>But the charming doctor is _not_! Formica D5 is, as the name says,
>based on a dilution of _formic_acid_ (You know, those cosy littly
>insects who life in stacks in the woods). No trace of any "herbal
>material".
DAN DUGAN
Would you clarify what D5 signifies? Is that 5X or 1/100,000? (6X is 1 ppm,
24X is about Avogadro's number.)
-Dan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n070.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine-Sampson
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 01:46:02 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
[Dear friends, this thread has become technical; if you don't like it just
remember where your delete button is. It is on-topic, because Waldorf
schools promote Anthroposophical medicine, which incorporates homeopathic
techniques as part of its system. Also, the questions of epistemology, how
do you know what you know, how can reliable knowledge be recognized, are
not only at the heart of the skeptical criticism of alternative medicine,
but are also essential to an objective study of Steiner and Anthroposophy.
-dD-]
DR.WALLACE SAMPSON
I am aware of vitamin C metabolism, requirements, etc. In fact, Dr. Hodges was
one of our original group that formed the Council Against health Fraud in
Berkeley (Tom Jukes' house) in 1976. Perhaps I do not understand the point Dr.
ter Riet was making, or perhaps he misunderstood the point I was making.
Normal people on normal diets do not need ascorbate supplements.
I am critical of the homeopathy meta-analysis not because it is worthless, but
because it was, as I said, the least well done of the ones they did. I
appreciate the effort, and the data they collected, but the data are not
interpretable in they way most people have used them.
There are several ways to look at the homeopathy meta-analysis. In view of the
absurdity of homeopathy, one I think does have to look at the different ways in
which the M-A could have come up with the conclusion they did and with which I
disagree. The group stated that the trend of studies was positive so that there
was reason to pursue more research. I see no reason to pursue more homeopathy
research.
For acupuncture, the Maastricht group analyzed one method applied to one
problem (musculoskeletal pain) although the controls varied. The papers
were analyzable (I know because I did a M-A of acupuncture in 1987-8 for
NCAHF) and one could grade the papers fairly easily and plot the score
against the degree of efficacy (difference between acupuncture and sham or
placebo). Incidentally, the scores I got showed a greater difference
between the "good" papers and the "bad" papers because I gave zeroes to
lack of control, randomization, insufficient numbers, etc. whereas the
Maastricht group gave points on a shallower curve. The main point is that
the Maastricht acupuncture M-A result was more reliable because the papers
were more gradeable. Dr ter Riet may disagree, but I think it is easier to
distinguish a poorly done acupuncture paper than it is to distinguish a
poor homeopathic one, because the method is simpler.
Next, the homeopathic M-A presented the papers' scores, but not the degree
of difference between the homeopathic treatment and control. So, there was
no way to construct a curve as with the acupuncture M-A.
The homeopathic M-A also graded, but gave credit for poorly presented data,
thus allowing poor papers with worthless data some credit. (I think they
did the same with the acupuncture one.) In sum, I think their method of
grading made for a lesser sensitivity to inadequacy.
Next, the M-A analyzed 107 papers in which there were at least thirty different
disorders, and even more treatments. The problem is that which homeopathy
always presents - the treatments vary depending on the symptoms so the data are
"aggregated" and therefore the usual formulae cannot be meaningfully used. I
think Dr. ter Riet would agree, and their homeopathic M-A states the same. In
addition, some of the studies were of isopathy (use of the same substance that
produces the problem,) not homeopathy, and some used multiple agents, not one.
So, the analysis was even more disturbed by having to analyze a large variety of
disorders, several methods, and a greater variety of treatments.
The authors could not do a statistical analysis. They could have, however,
performed a graded plot of paper score against degree of effectiveness.
Then, according to the authors, 42 of the 107 trials presented insufficient data
to analyze the results. But instead of regarding such papers as zeroes, they
called some of the authors and used their impressions as to whether or not the
individual trials were positive or negative. They admit that the homeopathic
papers' authors seemed "overoptimistic."
I do not trust most homeopaths' written impressions in a paper, let alone accept
a verbal or unofficial impression. (Believe me, homeopaths look at reality much
differently than you or I.) I certainly disagree with Dr. ter Riet about how
much rational biomedical scientists color their data compared to homeopaths.
It's a different world. And I have spoken with and debated enough to know. If
one would accuse me of bias, I would answer that it is a conclusion based in
detailed observation, and that perhaps this is the phenomenon that should be
studied. (See Jacobs' 1994 Pediatrics paper and Wayne Jonas' new book.)
Also, note that Reilly's 1986 "positive"paper on homeopathic treatment of hay
fever got a "90". Something wrong here. Our analysis of that paper will be
finished, I hope, by 1997, but there were very strange looks to their data.
Although the Reilly's own analysis indicated "positive", the data are some of
the stranger ones we have seen, and it may have depended on which things Reilly
chose to report.
I could go on, but this should outline better the problemas with the
homeopathic M-A. In summary, it was limited not by particular faults of the
authors, but of the homeopathy papers. The authors, I believe, were overly
generous in their treatment of a simply awful quality of papers.
WS
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n070 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n071 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine-Sampson
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 11:25:54 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In article <199608070848.BAA14674 lists1.best.com>, Dan Dugan writes:
> In view of the
>absurdity of homeopathy,
This is an unproven (in fact, unprovable) assumption. To base an
argument, even one like:
>one I think does have to look at the different ways in
>which the M-A could have come up with the conclusion they did and with which I
>disagree.
...on an assumption, is one of the characteristics of pseudoscience.
>
>The homeopathic M-A also graded, but gave credit for poorly presented data,
>thus allowing poor papers with worthless data some credit.
EITHER the author of the above equates "poorly presented" with
"worthless"
OR the sentence contains a non-sequetur.
Either interpretation reveals a hallmark of a pseudoscientific argument.
>(Believe me, homeopaths look at reality much
>differently than you or I.)
The author appears to be asking us to accept his opinion as fact -- this
wouldn't be another example of pseudoscience, would it?
> I certainly disagree with Dr. ter Riet about how
>much rational biomedical scientists color their data compared to homeopaths.
>It's a different world. And I have spoken with and debated enough to know.
Unproven speculation (ie pseudoscience)
>If
>one would accuse me of bias,
Not bias, merely using a pseudoscientific argument.
>
>Also, note that Reilly's 1986 "positive"paper on homeopathic treatment of hay
>fever got a "90". Something wrong here. Our analysis of that paper will be
>finished, I hope, by 1997, but there were very strange looks to their data.
>Although the Reilly's own analysis indicated "positive", the data are some of
>the stranger ones we have seen, and it may have depended on which things Reilly
>chose to report.
The author alludes to something strange, but does not say what is
strange, thereby creating an elemnet of mystery. This creation of
mystery, allied with a failure to assert (in the text quoted immediately
above) is further evidence that the author resorts to pseudoscientific
argument.
>
>I could go on, but this should outline better the problemas with the
>homeopathic M-A.
No -- it is infested with sufficient pseudoscientific argument to sound
alarm bells in any moderately intelligent skeptic.
> In summary, it was limited not by particular faults of the
>authors, but of the homeopathy papers.
That is opinion -- it cannot therefore be used to draw a conclusion.
>The authors, I believe, were overly
>generous in their treatment of a simply awful quality of papers.
You may, of course, choose to believe anything you wish, but your
assessment of the quality of the papers is subjective (hence
pseudoscientific).
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n071.2 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine-Sampson
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 12:08:39 -0400
Dr.Wallace Sampson:
> > In view of the absurdity of homeopathy,
Stephen Tonkin:
> This is an unproven (in fact, unprovable) assumption. To base an
> argument, even one like:
Dr. Wallace Sampson:
> >one I think does have to look at the different ways in which the
> >M-A could have come up with the conclusion they did and with which
> >I disagree.
Stephen Tonkin:
> ...on an assumption, is one of the characteristics of pseudoscience.
Stephen, I think you're being much too severe. If the comment had
been preceded by "In view of the adsurdity of medicine (or of
mathematics)," it would still be sensible. And it's clear that
Dr.Sampson and Dr.ter Riet have not attempted to hide their biases.
They have provided us with informal comments on meta-analyses, and
cannot reasonably be expected to offer in the context of a mailing
list all the specifics on which their opinions are based (which must
ultimately be the specifics of the many individual experiments).
> >The homeopathic M-A also graded, but gave credit for poorly
> >presented data, thus allowing poor papers with worthless data some
> >credit.
>
> EITHER the author of the above equates "poorly presented" with
> "worthless" OR the sentence contains a non-sequ[i]tur.
>
> Either interpretation reveals a hallmark of a pseudoscientific argument.
Dr.Sampson does not equate these terms, but merely implies that he
includes "worthless data" in the larger class of "poorly presented
data," and that perhaps no credit should have been given to the former
in the meta-analysis. Though his terminology may not be ideal, the
conclusion seems reasonable. (You seem to be attacking the way he
presents his comments, and then trying to use that to attack their
content. I doubt you're convincing anyone.)
> >Also, note that Reilly's 1986 "positive"paper on homeopathic
> >treatment of hay fever got a "90". Something wrong here. Our
> >analysis of that paper will be finished, I hope, by 1997, but
> >there were very strange looks to their data. Although the
> >Reilly's own analysis indicated "positive", the data are some of
> >the stranger ones we have seen, and it may have depended on which
> >things Reilly chose to report.
>
> The author alludes to something strange, but does not say what is
> strange, thereby creating an elemnet of mystery. This creation of
> mystery, allied with a failure to assert (in the text quoted
> immediately above) is further evidence that the author resorts to
> pseudoscientific argument.
Indeed this is probably something which should not be said in advance
of the publication of the (apparently on-going) serious critique of
this paper, lest innuendo damage Dr.Reilly's reputation. So I sort of
agree with you, Stephen, but the fault seems to be carelessness, not
"pseudoscience." Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n071.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine-Sampson
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 1996 21:57:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In article <199608071637.JAA27871 lists1.best.com>, Lee Story USG
writes:
[mega-snip]
>So I sort of
>agree with you, Stephen, but the fault seems to be carelessness, not
>"pseudoscience."
I disagree -- the author alludes to "worthless results", "absurdity of
homeopathy" and makes all manner of innuendi which, to my reading at
least, seem to be designed to discredit a study.
(If I am mistaken and the author states that he is not trying to
discredit this study or homoeopathy, I make a full retraction and offer
my unreserved apology for maligning him)
However, he offers not a shred of evidence that we can get our teeth
into and debate; he draws conclusions without presenting the _data_ from
which these conclusions are drawn or showing how they were drawn from
these data. (I also checked available archives of this mailing list and
found nothing.) In my opinion his arguments in that post were not
scientific and used devices which are accepted (by skeptics) as
characteristics of pseudoscience.
Lee states:
>They have provided us with informal comments on meta-analyses, and
>cannot reasonably be expected to offer in the context of a mailing
>list all the specifics on which their opinions are based
I disagree -- without that, their arguments are untestable. Is
untestability not a characteristic of pseudoscience? Quite simply, the
data are either available and have been properly analysed (in which
case, let's see them and the analyses) or they haven't (in which case it
is, IMHO, somewhat lacking in rigour to attempt to present conclusions).
The introduction to the post refers to "skeptical criticism of
alternative medicine". Maybe skeptics are becoming lax, but there was a
time when you could expect a rigorous _scientific_ analysis in a
skeptical criticism. My opinion is that Dr Sampson's/Dan Dugan's post
was somewhat deficient in this respect.
You said that my criticism of the posting was "severe" -- I agree -- you
may assume that I think it is about time that the arguments of the
skeptics were met with a bit of healthy skepticism. I am more than
happy for my own arguments to be similarly treated.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n071.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Medicine and Science
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 02:44:44 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
RIGBY (28 July)
>When I commented on the relatively small extent to which medical practice is
>based on formal "scientific" experimentation, you replied:
>
DUGAN
>"I agree entirely. Where we differ is in the 'alternative' attitude that
>there should be less science in medicine (which includes the demand that a
>special, i.e. self-serving, version of science be recognized), and the
>mainstream attitude that medicine should become more scientific."
>
RIGBY
>I don't think it is as simple as less or more science. Rational people in
>all flavors of medicine would agree, I believe, that validation through
>experimentation would be ideal, to the extent that experimentation can be
>conducted ethically. The conceptual problem is matching the form of
>experimentation with the healing paradigm being tested. In a conventional
>double-blind trial of a pharmaceutical, the placebo effect is viewed as part
>of the noise level--efficacy must be established beyond the placebo effect.
> The homeopathic viewpoint, as I understand it, is that psychosomatic healing
>(the placebo effect) is part of the whole process. Thus, the nature of the
>patient and the nature of the physician enter into the process to a much
>larger degree than (is believed to be the case) in the test of strictly
>biochemical effects. This calls for a different experimental design, but it
>should still be possible to arrive at a design that all agree is
>"scientific."
DUGAN
"Matching the form of experimentation with the healing paradigm being
tested" sounds to me like trying to wriggle out of scientific rigor. Dr.
ter Riet explained to the East Bay Skeptics meeting how an experiment can
have three groups of subjects who would get, respectivley, the real
treatment, the placebo, and nothing. This way the placebo effect can be
quantified, too. A regular 2-group trial has real and placebo groups, which
gives you real+placebo vs placebo results, but you don't know the magnitude
of the placebo effect itself without three groups.
>The more practical problem is that we can't expect those in need of healing
>to wait while we conduct our experiments. The central point of my message
>was that if we actually required all healing arts to be based on scientific
>proof, the great majority of all forms of medicine would be illegal. In the
>meantime, practitioners of all persuasions and their patients are, for the
>most part, going with what their experience tells them works. And, as you
>pointed out, some MD's expand their toolbox by adding homeopathy and/or
>anthroposophical medicine to their allopathic training, presumably to
>increase their ability to bring a form of healing that works.
Here I must disagree. "Those in need of healing" must wait at least until a
remedy has been tested for safety, unless they are desperate and can be
fully informed of the risks. I'm willing to accept safe remedies that
haven't been tested for efficacy if they are clearly labelled as such. I'm
sure those doctors who "add homeopathy to their toolbox" do it with the
*intention* of bringing "a form of healing that works". I'm also sure that
they are deluding themselves and wasting their time and their patients'
time and money. With proper "bedside manner", they could get just as much
placebo effect out of their scientific practices as they might get out of
"alternative" practices.
You put your finger right on the problem when you say "practitioners..
are.. going with what their experience tells them works." This principle is
the basis of all traditional, pre-scientific systems of medicine. It may
seem to contradict common sense to you, but I assert that it is exactly
relying on their experience that leads good doctors down long trails of
delusion into quackery of all kinds.
E.g.: George Washington was bled to death by his physicians, employing the
best science of the day. They "knew," from *experience*, that bleeding was
beneficial. Compare traditional Indian medicine with traditional Chinese
medicine. They're different. The traditional medicines are empirical
(experimental, experience based), but not scientific. So is European
traditional medicine, being revived by herbalists and Anthroposophists.
On the other hand, practices of scientific medicine in China, India, and
Europe are very similar. Why is that? It's not because of any law or
central authority. It's because of a worldwide consensus on scientific
method.
Why do scientists think they've got something better than tradition and
empiricism? Because the method of testing and discarding hypotheses *in
public* works so much better than uncontrolled individual experiments, i.e.
what you call "experience."
RIGBY
I certainly would not cede "scientific" as a suitable
>adjective for mainstream medicine.
DUGAN
I use it because I believe that to be scientific is the ideal and best
intention of the medical profession. I accept with regret the fact that a
lot of medicine as it is practiced is unscientific, and hope for
improvement. I wish medical students could be inspired to a love of
science; that is, fascination with learning how the world really is, rather
than how we'd like it to be.
>
>I cited my experience in analyzing data from medical peer review that showed
>the harm that could be done by practitioners of allopathic medicine, while
>acknowledging that I had not had similar opportunity to review practice
>patterns of alternative practitioners. I stated that this experience did not
>lead me to trash allopathic medicine per se, nor did it give me confidence
>that it was better than alternatives due to a presumably greater scientific
>basis.
The next time, could you say "I don't know" more briefly?
>
>You commented, "I don't follow your logic. Scientific medicine criticizes
>itself, by that means becomes aware of its failings, and changes as new
>knowledge is
>acquired. 'Other modalities of treatment' are untested and unexamined,
>their followers devoting themselves to proving the truth of unchanging
>principles. How can one be just as good as the other?"
>
>Actually, I have had similar experience in reviewing data from peer review of
>chiropractors (by other chiropractors), with the same general finding that
>some of them were doing their patients harm. The potential for harm was
>less, however, because chiropractors are not able to perform surgery and are
>not able to prescribe drugs. For the "allopaths," the performance of
>unnecessary surgery and the tendency to over-prescribe were two of the major
>deficiencies in quality of care.
I agree that incompetence in scientific medicine is probably more dangerous
than it is in "alternative," because the tools are more powerful.
>All forms of medical practice are deficient in science, in the formal sense
>we have been using the term. In the absence of science, the type of practice
>that is most invasive is likely to do the most harm, in the hands of
>practitioners who are incompetent or careless.
I don't think this follows. Even though "alternative medicine" tends to do
less that can be directly harmful, there are potentially dangerous elements
in, for example, Chiropractic, and Chinese traditional medicine, that do
produce injuries. Neglect is a main hazard of "alternative" systems;
Maladies with a natural cycle can be "healed," but a degenerative process,
neglected, may not be reversable. Now we come full circle. How can we tell
which system does more good and less harm?
>I mentioned the recent emergence of "outcomes research" as having potential
>for significantly increasing the knowledge basis for medical practice. You
>said, " Rigby, 'outcomes research' in place of clinical trials would be
>irresponsible. When a new remedy is invented, you would just let doctors try
>it on patients, in uncontrolled situations? That's just what I meant by
>'badly designed human medical experiments without informed consent.'"
>
>The primary problem being addressed by outcomes research is not the efficacy
>and safety of new techniques, but the vast array of current practices that
>have little or no support in the form of clinical trials. Basically, the
>idea is to formalize on a collective basis what the best practitioners
>already do--find out what works from direct experience. The collection and
>analysis of data from actual experience will, over time, also help disclose
>the adverse effects of new technology that gets past the current clinical
>trial screens.
I think research into the outcomes of different systems of medicine would
be extremely valuable. Perhaps I'm being uncharitable, but I read between
the lines that the research you're talking about is intended to justify
unscientific practices. If the outcomes are measured objectively, i.e. not
just "customer satisfaction," then it will be more helpful.
>I said that part of the outcomes research movement was gathering data from
>the patient on success of treatment. You said, "By 'getting the patient's
>perspective' you seem to be saying here that a drug or medical technique
>should be judged by polling the patients opinions. When a quack is
>prosecuted, he or she typically brings forward a long line of witnesses who
>will testify sincerely that the quack has saved their lives. This testimony
>isn't the least bit helpful in determining the truth of the matter. The art
>of the quack is an art of illusion (and
>self-delusion), not healing."
>
>Again, the emphasis is on modalities of treatment already in common usage,
>not on new drugs or technology. A standardized survey form has been
>developed (and tested for validity) which asks patients about their
>satisfaction with treatment and the extent to which it has met their needs.
> The initial studies made with this survey form have disclosed a significance
>difference between physician perception and patient perception of the outcome
>of treatment.
It's very useful to have that information, but it shouldn't be confused
with knowing the outcome of the treatment. That's only one dimension,
patient satisfaction. Victims of quackery often report satisfaction when in
actuality they've been injured.
>The outcomes research movement is strongly supported by Federal funding of
>research programs at various medical centers, plus funding for demonstration
>projects. It appears that contemporary mainstream medicine--allopathic,
>scientific medicine--does not agree with your judgment that patient opinion
>is not the least bit helpful in determining whether treatment has been
>effective. In my judgment this represents a very healthy shift from a
>clinical trials mentality for deciding what works to a recognition that
>healing of the patient is the purpose of the whole endeavor. As you may be
>intimating in your comment, however, it certainly does open up the door for
>the "alternatives" to take a legitimate place among the healing arts. Or
>looked at from the other side, it may redeem a legitimate place for
>allopathic medicine among the healing arts.
Rigby, regarding "a very healthy shift from a clinical trials mentality for
deciding what works to a recognition that healing of the patient is the
purpose of the whole endeavor," do you not see the connection between doing
valid tests and healing? Knowing that what you believe corresponds closely
with nature is a lot more valuable than just having people like what you
do.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n071.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: The Science and Scientism of Color
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 02:45:50 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>TOM :
>>> The message given to the students is that their own direct
>>>sense perceptions are not to be trusted, but only the undemonstrable
>>>assertions of the teacher.
>>
>DAN:
>>Wait a minute, Tom. So much of what we know about the world is not
>>perceptible to unaided senses.
>
>TOM: Does that include angels, elemental beings, God, your soul, yourself
>when you die, quarks, atoms, electromagnetic radiation? (For starters.)
>And what does the "aiding of the senses" have to do with it? They sound
>like crutches or wheel chairs. Are we that handicapped in our sense
>perceptions?
>
>>DAN: By your reasoning, we shouldn't teach kids
>>about germs, either, because they can't see them.
>
>TOM: Correct! And because we cannot PERCEIVE germs, we must necessarily
>CONCEIVE them. Therefore, whatever we teach students about germs, atoms,
>quarks, angels, elementals, etc. is necessarily taken from the field of
>perceptions that we do see and these unseen entities are then fashioned by
>our blind intellects and projected into convenient metaphors or fictions.
>In Steiner's epistemology, the perception unites with the concept to form a
>"Vorstellung" (translated as "mental picture" or "mental representation").
>The problem comes when we attribute to the mental picture the entire
>reality of the concept. That becomes idolatry. How is there any difference
>between the idol worship of quarks in scientism and the idol worship of
>angels in anthroposophy?
DAN
Dear Tom, thanks for stating the Anthroposophical position so well. Of
course, our concepts are our creations, but we validate them by TESTING
them against the real world. That's science. Then they become useful tools.
TOM
> Now I know why Arline Monks waved that copy of Newsweek at you and
>said you were out of date. You seem to worship Karl Popper as an icon of
>true scientific methodology, yet you also seem to be unaware that Karl
>Popper's many erroneous assumptions about scientific experiments have been
>pointed out by the emerging school of Bayesian statistical analysis. (For a
>good introductory text, there is "Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian
>Approach," by Colin Howson and Peter Urbach, Open Court Publishing, 1991).
> There is still great value in Popper's ideology, but here in 1996
>AD, the value is primarily in studying his place in the history of science
>in the 20th century. The only field that I can think of today that could
>possibly utilize Popper's idealistic principles of faslifiabilty and
>reproducibility in scientific experimentation is in the field of Classical
>Mechanics.
> The problem for Popper's ideology becomes apparent when it is
>applied to experiments that rely on statistical inference and Fisher-type
>significance testing. Interestingly enough, some of these belong to the
>class of experiments that you put forward as validating modern allopathic
>medicine and debunking homeopathy.
DAN
You're right, I follow (not worship) Popper's principles of falsifiability
and reproducibility in scientific experimentation. I'm not surprised some
people try to refute him, because he doesn't leave any wiggle room for
delusionary systems like Anthroposophical medicine. If you could state
succinctly just how you think Popper has been refuted, we could discuss it.
TOM
>What is becoming clear
>is that it is not possible to test something like homeopathy with the
>subjective preconceptions of significance testing. Hence the whole idea of
>proving or disproving homeopathy is a canard. It cannot be proven or
>disproven. The only scientific observation to draw from such testing and
>counter-testing is that some people believe in homeopathy and others do not
>believe in it.
DAN
Saving your dignity, Mr. Mellett, that's bullshit. It's easy to test
homeopathy scientifically, and it fails. The only way to defend it is to
take the radical position that scientific method is meaningless. Good luck.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n071 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n072 --------------
001 - Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine-Sampson
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 12:55:13 -0400
Stephen Tonkin writes:
> You said that my criticism of the posting was "severe" -- I agree -- you
> may assume that I think it is about time that the arguments of the
> skeptics were met with a bit of healthy skepticism. I am more than
> happy for my own arguments to be similarly treated.
I certainly agree that we should demand sufficient information to be
able to evaluate and recreate their experiments (or analyses, as the
case may be) from both alternative medicine proponents and skeptics.
There is no question but that an opinion from an "expert in the field"
is of little value without at least references to readily-obtained
supporting documentation. In fact I would think that we should expect
more in the way of cogency (including more hard data, more useful
references, and less name-calling than might be indulged in by a
writer less educated in scientific procedures).
Stephen again:
> However, he offers not a shred of evidence that we can get our teeth
> into and debate; he draws conclusions without presenting the _data_ from
> which these conclusions are drawn or showing how they were drawn from
> these data.
I'm sure that Dr.Sampson's approach to the composition of a formal
scientific paper would quite different from the way in which he
replies to a layman's email query. That doesn't excuse the
unfortunate melding of experimental results with personal opinion (I
commented here recently on the necessity of keeping the informal and
often very biased process of hypothesis formation separate from the
very different process of careful hypothesis testing). But his
position as "President of the National Council Against Health Fraud"
warns us that we'll have to filter out some bias.
There were, however, useful observations in Dr.Sampson's letter,
some of which may serve to refute previous arguments. For example:
> Governmental approval is meaningless in most countries because the
> materials have been "grandfathered" into most countries' laws,
> because of political and economic (production, distribution
> companies) pressures and individual culture folkways. In the US,
> homeopathic remedies were grandfathered into a 1937 law by the
> request of Senator Royal Stanton, who was a homeopathic physician.
This is an historical, not "scientific", observation, but dead on for
all that! And the following would seem "testable" claims, and not
badly quantified given practical limits imposed by such meta-studies:
> The large majority of papers were so bad, they could not grade for
> statistical power, the confidence intervals, the end points and
> indicators studied, etc. In fact, they stated that they could not
> score for those because so few of the papers could qualify for the
> scoring criteria. They pointed out that only about 16 papers out of
> 80 achieved a value score over 80, at which point I would consider a
> paper believable. Two of the three best papers were negative. Of 106
> trials assessed, only 16 scored 60 / 100 points, at which one might
> consider the trial well enough done to be -slightly- believable.
>
> We have been looking at the papers and find that none of them used
> an objective measurement of result - all used reports of
> symptoms. None of the papers checked on maintenance of the double
> blind or for contamination and adulteration. It would be so easy to
> use a lab test to show improvement...All of them measured only
> symptoms. Why? Because there is no objective record of symptoms, so
> the data are easy to manipulate, one can report only the data that
> appear to be positive, etc.
The observation that "Two of the three best papers [by the authors'
own criteria!] were negative" seems particularly strong, and can be
checked.
The further claim that the "double blind" was not checked with care
would seem to be both verifiable and methodologically damning, but I'd
want to see the original papers before agreeing with Dr.Sampson on
this. (Remember the disastrous experiments on "psychics" at Duke
University by the Rhines, which at least showed us how a good stage
magician...or even a wanna-be stage magician...can make use of minor
errors in experimental setup?)
Also, he offers us an intriguing reference, albeit to an article
that many of us cannot read:
> Another metaanalysis by Smith and Doyon in France (Revue
> d'epidemiologie et de sante' publique Vol 38, 1990) reviewed only
> controlled trials. It showed no difference between homeopathy and
> placebo.
In any case, it appears to me that homeopathy (and anthroposophic
medicine, to the extent that it incorporates homeopathic methods)
offers guaranteed-ineffective infinitely-diluted "medicines"
accompanied by tea and sympathy, to be taken with an equally infinite
credulousness. This can work! The use I can see for such a regimen
is the usual one for a placebo treatment: Some people can't be cured
of psychosomatic ailments except by the application of a physical
"medicine" for which they've paid real money. In such cases the
physician is a helpful mediator between the patient's mind and...the
patient's mind! That's okay. A scrupulously honest physician would
eventually refund the money paid for "medicines" and charg only for
his time---and tell the patient that those bottles with their fancy
labels contained ordinary tap water or its physical equivalent.
I'd like to see some double-blind experiments done on "holy water";
also some (much harder to devise) on papal infallability! Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n072.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Medicine and Science
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 18:02:27 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In article <199608080944.CAA04157 lists1.best.com>, Dan Dugan writes:
> With proper "bedside manner", they could get just as much
>placebo effect out of their scientific practices as they might get out of
>"alternative" practices.
What is the scientific evidence for this statement? Or is it something
we are meant to take on trust?
>Compare traditional Indian medicine with traditional Chinese
>medicine. They're different.
Yes, but they also share similarities (hardly surprising since the India
and China share a common border and there has been commerce of ideas
between the two regions for centuries).
>
>On the other hand, practices of scientific medicine in China, India, and
>Europe are very similar. Why is that? It's not because of any law or
>central authority. It's because of a worldwide consensus on scientific
>method.
This passage doesn't actually say anything of value. It merely asserts
that practices based on the same world view are very similar -- this is
hardly surprising. I also suspect a circular argument -- see if you can
find it.
However, there are a number of pharmaceuticals which have been granted a
license for use in "scientific medicine" in some countries and had it
refused in others. This suggests that the use of such pharmaceuticals
is not based so much on science as on a human, non-scientific, weighing
up of the risks and benefits involved. Ultimately, therefore, the
decision whether or not to license a pharmaceutical is not a scientific
decision. It is often a commercial or a political decision. There are
things science cannot tell us -- ultimate good or bad is outside the
remit of science.
>
>Why do scientists think they've got something better than tradition and
>empiricism? Because the method of testing and discarding hypotheses *in
>public* works so much better than uncontrolled individual experiments, i.e.
>what you call "experience."
I fully agree that, in the context of Popperian science, a basis of
experience and empiricism is unscientific. However, there are many
things which are "unscientific" in the same (IMO narrow) terms which
still work. A simple example (the interested reader can provide more)
is the use of cinchona bark to treat malaria -- its use was based on
empiricism, not on double-blind tests. That didn't stop it working.
OTOH the interested reader can provide his own list of pharmaceuticals
which _have_ been double-blinded and have led to unexpected problems.
Thalidomide is a crass example.
My point is that scientific testing does not make the difference between
good and bad. Popperian scientific methodology is not inherently bad --
it is just very limited. It cannot, for example, make moral statements.
Of course, whether or not these limitations are deemed important depends
on the individual doing the deeming.
>
>DUGAN
>I use it because I believe that to be scientific is the ideal and best
>intention of the medical profession.
I would have thought that, from a moral viewpoint, the "ideal and best
intention" of the medical profession is to heal.
If I go down with malaria, I don't give two hoots whether I am given
scientifically approved amodiaquine (or whatever the drug of choice is
nowadays) by a qualified medical practitioner or given cinchona bark by
a traditional native herbalist -- as long as whatever I am given works.
(Although the plasmodium is more likely to be resistant to the
scientifically approved, double-blinded, amodiaquine -- but I digress)
>I wish medical students could be inspired to a love of
>science; that is, fascination with learning how the world really is, rather
>than how we'd like it to be.
Since the world really is a varied place, imperfect, full of contrary
views, teeming with diversity, capable of being interpreted in a variety
of ways, populated by human beings who make most of their major
decisions on a non-logical basis -- and not the reductionist/materialist
/mechanistic/Popper-scientific (*) place some would like it to be ...
yes, I share your wish.
* -- delete as appropriate.
>
>I agree that incompetence in scientific medicine is probably more dangerous
>than it is in "alternative," because the tools are more powerful.
That is a sweeping generalisation if I ever saw one -- there are
numerous counter-examples. If you can't think of any I'll list a few --
just ask.
> How can we tell
>which system does more good and less harm?
We can't -- or, more properly, science can't. There is therefore no
reason to deny access to either school of medicine.
>A standardized survey form has been
>>developed (and tested for validity) which asks patients about their
>>satisfaction with treatment and the extent to which it has met their needs.
>> The initial studies made with this survey form have disclosed a significance
>>difference between physician perception and patient perception of the outcome
>>of treatment.
>
>It's very useful to have that information, but it shouldn't be confused
>with knowing the outcome of the treatment. That's only one dimension,
>patient satisfaction.
If we accept that the primary function of medicine is to heal, I suggest
that whether or not the patient is healed _to_his_satisfaction_ is an
extremely important dimension. This begs the question: who decides when
the patient is healed?
>
>Rigby, regarding "a very healthy shift from a clinical trials mentality for
>deciding what works to a recognition that healing of the patient is the
>purpose of the whole endeavor," do you not see the connection between doing
>valid tests and healing?
There may well be a connection, but is there not also a distinction?
>Knowing that what you believe corresponds closely
>with nature is a lot more valuable than just having people like what you
>do.
Is it? -- or is that a value judgement?
I suggest that many people don't give a toss for whether what they
believe corresponds with nature -- and that many do care more about
liking/being liked, though.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n072.3 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: The Science and Scientism of Color
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 1996 14:47:10 -0400
Stephen Tonkin writes:
> Ultimately, therefore, the decision whether or not to license a
> pharmaceutical is not a scientific decision. It is often a
> commercial or a political decision. There are things science
> cannot tell us -- ultimate good or bad is outside the remit of
> science.
...and far, far outside the "remit"(*note) of commerce and politics!
(*note) (nice word! "re.mit n (15c) 1: an act of remitting", "re.mit
[...] vt [...] 3: to submit or refer for consideration, judgment,
decision, or action)
More seriously, I think Stephen has an eminently sensible attitude
here. His point becomes moot if one doesn't believe that it's
possible to define a universal "good or bad" consistently, which will
probably be the case if you are skeptical of politics, or its
slave: religion (in which case it seems that all that's left to guide
us is science---Dan's "correspond[ing] closely with nature").
--------------------
The following exchange seems to address the same issue, except that
even in the absence of "good and bad", it makes sense to have the
patient make the primary decision whether the "cure" was successful:
Stephen Tonkin replies to Dan Dugan:
> If we accept that the primary function of medicine is to heal, I suggest
> that whether or not the patient is healed _to_his_satisfaction_ is an
> extremely important dimension. This begs the question: who decides
> when the patient is healed?
Dan:
>Rigby, regarding "a very healthy shift from a clinical trials mentality for
>deciding what works to a recognition that healing of the patient is the
>purpose of the whole endeavor," do you not see the connection between doing
>valid tests and healing?
Stephen:
> There may well be a connection, but is there not also a distinction?
Dan:
>Knowing that what you believe corresponds closely
>with nature is a lot more valuable than just having people like what you
>do.
Stephen:
> Is it? -- or is that a value judgement?
Making something more than a value judgement (which in an amoral
universe must be rather arbitrary) out of Dan's "connection" is
a major stumbling block for "realist" philosophers. These are not
easy issues, even (especially!) within the subject of medicine.
--------------------
Dan Dugan writes:
> You're right, I follow (not worship) Popper's principles of
> falsifiability and reproducibility in scientific
> experimentation. I'm not surprised some people try to refute him,
> because he doesn't leave any wiggle room for delusionary systems
> like Anthroposophical medicine. If you could state succinctly just
> how you think Popper has been refuted, we could discuss it.
Popper observes that scientific theory is usually expressed in
universals, that is:
"for all "
rather than in existentials:
"not for all [not] ".
The logical positivists (specifically, Ayers in _Language, Truth and
Logic_) note that existential questions are often of great practical
and philosophical interest. I'd add that in medicine, the primary
question, "Is this a cure for my <....>" is existential, and can often
(usually only statistically) be verified, but not falsified. I hope
this doesn't leave any "wiggle room"..."for delusionary systems",
either, but it does sort of point out that medicine is not your usual
"science", and that Popper's "falsification" may not apply as well
here.
Aghhh...back to work. Sorry if I've taken this to an excessive
abstract level. (I suspect R.Steiner wouldn't mind though...) --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n072.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: "Renewal" notes 7: evaluation
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 02:29:05 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
EDELSTEIN & GREER
"First, because Waldorf schools share a common philosophy and a common
image in the public eye, and are members of an Association, we proposed
that the Waldorf movement consider developing its own evaluation process.
For one school to free itself from government regulation, we all need to be
responsible for our schools. Second, we proposed that Waldorf schools in
North America begin establishing direct links with colleges, universities,
and businesses so that our graduates can be accepted, hired, and
apprenticed on the basis of a Waldorf diploma or teacher referral, as is
the case in Denmark and Sweden. Third, given the rapid growth of our
movement, and the intensifying demand for standardization, we suggested
that the movement prepare itself collectively for continuing court
challenges."
***
"We have moved from reaction to action and see the possibility of gaining
government recognition and acceptance of our long-proven educational
model."
[Edelstein, Edward, and Anne Greer. "Report from the Toronto Waldorf
School." Renewal: A Journal for Waldorf Education, Spring/Summer 1996. p.
43.]
DAN DUGAN
Evaluation, feedback, has been one of the Waldorf movement's weakest
points. The Waldorf tradition is for teachers to write inspirational
reports to the students and families, often including verses the teacher
composes for the student. This is nice, but it keeps the Waldorf process
secret not only from the state but from itself. Without comparison to some
kind of standards, the movement can never know its strengths and weaknesses
well enough to evolve as it should.
I think the Toronto authors are right on in proposing some kind of
"evaluation process." I hope it includes student, teacher, and overall
school performance.
"[E]stablishing direct links with colleges, universities, and businesses so
that our graduates can be accepted, hired, and apprenticed on the basis of
a Waldorf diploma or teacher referral, as is the case in Denmark and
Sweden."
Can anyone explain how they do it in Denmark and Sweden? They seem to be
saying that colleges could be induced to make special admission policies
for Waldorf graduates, so they wouldn't have to compete in the regular
ways. It seems unlikely to me.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n072.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 02:29:21 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In his teaching guide for a traditional Waldorf lesson block, Wilkinson says,
"The Man and Animal period in the Rudolf Steiner school, which is given at
about the age of ten, is one of the most difficult from the teacher's point
of view. In the first place, the teacher must subscribe to, or be in
sympathy with, the ideas on evolution propounded by Dr. Steiner.
(Otherwise, of course, he should not be in the school). More than that, he
must also understand them and this understanding is not something that can
be acquired the night before the lessons are given, nor is it something
that can be superficially communicated."
[Wilkinson, Roy. Man and Animal: Guides to Teaching in Rudolf Steiner
Education. Forest Row, Sussex, England: Robinswood Press, 1990, p. 2.]
posted by Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n072.6 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 09:58:45 -0400
Dan Dugan writes:
> In his teaching guide for a traditional Waldorf lesson block, Wilkinson says,
>
> "The Man and Animal period in the Rudolf Steiner school, which is given at
> about the age of ten, is one of the most difficult from the teacher's point
> of view. In the first place, the teacher must subscribe to, or be in
> sympathy with, the ideas on evolution propounded by Dr. Steiner.
> (Otherwise, of course, he should not be in the school). More than that, he
> must also understand them and this understanding is not something that can
> be acquired the night before the lessons are given, nor is it something
> that can be superficially communicated."
>
> [Wilkinson, Roy. Man and Animal: Guides to Teaching in Rudolf Steiner
> Education. Forest Row, Sussex, England: Robinswood Press, 1990, p. 2.]
The "of course" is certainly troubling. Steiner's seems to have been
an intelligent admirer of Darwin and his now-orthodox theory of
physical/biological evolution (though of course he included much that
is "spiritual" and speculative under the "evolution" rubric) , but
that does not excuse Wilkinson's emphasis on dogmatic conformity.
Every time I see one of that man's teacher's guides, or a quote
therefrom, I get riled about his authoritarian bent. Someone here said
once that he's a very pleasant old man, but it's hard to accept his
intellectual attitudes. --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n072.7 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine-Sampson
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 18:28:23 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> Would you clarify what D5 signifies? Is that 5X or 1/100,000? (6X is 1 ppm,
> 24X is about Avogadro's number.)
>
> -Dan
>
I checked with Weleda in Arlesheim, it a dilution of 5 decimals,
hence the D designation. This gives us one part of formic acid in
100'000 parts of water, mixed in 5 increments of 10 each.
This is still enough to make the stuff taste awful. It does definitly
not taste like pure water.
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n072.8 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 19:22:18 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> of view. In the first place, the teacher must subscribe to, or be in
> sympathy with, the ideas on evolution propounded by Dr. Steiner.
> (Otherwise, of course, he should not be in the school).
All anthroposoph I am, the "of course" bit leave some bad taste in my
mouth... I perceive Anthoposophy rather as the _absence_ of dogma
which the author of these lines seems to attempt to smuggle into
Waldorf Education.
Thoughtfully yours
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n072 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n073 --------------
001 - "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: "Renewal" notes 7: evaluation
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 19:22:18 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> I think the Toronto authors are right on in proposing some kind of
> "evaluation process." I hope it includes student, teacher, and overall
> school performance.
> ...
> Can anyone explain how they do it in Denmark and Sweden? They seem to be
> saying that colleges could be induced to make special admission policies
> for Waldorf graduates, so they wouldn't have to compete in the regular
> ways. It seems unlikely to me.
>
> -Dan Dugan
>
Hello Dan,
This must be the first time we _agree_ on something written by a
Waldorf School official. This is worth to get my calendar and the red
pencil out of the drawer...
The problem is often that a Waldorf diploma is _not_ recognized
equivalent to the state-school delivered certificates. Colleges and
Universities in Europe have mostly admission regulations based upon
previously optained diplomas. The goal is to make Waldorf diplomas
acceptable in this context, which calls for some kind of formal
standardisation (and we agree again!). The intend is definitly not to
"sneak" Waldorf students into those instituions.
Potential employers, again, often do not even know what a Waldorf School
is. The aim here is to make Waldorf Education generaly accepted as an
alternative path to knowledge and to make businesspeople understand
that a Waldorf graduate can be valuable for their business just
_because_ he seen many things under a different angel that former
state school graduates. This again, need some common ground for
evaluation (And we agree again, something must be wrong here...).
This is from the Swiss perpective, I may try to reach some contacts
in Scandinavia to foreward your question if you do not get any other
answers.
Best wishes
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n073.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: (from Sampson) discussion on waldorf-critics
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 1996 11:46:44 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To Dan and the critic critics:
Ehat is this, a forum or a scientific journal. I fully warrant that I am
expressing my opinions. I besmirch no one's reputation, because Reilly
apparently reportes what he found. His and other homeopaths' reputations will
rise or fall on the degree to which they subscribe to their absurd theories and
interpretations.
Perhaps the correspondents can answer the substantive comments in my posting,
rather than the style.
If your correspondents wish to read my scientific comments, please advise them
to review the Jacobs childhood diarrhea paper in Pediatrics (May, 1994) and our
analytic commentary (Pediatrics, Nov. 1995). We also answer our critics in the
May, 1996 issue. Also see the analysis of the Benveniste paper in Skeptical
Inquirer, Summer, 1989.
I do not want to and will not use the forum for presentation of scientific data,
but will gladly discuss the issues.
Do the correspondents believe the heart is not a pump? Do they believe that
homeopathic concentrations of thyoid hormone give off energy that can penetrate
glass and cause pollywogs to mature faster?
So let the homeopaths and Steinerophiles present their "scientific" stuff and we
will
have at it.
W Sampson
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n073.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: (from Sampson) discussion on waldorf-critics
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 00:24:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In article <199608091849.LAA21992 lists1.best.com>, Dan Dugan
/Sampson writes
>
>Perhaps the correspondents can answer the substantive comments in my posting,
>rather than the style.
Sampson knows full well that he offered no substantive comments that
could be answered, mainly because none of Sampson's comments,
substantive or otherwise, were accompanied by sufficient data to enable
scientific criticism.
My criticisms of Sampson's comments are not of his style, but of his
pseudoscientific arguments. I find it interesting (and not a little
disappointing) that Sampson does not even attempt to answer these
criticisms and tries to justify his refusal to do so with this
statement:
>I do not want to and will not use the forum for presentation of scientific data,
>but will gladly discuss the issues.
As the skeptics remind us, discussion of issues without data is ...
pseudoscience.
I put it to Sampson that he does not answer the criticisms I made of his
recent post for no reason other than that he is unable to do so. (If
this assertion is incorrect, it is a trivial matter for Sampson to
demonstrate my error.)
I also find it interesting that Sampson will not provide the data that
he claims support his assertions, but expects us to take it on trust
that his comments on them (the data) are valid. Would Sampson accept,
on trust, my analysis of some data without sight of either the data or
the process of analysis?
>
>If your correspondents wish to read my scientific comments, please advise them
>to review the Jacobs childhood diarrhea paper in Pediatrics (May, 1994) and our
>analytic commentary (Pediatrics, Nov. 1995). We also answer our critics in the
>May, 1996 issue. Also see the analysis of the Benveniste paper in Skeptical
>Inquirer, Summer, 1989.
Do these actually refer to the study he was criticising in his recent
post? If so, I would gladly reimburse the costs of copying and posting
the copies to me (I assume the photocopying of single papers from a
journal for the purposes of study is permitted in the US as it is in
Britain?), since I would love to get my teeth into a _scientific_
discussion.
However, I also wonder if this is just an attempt to divert us from the
discussion of the specific issues raised in his recent post.
Sampson further tries to divert us from the criticisms of his recent
post with some completely unrelated questions:
>Do the correspondents believe the heart is not a pump? Do they believe that
>homeopathic concentrations of thyoid hormone give off energy that can penetrate
>glass and cause pollywogs to mature faster?
However, since we appear to be in the mood for asking questions, I will
respond to the first with three of my own:
Does Sampson believe that the term "pump" adequately describes the
heart?
Could Sampson please tell us what he understands by "The Law of the
Heart", particularly in relation to venous pooling shock?
Could Sampson please tell us (without issuing promissory notes wrt what
may be possible in the future) how, if the heart is no more than a mere
pump, it is not possible to manufacture a mechanical pump which exactly
mimics the heart?
To answer Sampson's first question, I believe that the heart exhibits
some characteristics of a pump -- and a great deal besides.
>So let the homeopaths and Steinerophiles present their "scientific" stuff and we
>will
>have at it.
But not, it seems, with scientific argument.
If Sampson expects us to believe, or even discuss, the conclusions he
presented in his recent post, let's see the raw data (or have a
reference to where they are publicly available) and the details of his
analysis of them (or a reference to where they are publicly available)
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n073.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: The Science and Scientism of Color, PART 2
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 03:06:05 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Tom Mellett, you're touching on something close to my heart here, so I'm
not likely to roll over for your blustering about Steiner's crackpot color
theory. When I was a child my parents took me to Shakespeare at the Old
Globe in San Diego, and to the summer musicals at an outdoor bowl in the
park. Along with many other benefits, I developed an interest in stage
lighting. I started doing it myself in grammar school and high school.
After a year of a physics major in college, I dropped out to follow my
bliss, and in three more years had acquired sufficient skill to be making
my living as a lighting designer, a career I then practiced for over ten
years.
I understood basic optics and color theory before I left high school, and
later, while applying the physical theory every day, worked also with the
psychological and aesthetic qualities of light, shade, and color. I always
had an armament of lighting instruments and dimmers at my command, and a
hundred color filters to choose from. In the younger days of my career,
before encountering the constraints of union stage crews in the
professional theater, I did a lot of experimenting, often staying up late
into the night running up and down ladders trying different effects. Later,
the economics of theater trained me get it right the first time, most of
the time.
>DAN:
>>>Here you're carrying out the Anthroposophical tradition of mis-education,
>>>by the book, Steiner's book. (I've studied his Light Course, read Goethe,
>>>and Lehrs, and Proskauer.)
>
>TOM MELLETT:
>>Dan, have you ever taken the time to look through a prism? Are you saying
>>that colors do not arise on the boundaries between relative light and
>>relative darkness?
DAN DUGAN
I see the same phenomena that Newton, Goethe, Steiner, and you see. I
differ with the latter three on your interpretation of what we see.
TOM
>>Are you saying then that the R-O-Y-G-B-I-V sequence of
>>colors, listed in order of decreasing wavelength is NOT complemented by a
>>B-I-V-M-R-O-Y (M for magenta) sequence...which does not follow the order
>>of decreasing wavelength?
the complement of the rainbow colors R-O-Y-G-B-I-V
is something like C---B-V-Y---G (C is Cyan)
but complementation is a perceptual event, not a physical one, so the
wavelength question is irrelevant. Let me explain.
Steiner's monisim, unwilling to separate the nature of human perception
from the world of physics, stumbles badly here. The physical world and the
world of human perception have to be understood each within its own nature,
and then the complex interaction between them can be approached.
The physical electromagnetic spectrum consists of instantaneous variations
in the intensity of electric and magnetic fields, at frequencies ranging in
time from eons to billions per second. Anything moving or hot (which is
motion on a small scale) radiates these fields. The fields in nature have
two main qualities with respect to their spectrum. Overall, radiation is
dominated by chaotic, broad band emissions, like star and sun light. Within
these radiations, combing out narrow bands of frequencies with a prism
reveals bright bands radiated by different elements when they are hot, and
dark bands where cool elements absorb very specific frequencies.
None of this has anything to do with the perception of color, or, indeed,
the existence of eyes.
The earth's atmosphere allows a certain band of radiation to reach the
earth's surface, and the presence of this generous supply of energy plus
the fact that the patterns of its bouncing off of objects carries very
valuable information about the objects and their locations, has led to the
development of eyes that detect energy within the frequency band we call
"visible light." Many species eyes include the ability to discriminate in
the frequency domain, though not at all by measuring the frequency
directly.
The mechanism of color perception in the human eye is based on three
"visual primary" color dyes. The visual primaries are wide frequency bands
that are defined by the selective absorbtion of each dye. The "secondary"
colors are "complementary" to the primaries. They are absorbed by two of
the three dyes, and not by the primary they are said to be "complementary"
to. This phenomenon has no relation to the perception of the spectrum. A
color mixture may be "complemented" visually.
>What is interesting about the prism experiment is that I am now making a
>point of asking Ph.D. professors of physics whether or not they have ever
>looked through prisms directly since childhood. So far 6 out of 6 have said
>no. So much for the teaching of direct sense observation in science
>education.
This is trivial, and a cheap shot, Tom. Just looking through a prism
produces a lousy theory of light and color, as the example of Goethe has
shown us.
>DAN:
>>Steiner wants us to reject Newton so we can be
>>>"free" (I read "ignorant enough") to accept his premise that light is pure
>>>spirit, and can't be analyzed into components.
>
>TOM:
>>Light as pure spirit to me is just as abstract and meaningless a concept as
>>is light as a particle or light as a wave. I reject all three metaphors as
>>unscientific, because when I see light as expressed in various colors, I do
>>not see spirit; I do not see waves; I do not see particles. I do not see
>>energy. I see the colors. Period. Notice I am using the first person
>>singular pronoun to describe this phenomenon. You are now entering the
>>realm of the Physics of Self-Reference, where the Karl Popper criteria of
>>falsifiability of theories and the reproducibility of experiments do not
>>apply.
Wrong, Tom. It is possible to do scientific experimentation on subjective
perceptions. I've done double-blind comparisons of sound quality.
>>Now as far as the analysis of light into different components is
>>concerned, that is the usual Physics of Non-self reference,' where Popper's
>>criteria do apply. Unlike Goethe, I do not believe Newton's theory is
>>wrong; but Kurt Goedel proved that any self-consistent theory (such as
>>Newton's Color theory) is incomplete for an explanation of all the
>>phenomena. Unfortunately, Kurt Goedel in 1931 proved by means of his
>>Incompleteness Theorem that when there is self-reference in a logical
>>system there are undecidable propositions.....
You're slipping into the defective epistemology of the post-modernists
here, Tom. Just because Goedel says there are undecidable propositions in
any system, that doesn't mean that most propositions won't be decidable, or
that systems of logic are useless. You leap from saying that something
-can- happen to saying that it -always- happens.
>.... Of course we decide undecidable propositions all day long; the point
>is we do not decide them on the basis of some intellectual logic, but
>rather out of an emotional feeling for the truth, i.e. a belief.
Maybe you do.
(Someday,
>I would like to go into the seminal work of Arthur M. Young (1905-1995),
>the inventor of the Bell Helicopter and author of _The Geometry of Meaning_
>and _The Reflexive Universe_ for a explanation as to why I believe that
>Newton's Color Theory and Goethe's Color theory are not opposed to each
>other, but are literally at 90 degrees to each other. In modern scientific
>parlance, they are orthonormal theories and therefore, they are both
>mutually independent of each other).
Please don't; you disagree with Steiner there, which takes it off-topic.
>DAN:
>>Waldorfians do teach abstract concepts from the
>>>earliest ages. They teach the abstractions that they like, like elves and
>>>fairies. The Anthroposophical abstractions are made-up, feel-good fictions
>>>that support Steiner's dogmatic cosmology. The scientific abstractions have
>>>been wrung from nature by hard working scientists, shattering dogmatic
>>>cosmologies as they go.
>
>TOM:
>>Oh, puh-leeze, Dan. Give me a break! Why the sudden wistful plunge into
>>mawkish sentimentality about "hard working scientists." Do I detect a
>>note of self-pity here....
Just rhetoric. I'm not a scientist.
>
>.... as well as a level of "comic book" science? Are you implying that
>Rudolf Steiner was not hard-working? That he himself did not
>singlehandedly shatter the dogmatic cosmology of modern scientism?
Maybe he did for you, but it's a pretty small group that thinks so.
>What I
>like about your assertions, Dan, is that they are so true, not only of
>Waldorf but also of yourself. I can sit back and read all your projections
>onto Waldorf and Anthroposophy as true, but I can also see that you
>yourself are not able to apply such criteria to yourself. This is very
>characterisitc of modern scientific assumptions, which have a priori
>filtered out any reference to the self. They must do this in order to avoid
>the inescapable dilemma of Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem.
Now it's my turn to say "oh puh-leeze." I'll refrain from analyzing you.
> So my only problem with your attitude is that you are stuck at the
>same level of superficiality in logical scientific thinking as are Waldorf
>teachers and most anthropops. The very fact that you have a conflict and
>maintain this conflict is proof positive that you all have something in
>common. Two boxers in a ring could not fight each other unless they had
>common ground, i.e. the same boxing ring. Similarly, the way you reflect
>the dogmatic assertions of WEs and ANTs back onto them is to me proof
>positive that you are an expert at dogmatic assertions yourself. Otherwise,
>how else could you maintain this list?
I don't expect you to like my attitude. Could we talk about issues here?
> The only difference is that their dogmatic assertions are coming
>from an implicit logic of self-reference so they don't really care about
>all the inconsistencies of logic that you correctly point out. On the other
>hand, you worship the consistency of modern science which arises out of a
>non-self reference and therefore can't handle the incompleteness that
>results except by constantly projecting away from your own self onto the
>Waldorfians and Anthropops.
> My question is: how long are you going to remain down at their
>level, down in their sandbox? Or do you believe that you yourself cannot
>rise above their level of scientific superficiality in your own life? You
>may have your own particular reasons for acting so dumb, Dan, but I don't
>believe you're stupid. So as my daughter is fond of telling her parents:
>"Wake up and smell the 90's!"
My science is deep, man, deep. It has its roots in ancient Greece, its stem
in the Renaissance, and its blossoms in the Enlightenment and the 20th
Century.
I'm smelling the 90's "new science" on your breath, and it stinks.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n073.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 03:06:22 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen Tonkin, in your message of 4 August, after your long rant at
Suzanne Lainson, you then took up a number of points that refer to my
postings:
TONKIN
>However, that aside, I was interested to see a number of
>misapprehensions, errors, etc in the particular archive in which my
>description of the dragon game appeared. I don't have time (or the
>inclination) to enumerate and refute them all, but some typical examples
>follow:
>
DUGAN
>> Steiner doctrines which are taught as science include: that "the four
>> elements" are significant in chemistry;
>
>Indeed they are: Solid (Earth), Liquid (Water), Gas (Air) and Plasma
>(Fire) are recognised states of matter, are they not? This is merely
>one use of the Earth, Air, etc terms.
>
>The use of the word "element" is, I agree, confusing in the context of
>the common usage, but a little open-mindedness will show that the Earth
>Air Water and Fire perspective _includes_ the Solid, Liquid, etc
>perspective as well as other things.
It's more than confusing, it's obfuscating. Waldorf teachers often
emphasize that it's "the four elements" that are important in a chemistry
lesson. What results isn't chemistry at all. For example, I copied the
following paragraph from a student workbook put on display at the San
Francisco Waldorf School in May, 1994. It is one question from an organic
chemistry test.
"1. Describe the nature of sugar in relationship to the four elements of
nature. Use examples from our experiments to illustrate."
"Sugar is always found in liquid form in NATURE. Sugar has a very
strong relationship to fire as we saw in our experiment (the nature of
sugar). We saw how when we placed some sugar into a crucible, it burst
into flame (highly combustible after advancing [to] its middle form a
caramel -like substance). It also has an affinity to air (as we saw from
the smoke that arose) and water because we saw that it was highly soluble .
Not very strong relationship to earth."
"[teacher] Perfect!"
This is mis-education. Waldorf education.
DUGAN
> that the human body is organized
>> into the metabolic-muscular, rhythmic, and nerve-sense systems;
>
TONKIN
>So what is wrong with this? What organs or body functions are excluded
>in this "subdivision" of the body's systems? Let's take the rhythmic
>system -- it includes what "normal" science (I am not using the phrase
>in Popperian or Kuhnian context) the circulatory and respiratory
>systems.
Even if this three-system concept -was- all-inclusive (and it's not, the
circulatory system is missing the function of the heart, and the nervous
system lacks the motor nerves), it still wouldn't be -useful- to anyone
except Anthroposophists. Just because human physiology -can- be divided
different ways doesn't make them all equivalent in value. Steiner's
physiology doesn't illuminate how the body works, it obscures. When Waldorf
teachers teach Steiner's three systems, they are teaching Anthroposophical
doctrine, not science.
DUGAN
>> History,
>> for example, is taught on the framework of the "seven root races" from
>> Madame Blavatsky's Theosophy.
>
TONKIN
>Really? I don't recall *ever* teaching it from this perspective. In
>fact, until I read it here a few minutes ago, I didn't even know that I
>was "meant" to do so.
Surely you are aware that the sequence "ancient India, ancient Persia..."
which is the framework of fifth and sixth-grade history is exactly the
theosophical myth of the evolution of humanity. Again, curriculum is based
on doctrine, not scholarship.
>Various other allegations are made -- I will leave it for the interested
>reader to check whether or not Waldorf teachers _actually_ do, or
>Steiner _actually_ said those things which the likes of Mr Dugan, Ms
>Lainson and other critics claim. I contend that, if these people make
>these claims they should be able to substantiate them -- and I don't
>mean doing so by "proof by assertion" and other associated
>pseudoscientific methods.
My critique is based on my experience as a Waldorf parent, my reading of 40
books by Rudolf Steiner, an equal number by other Anthroposophical authors,
regular reading of a wide range of Waldorf and Anthroposophical
periodicals, and visits to Waldorf schools. I've even sat through a seven
fucking hour Steiner mystery play. I can back up many of my assertions with
documentary evidence.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n073.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 15:23:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In article <199608101006.DAA19839 lists1.best.com>, Dan Dugan
writes
>Stephen Tonkin, in your message of 4 August, after your long rant at
>Suzanne Lainson, you then took up a number of points that refer to my
>postings:
Well, Dan, if you choose to label correction and clarification with the
subjective/emotive term "rant", that is your business ... but I am sure
that we are all sophisticated enough to realise that it is no more than
the pseudoscientist's trick of attempting belittle the "opposition" as
opposed to discussing the issues of the "rant".
As you are aware, the substance of the points raised in my post was
connected with the pseudoscientific arguments which infest your postings
and those of other self-appointed guardians of the purity of American
and Canadian public education. This was stated (in different words) in
the conclusion to my post.
You then ignore anything you cannot counter and restrict yourself to a
few selected bits:
>
>DUGAN
>>> Steiner doctrines which are taught as science include: that "the four
>>> elements" are significant in chemistry;
>>
>>Indeed they are: Solid (Earth), Liquid (Water), Gas (Air) and Plasma
>>(Fire) are recognised states of matter, are they not?
No comment, Dan?
>>
>>The use of the word "element" is, I agree, confusing in the context of
>>the common usage, but a little open-mindedness will show that the Earth
>>Air Water and Fire perspective _includes_ the Solid, Liquid, etc
>>perspective as well as other things.
>
>It's more than confusing, it's obfuscating. Waldorf teachers often
>emphasize that it's "the four elements" that are important in a chemistry
>lesson. What results isn't chemistry at all. For example, I copied the
>following paragraph from a student workbook put on display at the San
>Francisco Waldorf School in May, 1994. It is one question from an organic
>chemistry test.
>
>"1. Describe the nature of sugar in relationship to the four elements of
>nature. Use examples from our experiments to illustrate."
>
> "Sugar is always found in liquid form in NATURE. Sugar has a very
>strong relationship to fire as we saw in our experiment (the nature of
>sugar). We saw how when we placed some sugar into a crucible, it burst
>into flame (highly combustible after advancing [to] its middle form a
>caramel -like substance). It also has an affinity to air (as we saw from
>the smoke that arose) and water because we saw that it was highly soluble .
>Not very strong relationship to earth."
>
>"[teacher] Perfect!"
>
>This is mis-education. Waldorf education.
I am not going to be drawn into a public discussion of the alleged
content of a workbook unless the colleague who is responsible for it is
also able to take part. If you take issue with the contents of a
workbook, do you not think the first person with whom you should discuss
it is the teacher concerned? This would seem to me to be the
professional approach.
However, what I can say to that is the following:
# I would not teach it in that way -- that is not a judgement of the
above example, but an example of the lack of the alleged (in other
posts) "party line" in Waldorf education.
# Whatever your view of the above, do you really believe that the nature
of an entire education system can be determined by selecting specific
examples which support the view you are attempting to propogate? If you
do, then I suggest to you that one could pseudoscientifically "prove"
whatever one likes about any education system.
>
>DUGAN
>> that the human body is organized
>>> into the metabolic-muscular, rhythmic, and nerve-sense systems;
>>
>TONKIN
>>So what is wrong with this? What organs or body functions are excluded
>>in this "subdivision" of the body's systems? Let's take the rhythmic
>>system -- it includes what "normal" science (I am not using the phrase
>>in Popperian or Kuhnian context) the circulatory and respiratory
>>systems.
>
>Even if this three-system concept -was- all-inclusive (and it's not, the
>circulatory system is missing the function of the heart, and the nervous
>system lacks the motor nerves),
I think I must misunderstand you, because the bit above in brackets is
so demonstrably false. Perhaps you would clarify what you actually mean
by that bit.
> it still wouldn't be -useful- to anyone
>except Anthroposophists.
Twaddle, Dan!
I have recently completed a "normal" _First Aid in the Workplace_ course
and one of the things that is taught as part of the routine assessment
of a casualty is an early appraisal of the qualities of pulse and
breathing -- or, in the terms you so detest, an appraisal of the outer
manifestations of the rhythmic system. This comes after an attempt to
get response to auditory and touch stimuli -- nerve-sense system, if you
prefer (no, I suppose you wouldn't). Personally, I found it useful to
have had the benefit of a knowledge of the distinctions/subdivision you
denigrate -- to the extent that, in the final examinations, I achieved a
higher score than any of the other candidates (none of whom had this
perspective) -- but then, I am an Anthropop...
>
>DUGAN
>>> History,
>>> for example, is taught on the framework of the "seven root races" from
>>> Madame Blavatsky's Theosophy.
>>
>TONKIN
>>Really? I don't recall *ever* teaching it from this perspective. In
>>fact, until I read it here a few minutes ago, I didn't even know that I
>>was "meant" to do so.
>
>Surely you are aware that the sequence "ancient India, ancient Persia..."
>which is the framework of fifth and sixth-grade history is exactly the
>theosophical myth of the evolution of humanity.
Is it? -- never having read Blavatsky, I'll take your word for it. What
are the other 5 "root races" I am meant to have taught?
> Again, curriculum is based
>on doctrine, not scholarship.
More Twaddle!
I had a *very* conventional education -- we did some mythology of
ancient Persia and ancient India (as well as Egypt and Greece, which are
also taught in a Waldorf school). What doctrine was I being
indoctrinated with, then?
Could it possibly be that many educators consider these to be an
appropriate part of the comprehensive education of a human being?
If, as you assert, the Waldorf curriculum is based on doctrine, perhaps
you could inform us with whose doctrine was I infecting the pupils when
I taught such things as Surveying; Motor mechanics; Radio; the "Winds of
Change" in Africa; plays by such as Miller, Fry, Shaffer, Sherriff;
novels by Huxley, Golding ...
>I contend that, if these people make
>>these claims they should be able to substantiate them -- and I don't
>>mean doing so by "proof by assertion" and other associated
>>pseudoscientific methods.
>
>My critique is based on my experience
Wasn't it you who, in another context, denigrated experience (and
empiricism) as a valid basis for a scientific conclusion? (My apologies
if it wasn't -- my mail-base was recently corrupted and I cannot,
therefore, check this)
>as a Waldorf parent, my reading of 40
>books by Rudolf Steiner, an equal number by other Anthroposophical authors,
>regular reading of a wide range of Waldorf and Anthroposophical
>periodicals, and visits to Waldorf schools. I've even sat through a seven
>fucking hour Steiner mystery play. I can back up many of my assertions with
>documentary evidence.
Only "many" of your assertions? Perhaps you would then give (or state
public source of) evidence for those assertions which you claim are
supported by documentary evidence. We can then assume that, where this
information is not given, you cannot support your assertion.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n073.7 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 09:58:46 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
># I would not teach it in that way -- that is not a judgement of the
>above example, but an example of the lack of the alleged (in other
>posts) "party line" in Waldorf education.
One of the areas I've been curious about is what parents should do when a
child is being taught a subject that deviates from their viewpoint.
There had been discussions on the Waldorf list about whether or not a
parent could express disagreement with a teacher to the child. Some people
seemed to feel that if a parent didn't pretty much wholly embrace
everything coming from the school, the children would feel conflict and
therefore shouldn't be at the school.
I got the feeling that some parents sometimes felt caught. Their children
had settled in the schools and the parents also felt part of their Waldorf
communities, but didn't feel like they had vehicles to state differing
opinions.
I think the reason why Dan and some others keep harping on content in the
schools and trying to establish what will be taught is that parents might
want to know in advance what their children will be taught. It isn't
sufficient to understand teaching techniques.
Conservative Christians like to look at textbooks in public schools so they
can contest information with which they disagree.
How does a Waldorf parent know what will be taught to their children over
the next eight years? The general answer I have gotten seems to be, "Trust
the teacher, trust the system." But then there are examples of teachers to
go off on their own. What should a parent do? Say nothing, contradict the
teacher at home, initiate action to have the teacher removed?
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n073 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n074 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 22:33:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In article <199608101550.IAA15516 lists1.best.com>, Suzanne Lainson
writes
>
>One of the areas I've been curious about is what parents should do when a
>child is being taught a subject that deviates from their viewpoint.
I'm going to go into a longish pre-amble before I directly answer your
question. This is because I believe that it will help in the
understanding of my direct answer (when it eventually comes).
This is not something that is unique to parents in Waldorf schools -- it
could happen anywhere. In what you call public schools (in the UK
"public schools" are private schools -- historically, they were "public"
in the sense that they were not affiliated to church or guilds) there is
obviously the theoretical possibility of changing the curriculum via the
so-called democratic process.
When you have schools that are based on a particular ethos (Waldorf
schools, Montessori schools, religious schools, etc) (1), I believe
that, ideally, parents would choose that education because it is what
they want for their child. This presupposes that they have sufficient
prior knowledge to make that decision -- my personal belief is that, in
the majority of cases, they don't have sufficient prior knowledge and
end up in a position of having to take some things on trust.
We could argue the toss for hours about whose responsibility it is to
ensure that the parents are able to be adequately informed -- my
position is that it is down to the parent to ascertain if the education
is one that they would choose -- it is incumbent upon teachers to answer
any questions the parent may have, but the parent must be prepared to
consult publicly available sources. To this end, a number of schools
run parents' libraries, where parents can have access to literature on
the education and the philosophy behind it without having to purchase
the books. Many schools also operate study groups where interested
parents can study and discuss this literature (2).
If, having decided that they want Waldorf education for their child, I
believe that the parent is "buying in" to the education as a whole. I
do not believe that it is practical (even if it were desirable; and I do
not believe that it is) to make piecemeal "adaptations" to the
curriculum based solely on the desires of parents. I suggest that, if
this were to happen, Waldorf education would lose the qualities which
characterise it and IMO make it unique. (3)
So, my answer to your question (others may have different answers) is
this:
# Discuss the issue with the teacher concerned and try to ascertain
*why* the subject is being taught in that way.
# If that does not satisfy you, decide if you think the particular
instance is worth making an issue of.
# If you decide that it is, seek a further conversation with members of
the faculty/college and ascetain whether the thing with which you take
issue is considered to be an essential characteristic of the education.
# If you still cannot reconcile yourself to it you have four immediately
obvious choices:
Grin and bear it.
Continue trying to come to terms with it.
Remove your child from the school.
Try to have the teacher removed (not if your difference is with
the philospophy of the school)
Whatever, the choice is yours.
1. Yes, I know some participants on this list mistakenly classify
Waldorf schools as religious schools.
2. I am also aware that some on this list would consider this literature
to be "propaganda".
3. The implication of this is that changing of the curriculum through
what some would consider to be "parent democracy" is not an option in
Waldorf schools. The curriculum does change, but it is within the
context of what underlies the curriculum. An example of this is that,
when "revolutions" are "done" in history, it has been "traditional" in
Britain to "do" the French revolution. I have also done the American
revolution (I suppose that is "traditional" your side of the pond?), the
Nicaraguan revolution, the chimurenga in Zimbabwe (I am a Zimbabwean) --
I may well do Mandela and South Africa in the near future. I am
changing the vehicle, but I am not changing the underlying theme of a
struggle for identity.
>
>There had been discussions on the Waldorf list about whether or not a
>parent could express disagreement with a teacher to the child.
Tricky one, this. My answer is: it depends. (not very helpful)
What it depends upon is the age of the child, the nature of the
disagreement and the frequency of such expression.
I still think that the first person with whom you should express it is
the teacher. If it is indeed a factual error (2 + 2 = 7; spelling
'targeting' as 'targetting'; etc), the teacher should correct it.
(As an aside, I have this sort of problem with parents who "correct"
their children's homework -- I'll say no more for fear of saying
something libellous!)
If it is a question of belief (the school follows the Christian
festivals whereas you wish to follow pagan ones), you have to make a
personal decision as to how important the disagreement is.
There will be all manner of differences of opinion of which the above
may not even be the extremes of the two ends of the range.
Ultimately, what you say to your child is your decision -- I assume you
would want to make such a decision in as full an awareness of the
possible consequences as possible. (That can be read as a threat -- it
is not intended that way)
>Some people
>seemed to feel that if a parent didn't pretty much wholly embrace
>everything coming from the school, the children would feel conflict and
>therefore shouldn't be at the school.
There is that opinion.
My opinion is that, if school is saying one thing and the parent is
saying another, the child is caught in the middle. The child *will*
experience the conflict and may feel torn between the two adult
opinions. I do not believe that this is something to which a young
child should be subjected -- it is perhaps different for, eg, a 16yr
old. If this continues, the child may have to choose one side or
another -- they will end up losing faith in either the parent or the
teacher (I have known both to happen).
I assume you would agree that it is not desirable for the child to lose
faith in the parent.
If the child loses faith in the teacher, I maintain that the position,
if it continues, is untenable. I do not believe that a child can well
learn from a teacher he does not respect.
The consequence is that one must leave -- if the teacher is demonstrably
incompetent and is repeating the 2 + 2 = 7 type of error, then the
teacher must leave. If the parent has an unresolvable conflict with
underlying Waldorf philosophy then my opinion is that the family should
leave.
I am also aware that some people feel that, as a consequence of the
shortage of trained Waldorf teachers, there may be a reluctance to
dismiss an incompetent teacher (it is not a reluctance I feel) on the
grounds that an incompetent teacher is better than none at all (not an
opinion I share). I don't think that it is a great revelation to
discover that incompetents sometimes find their way into Waldorf
schools, just as they do in all other schools -- most staff-rooms have
their legendary horror-stories.
>
>I got the feeling that some parents sometimes felt caught. Their children
>had settled in the schools and the parents also felt part of their Waldorf
>communities, but didn't feel like they had vehicles to state differing
>opinions.
This is a real problem. Some schools (IMO the one at which I work
included) do not have clear procedures for conflict resolution.
Another problem is the (seemingly) constant refrain from some people: "I
want a forum where I can be heard" -- I rarely hear "I want a forum
where I can listen" -- this is, IMO, a characteristic of our 'freedom
without responsibility' society -- you can imagine the eventual fate of
a forum where everyone wants to be heard and no-one wants to listen.
However, I still question why a parent would choose Waldorf education if
they didn't want it for their child. It still seems to me to be a
remarkably stupid thing to do.
>
>I think the reason why Dan and some others keep harping on content in the
>schools and trying to establish what will be taught is that parents might
>want to know in advance what their children will be taught. It isn't
>sufficient to understand teaching techniques.
I suggest to you that there is absolutely no way you will know in detail
what _any_ education will teach for the next 8 years, unless that
education is stagnant. As an example, I know that the children in my
class, knowing that astronomy is my hobby, will want to know about the
announced discovery of fossils in meteorites assumed to have come from
Mars -- should I be precluded from discussing it with them, of using it
as a stimulus for other work, because the parents were not told in class
1 that I would do so?
Yes, this is an extreme example, but real life is full of such things.
The best you can hope for is that you will, when you come to the school,
have the opportunity to discover/be told the general outline of the
curriculum.
I use parents evenings (one per term) to inform the parents in more
detail what I intend to teach. I am also regularly available (at least
once a week in term time) for consultation with parents.
>
>Conservative Christians like to look at textbooks in public schools so they
>can contest information with which they disagree.
Parents can see the textbooks we use if they so wish. However, since we
do not rely on textbooks to the same extent as public schools this will
be less helpful.
For this reason, at our school prospective parents come to an "open
morning" where they visit classes, see work, have a talk on the
education, have an opportunity to ask questions, meet other parents...
They then have the further opportunity to ask questions at the
interview. The idea is that they do not put their children into an
education of which they have no knowledge. I have been in the position
of being berated by parents and colleagues for arguing against a parent
putting her children in the school when she had absolutely no clue of
what the education was about -- in fact she had a complete
misunderstanding which was ingrained. I felt it was dishonest to offer
a place to a family who expected something other than what we offer.
>
>How does a Waldorf parent know what will be taught to their children over
>the next eight years? The general answer I have gotten seems to be, "Trust
>the teacher, trust the system."
That answer is inadequate, but it is all you will get in any system that
is not fossilised. I challenge _any_ school to say what a child will be
taught 8 years hence -- I certainly would not send any child of mine to
one that could do this. Education _must_ adapt to changing
circumstances. I agree that this must not be used as an excuse for
license or sloppy teaching.
However, owing to the situation in which my class and I find ourselves
(last year they were the younger half of a double class and have "done"
much of the class 8 curriculum already) I can't even tell you in detail
what I will teach next term!
I have sufficient material and ideas (I have about 3x as much as I need,
thank God!) and I have a pretty sound outline, but I know that it is 99%
certain that I will modify it in the light of experience and the
changing needs of the pupils I have in front of me. Beyond certain
general aims (improve and broaden their English style; consolidate and
improve their mathematical ability; massive practical construction
project in the younger children's playground in order to have a 'real-
life' experience of consultation, design, realisation, application of
numerical, artistic, language and practical skills, safety
considerations; etc) much is still open. I believe that teh pupils will
find it to be a fulfilling year -- I have no doubt that they or their
parents will soon tell me if I am in error, which is why I _must_ have
the potential to adapt. -- but the adaptation must be within the
parameters underpinning Waldorf education.
> But then there are examples of teachers to
>go off on their own.
Yes -- this is a problem (I have to confess to having a touch of the
maverick in me) -- sometimes what they do is inspired and is just what
the children need -- sometimes it is a total disaster, exacerbated by a
weak faculty/college which cannot bring the teacher into line. Our
processes of teacher-evaluation are, to put it mildly, in need of
attention.
>What should a parent do? Say nothing, contradict the
>teacher at home, initiate action to have the teacher removed?
I hope you will find my answers to those in the foregoing. If not,
hassle me (this isn't a problem that will go away if we ignore it).
There is one option you don't mention, however. If the problem is one
of disagreement with large parts of the education and you want something
different (but not public school education), there is always the option
of getting together with like-minded people and founding a school based
on the principles you espouse. If there are insufficient people
espousing those principles to make this a viable option, that may
suggest something to you.
I may not get any reply to this for a week or so -- I'm spending next
week on the Solent supporting a junior regatta (nothing to do with the
Waldorf school, just something I think is worthwhile supporting and
which I enjoy) -- so don't think I'm ignoring any response you may make.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n074.2 ---------------
From: William Bean
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 1996 22:20:13 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 09:33 PM 8/10/96 +0000, you wrote:
>In article <199608101550.IAA15516 lists1.best.com>, Suzanne Lainson
> writes
>>
>>One of the areas I've been curious about is what parents should do when a
>>child is being taught a subject that deviates from their viewpoint.
Steve Tonkin replies:
>This is not something that is unique to parents in Waldorf schools -- it
>could happen anywhere.
This should go without saying. In a truly free society, if parents
didn't like the schools available to them, they should be able to form their
own. Ideally you would have a wide distributed network of private schools,
with differing viewpoints.
>When you have schools that are based on a particular ethos (Waldorf
>schools, Montessori schools, religious schools, etc) (1), I believe
>that, ideally, parents would choose that education because it is what
>they want for their child.
This is a fundamental parental responsibility.
This presupposes that they have sufficient
>prior knowledge to make that decision -- my personal belief is that, in
>the majority of cases, they don't have sufficient prior knowledge and
>end up in a position of having to take some things on trust.
My daughter goes to a Waldorf kindergarten. The teachers go out of
their way to inform parents about teaching methods, content, etc. They
maintain a lending library, have parent info. nights, and are extremely
accessible to parents. After awhile, with responsible adults, you simply
cannot shove a tube down their throat and force feed them.
>If, having decided that they want Waldorf education for their child, I
>believe that the parent is "buying in" to the education as a whole.
I don't agree with this, entirely. A school of any type might not
be the "perfect" school as far as parents are concerned, but may instead
represent the "closest" available match. Because a parent sends his child
to public school doesn't mean he buys John Dewey's philosophy in its
entirely, for example. But obviously if pedagogy/content conflict so
seriously with parental views, then the child shouldn't be in the school.
>1. Yes, I know some participants on this list mistakenly classify
>Waldorf schools as religious schools.
>
>2. I am also aware that some on this list would consider this literature
>to be "propaganda".
>
>3. The implication of this is that changing of the curriculum through
>what some would consider to be "parent democracy" is not an option in
>Waldorf schools.
There is nothing wrong with this per se, as long as it becomes
clearly known what is changeable and what is not.
> If the parent has an unresolvable conflict with
>underlying Waldorf philosophy then my opinion is that the family should
>leave.
Again, there's nothing wrong with this per se. There may be some
parents who do not agree with all of Steiner's philosophy, but see nothing
wrong with Waldorf pre-school/kindergarten, but would not put their children
in "grades." This is simply another expression of human freedom, most
particularly parental freedom to determine their childrens' education.
>>Conservative Christians like to look at textbooks in public schools so
they can contest information with which they disagree.
To be entirely fair, it is not just "Conservative Christians" who do
this: i.e. the flaps some years ago over "Huckleberry Finn" and other Mark
Twain literature. The point is, a textbook can sit on the shelf all year
long and the teacher is still going to say what he thinks. If a parent
doesn't trust his childrens' teachers, then there's not a lot of point
having the child in the school. I am not saying he has to AGREE with the
teachers 100%, but there must be a fundamental trust there. If that trust
is broken, parents are going to be angry, and that may be why you get such
vociferous reactions against *many* forms of education (not just Waldorf, as
evidenced by this list.)
>>How does a Waldorf parent know what will be taught to their children over
>>the next eight years? The general answer I have gotten seems to be, "Trust
>>the teacher, trust the system."
But Suzanne, that is true for every educational system, unless you
home school your child - and even then unless you write every lesson
yourself, you are going to find things you do not agree with. The parents
have to identify clearly for themselves what they find valuable, and
research it. Caveat emptor.
Stefanie Bean, St. Louis
Beanw worldnet.att.net
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n074.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Parental choice (was:Waldorf Critics List (long))
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 07:08:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Stefanie Bean writes
>At 09:33 PM 8/10/96 +0000, you wrote:
>>In article <199608101550.IAA15516 lists1.best.com>, Suzanne Lainson
>> writes
>>>
>>>One of the areas I've been curious about is what parents should do when a
>>>child is being taught a subject that deviates from their viewpoint.
>Steve Tonkin replies:
>
>>This is not something that is unique to parents in Waldorf schools -- it
>>could happen anywhere.=20
>
> This should go without saying. In a truly free society, if parents
>didn't like the schools available to them, they should be able to form the=
ir
>own. Ideally you would have a wide distributed network of private schools,
>with differing viewpoints.
I find it instructive that so few people try to do this -- many more try=20
to subvert something that already exists.
>
> My daughter goes to a Waldorf kindergarten. The teachers go out of
>their way to inform parents about teaching methods, content, etc. They
>maintain a lending library, have parent info. nights, and are extremely
>accessible to parents. After awhile, with responsible adults, you simply
>cannot shove a tube down their throat and force feed them.=20
You can't with irrresponsible adults either :-)
Something else I have encountered is the phenomenon that many people=20
hear what they want to hear -- which is not necessarily what was=20
actually said.
> =20
>
>>If, having decided that they want Waldorf education for their child, I
>>believe that the parent is "buying in" to the education as a whole.=20
>
> I don't agree with this, entirely. A school of any type might not
>be the "perfect" school as far as parents are concerned, but may instead
>represent the "closest" available match. =20
OK -- my statement was sloppy -- let me rephrase it:
Having decided they want Waldorf education for their child, I believe=20
that the parent accepts that it is the Anthroposophical perspective of=20
child- and human-development and of the r=F4le of education in society=20
which underpins the education.
(Note that this is distinct from saying that the parent actually=20
acccepts these things as true perspectives, although that obviously=20
helps)
>
>>3. The implication of this is that changing of the curriculum through
>>what some would consider to be "parent democracy" is not an option in
>>Waldorf schools.=20
>
> There is nothing wrong with this per se, as long as it becomes
>clearly known what is changeable and what is not.
I doubt anyone could give an accurate list in advance -- whether or not=20
something is changeable is often something that is decided as a result=20
of discussion.
>
>> If the parent has an unresolvable conflict with
>>underlying Waldorf philosophy then my opinion is that the family should
>>leave.
>
> Again, there's nothing wrong with this per se. There may be some
>parents who do not agree with all of Steiner's philosophy, but see nothing
>wrong with Waldorf pre-school/kindergarten, but would not put their childr=
en
>in "grades."=20
This would imply that the conflict is "resolvable" (or at least "livable=20
with" for the KG years?
> If a parent
>doesn't trust his childrens' teachers, then there's not a lot of point
>having the child in the school. I am not saying he has to AGREE with the
>teachers 100%, but there must be a fundamental trust there. If that trust
>is broken, parents are going to be angry,
That is a very important point -- it is also important to try to=20
understand how the child will experience the broken trust between=20
teacher and parent. =20
In all of these things, the bottom line has to be the educational well-
being of the child.
>
--=20
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
=20
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n074.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 13:35:53 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
DAN DUGAN
> > In his teaching guide for a traditional Waldorf lesson block, Wilkinson
>says,
> >
> > "The Man and Animal period in the Rudolf Steiner school, which is given at
> > about the age of ten, is one of the most difficult from the teacher's point
> > of view. In the first place, the teacher must subscribe to, or be in
> > sympathy with, the ideas on evolution propounded by Dr. Steiner.
> > (Otherwise, of course, he should not be in the school). More than that, he
> > must also understand them and this understanding is not something that can
> > be acquired the night before the lessons are given, nor is it something
> > that can be superficially communicated."
> >
> > [Wilkinson, Roy. Man and Animal: Guides to Teaching in Rudolf Steiner
> > Education. Forest Row, Sussex, England: Robinswood Press, 1990, p. 2.]
LEE STORY
>The "of course" is certainly troubling. Steiner's seems to have been
>an intelligent admirer of Darwin and his now-orthodox theory of
>physical/biological evolution (though of course he included much that
>is "spiritual" and speculative under the "evolution" rubric) , but
>that does not excuse Wilkinson's emphasis on dogmatic conformity.
>Every time I see one of that man's teacher's guides, or a quote
>therefrom, I get riled about his authoritarian bent. Someone here said
>once that he's a very pleasant old man, but it's hard to accept his
>intellectual attitudes. --lee
DAN DUGAN
Steiner an "intelligent admirer of Darwin?" Intelligence I'll grant him,
but I recall his saying that Darwin had got evolution wrong. I can find the
following in my quotes database:
"Goethe also established a theory of evolution that demonstrates how human
beings, simply by grasping spiritual laws, can progress from the state of
greatest imperfection to one of greatest perfection. People found this too
difficult to understand. When Darwin published his theory of evolution in
[a form that was easier to understand], it was readily accepted. Darwin, a
materialistic thinker who was inspired by the British folk soul has
conquered Goethe, a man whose perceptions resulted from a most intimate
dialogue with the German folk soul."
[Steiner, Rudolf. Christ in Relation to Lucifer and Ahriman. (1915)
Trans. Peter Mollenhauer, Ph.D. Spring Valley, NY: Anthroposophic Press,
1978. p. 30]
"Since people today on the whole can no longer think properly, they
misunderstand what exists on earth as plant, animal, and man. Thus
materialistic Darwinism arose, which believed that the animals were there
first and that man simply developed out of the animals. It is true that in
his external form man is related to the animals, but he existed earlier,
and the animals really developed later after the world had gone through a
transformation. And so we can say that the animals we see now present a
later stage of an earlier condition when they were indeed more closely
related to man. But we must never allow ourselves to imagine that out of
the present animals a human being could arise. That is a thoroughly false
idea."
[Steiner, Rudolf. The Evolution of the Earth and Man and the
Influence of the Stars. (1924) Trans. Gladys Hahn. Hudson, NY:
Anthroposophic Press, 1987 p. 15]
"So with regard to the animal the child comes to feel that all animals are
related to man, but that man has something that reaches out beyond them
all, for he unites all the animals in himself. And all this idle talk of
the scientists about man descending from an animal will be laughed at by
people who have been educated in this way. For they will know that man
unites within himself the whole animal kingdom, he is a synthesis of all
the single members of it."
[Steiner, Rudolf. The Kingdom of Childhood; Seven Lectures. (1924)
Trans. Helen Fox. Hudson, New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1988. p. 64]
Wilkinson summarizes Steiner:
"Contrary to the Darwinistic ideas of man being the final product of animal
evolution, Dr. Steiner considers animals to be the by-products of human
development. Man has been involved from the beginning but not in a physical
form. Man existed spiritually and the animal forms represent physically
incarnated soul forces which the human being had to dispense with in order
to mature sufficiently to receive the ego."
[Wilkinson, op. cit. p. 2]
The Wadorf teacher must choose between Steiner and science. Considering the
minimal scientific background of most candidates, and the nature of Waldorf
teacher training, I would expect the majority to choose Steiner.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n074 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n075 --------------
001 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Re: Parental choice (was:Waldorf Critics List (long))
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Admin: July archive avaliable
003 - William Bean
Subject: Re: Parental choice (was:Waldorf Critics List (long))
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 18:04:54 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 11:01 PM 8/11/96 +0000, you wrote:
>
>The responses from Stephen and Stefanie have been helpful.
>
>What tended to put me off in some of the Waldorf discussions was the view
>that perhaps parents weren't experts on their children and therefore
>weren't as equipped as Waldorf teachers to make decisions about what is
>best.
I will admit that the tone of some published books do give that
impression. It's hard to say where it stems from. Obviously in Europe in
the early 20th century (when many in Steiners' circle were forming their
ideas) parents with any money at all did not raise their own children; the
task was left to tutors, nannies, etc. Steiner himself was a private tutor;
I believe one who "lived in" (correct me if I am wrong.)
Now we cannot generally afford tutors or nannies, and the focus has
changed. These days, the prevailing mythos is that parents are so
"overburdened" with dual careers etc. that they need a bevy of "experts" to
help them raise their children. People involved w/ Waldorf ed. breathe the
same air, and imbibe the same "cultural baggage" as anyone else
Stefanie Bean
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n075.4 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 14:01:30 -0400
First of all, thanks to Dan Dugan for correcting me on Steiner's
opinion of Darwin (at least late in RS's life). My previous comment
was based on a couple of incidental references in _PofF_. I read most
of _Kingdom of Childhood_ recently, and am surprised that I didn't
pick up on the quote which includes: "man unites within himself the
whole animal kingdom". (I have not read any of the late occultist
books or lecture series.)
Perhaps it's worth noting that Goethe seems to have believed in an
infinite span of aspiration ("Das Ewig-weibliche/Zieht uns hinan") but
not in a fixed goal; also that the great T.H.Huxley ("Darwin's
bulldog") lectured on Goethe and was very fond of his ideas.
Darwin (as educated people today should know!) advanced an
evolution with no moral direction, rather one directed wholly toward
reproduction and thus survival. It's evidently possible to test
reality for agreement or disagreement with such a theory, even though
the hypothesis is very broad. This is less clear in the case of
"spiritual evolution" and such, which may help to explain Steiner's
sudden blast against empiricism at the end of the "Auras" chapter of
_Theosophy_. (I've quoted that extensively before. Look it up.)
Now to the main theme of this note:
Suzanne Lainson writes:
> Some people seemed to feel that if a parent didn't pretty much
> wholly embrace everything coming from the school, the children
> would feel conflict and therefore shouldn't be at the school.
One interesting and, to me at least, a bit shocking characteristic of
my personal interactions with people involved in Waldorf (to say
nothing of the various exchanges on mailing lists) is this strong
aversion to "conflict", and the apparent fear that the children will
be unable to deal with that which some psychologists have called
"cognitive dissonance," and which I'd call the wonderful opportunity
to make a choice (however tentative) between ethical and/or
organizational positions: i.e., one of the fundamental learning
experiences.
I want my children (now ages 12 and 10) exposed to just about
everything (...I'll except modern warfare from that...) so that they
can reject much, accept a little, invent a bit on their own, and piece
together their own views of the world. Without strong differences of
opinion and belief between people they respect (parents, teachers,
friends), this process doesn't seem possible.
Apparently anthropops do not deny that this sort of experience is
useful, but only claim that it should not be rushed. But what they
call a rush, many of us would consider a modest, still-insufficient
level of early education. There seems to me an implicit disdain for
the child's intellect in the implication that he is to be treated as
an unreasoning observer (bundle of nerve fibers?) until he reaches a
Steiner-prescribed age threshold.
Could someone comment on this from the Anthroposophical perspective?
"I want a forum where I can listen." [Stephen Tonkin]
Suzanne also writes:
> What tended to put me off in some of the Waldorf discussions was
> the view that perhaps parents weren't experts on their children and
> therefore weren't as equipped as Waldorf teachers to make decisions
> about what is best.
And Stephen comments (but not in direct response to the above):
> I use parents evenings (one per term) to inform the parents in more
> detail what I intend to teach. I am also regularly available (at least
> once a week in term time) for consultation with parents.
Stephen, could you venture to suggest why is it that parents, and
other potentially knowledgeable members of the surrounding community,
are not used more in the actual Waldorf schooling process? Here in
Massachusetts it's increasingly common for parents to be invited to
help as reading tutors, special science teachers (if they happen to
have that expertise), etc. And that's in an environment where such
opportunities are severely limited by unions and other disgraceful
baggage of "professionalism". None of these limitations should apply
to Waldorf schools, yet I've heard of only one case where volunteer
instructors were used for anything beyond fund-raisers and repair of
the physical plant (and that was for an optional, extracurricular
science- enrichment program). Could this be because of the potential
for (dogma- or fundamental) conflict discussed here?
(Is this the same reason that the Church does not invite historians
and paleontologists to speak from the pulpit, but rather trains its
own priests?)
Suzanne:
> >There had been discussions on the Waldorf list about whether or not a
> >parent could express disagreement with a teacher to the child.
> >
Stephen:
> Tricky one, this. My answer is: it depends. (not very helpful)
>
> What it depends upon is the age of the child, the nature of the
> disagreement and the frequency of such expression.
>
> I still think that the first person with whom you should express it is
> the teacher. If it is indeed a factual error (2 + 2 = 7; spelling
> 'targeting' as 'targetting'; etc), the teacher should correct it.
>
> (As an aside, I have this sort of problem with parents who "correct"
> their children's homework -- I'll say no more for fear of saying
> something libellous!)
There is absolutely no reason why a teacher cannot be corrected, just
as there is no reason why a _student_ cannot be corrected, without
losing "respect" for the person's intellect. There is similarly no
reason why one who disagrees strongly with Rudolf Steiner must lose
respect for him. Isn't there a distinction between real respect for
differing opinions and emotional/political "face" that is getting lost
here. In any case, I certainly agree with Stephen's advice to
"[d]iscuss the issue with the teacher concerned and try to ascertain
*why* the subject is being taught in that way."
Reversing the roles here, I'd say that the teacher should feel free
to make use of parents' dubious homework-"corrections" to reinforce
the child's command of a subject. That bears on the parent's command
of facts, or the parent's current opinions; it does not discredit the
parent as a thinking person. Sometimes someone "important" will get
offended; sometimes (not always) politesse must give way to strength!
Finally (from Stephen):
> If, having decided that they want Waldorf education for their
> child, I believe that the parent is "buying in" to the education as
> a whole. I do not believe that it is practical (even if it were
> desirable; and I do not believe that it is) to make piecemeal
> "adaptations" to the curriculum based solely on the desires of
> parents. I suggest that, if this were to happen, Waldorf education
> would lose the qualities which characterise it and IMO make it
> unique.
It's hard to express coherently (that is, in anything save expletives
and interjections) the extent to which I disagree with you. Teachers,
parents, children, and others _are_ the community being served by the
school. That's almost a tautology. It is a very positive thing when
these people cooperate, contest, and negotiate to modify _any_ school
to its very foundations in the pursuit of what they view as better
education. Consistency is not a necessary virtue in this process.
Almost all these adaptations (and I think the word is just fine
without being enclosed in quotes) are piecemeal. This process of
change _is_ much of education. A teacher needs must be buffeted
unpleasantly at times by conflicting opinion; he must have the
integrity to listen to as many of these opinions as he can, and
evaluate them, and the strength sometimes to continue to teach what he
considers important (_especially_ when it's not "in line" with the
institutional position _or_ the parents' wishes). If Waldorf opposes
this process, preferring to stick with the unchallenged "wisdom" (here
I do feel the quotes are necessary) of Dr.Steiner, then Waldorf is to
that extent anti-education. (And I think it is. As I noted
previously, there are also ways in which American public schooling is
strongly anti-education.)
Whew...sometimes I don't realize the depth of my disagreement with
preestablished, authoritarian answers until I try to put it "on
paper." Sorry to lecture. Thanks to all for your patience, --lee
[By the way, I do understand that in Britain a public school is a
private school, but what are the state-supported schools commonly
called?]
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n075.5 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Parental choice, school diversity
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 14:18:32 -0400
Stefanie Bean writes
> > This should go without saying. In a truly free society, if
> >parents didn't like the schools available to them, they should be
> >able to form their own. Ideally you would have a wide distributed
> >network of private schools, with differing viewpoints.
We all seem to agree on this, but I find it odd that Stephen Tonkin replies:
> I find it instructive that so few people try to do this -- many
> more try to subvert something that already exists.
Stephen, I'd like to know why you use the rather perjorative word
"subvert", and what it is that you find "instructive" here. It seems
to me that many sensible people will choose an existing institution
not only because its typical positions (worldview) correspond well
with their own, but because it is flexible, _adaptable_. Few people
try to start new educational institutions (beyond home-schooling)
because it's hugely expensive and takes enormous amounts of time that
they's rather spend on something else. That seems obvious.
Stephen:
> That is a very important point -- it is also important to try to
> understand how the child will experience the broken trust between
> teacher and parent.
My experience (especially with adolescents and pre-teens) indicates
that the student is likely to consider unyielding dogmatism in parent
or teacher the moral equivalent of the mark on the pavement produced
by a horse's arse. That is, if they both have to always be "right",
they're both "wrong." And the student is the one who's right! --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n075.6 ---------------
From: peal halcyon.com (Maven Peal Instruments Inc.)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n074
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 13:59:08 +0300
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
unsubsribe
########################
Maven Peal, Expert Sound
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n075.7 ---------------
From: JoAnn Schwartz
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 17:25:57 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Mon, 12 Aug 1996, Lee Story USG wrote
> One interesting and, to me at least, a bit shocking characteristic of
> my personal interactions with people involved in Waldorf (to say
> nothing of the various exchanges on mailing lists) is this strong
> aversion to "conflict", and the apparent fear that the children will
> be unable to deal with that which some psychologists have called
> "cognitive dissonance," and which I'd call the wonderful opportunity
> to make a choice (however tentative) between ethical and/or
> organizational positions: i.e., one of the fundamental learning
> experiences.
> I want my children (now ages 12 and 10) exposed to just about
> everything (...I'll except modern warfare from that...)
[snip]
Can't comment as an Anthropop, but I do agree (in general) that parents
and teachers (and other class parents!) need to present a "united front"
on many/most issues, particularly when young children are involved. With
my ten-year-old, I _might_ be willing to discuss where and why her teacher
and I disagree on some issue. (Depends on the issue, and the level/type of
disagreement) With her four-year-old sister, I would not be willing to
discuss any disagreement under any circumstances. She doesn't need to
know. In any event, I would do my best to work it out with the teacher
before discussing the matter with my child. In discussion with my child,
I would do my level best to present the teacher's position fairly (without
perjoratives) and my reasons for disagreeing. This is largely theoretical,
as we have not had major disagreement with our daughter's class teacher as
yet (she is entering 4th grade in the fall). Position on the four-year-old
is _not_ theoretical, as we did have a conflict with our older daughter's
kindergarten teacher and did not discuss it with our daughter. We settled
it through discussions with the teacher and others in the college of
teachers.
If I had a disagreement with my high school child's teacher (again,
theoretically speaking), I would see little reason to not discuss it,
perhaps even while the conflict was in process. As you say, older children
need to be able to see adults handling conflict in a reasonable manner.
Later, Lee wrote:
> Finally (from Stephen):
>
> > If, having decided that they want Waldorf education for their
> > child, I believe that the parent is "buying in" to the education as
> > a whole. I do not believe that it is practical (even if it were
> > desirable; and I do not believe that it is) to make piecemeal
> > "adaptations" to the curriculum based solely on the desires of
> > parents. I suggest that, if this were to happen, Waldorf education
> > would lose the qualities which characterise it and IMO make it
> > unique.
>
> It's hard to express coherently (that is, in anything save expletives
> and interjections) the extent to which I disagree with you. Teachers,
> parents, children, and others _are_ the community being served by the
> school. That's almost a tautology. It is a very positive thing when
> these people cooperate, contest, and negotiate to modify _any_ school
> to its very foundations in the pursuit of what they view as better
> education. Consistency is not a necessary virtue in this process.
> Almost all these adaptations (and I think the word is just fine
> without being enclosed in quotes) are piecemeal. This process of
> change _is_ much of education. A teacher needs must be buffeted
> unpleasantly at times by conflicting opinion; he must have the
> integrity to listen to as many of these opinions as he can, and
> evaluate them, and the strength sometimes to continue to teach what he
> considers important (_especially_ when it's not "in line" with the
> institutional position _or_ the parents' wishes). If Waldorf opposes
> this process, preferring to stick with the unchallenged "wisdom" (here
> I do feel the quotes are necessary) of Dr.Steiner, then Waldorf is to
> that extent anti-education. (And I think it is. As I noted
> previously, there are also ways in which American public schooling is
> strongly anti-education.)
I think this is a bit unfair, Lee. It all rather depends on what sort of
adaptation you are considering, doesn't it. To use one of Stephen's
examples from a previous post, if the curriculm calls for the students to
study the history of revolution, it may not matter (from the standpoint of
the curriculum) if the revolution studied is the American, French or South
African. (It may matter to you as a parent, but if a case could be made by
the teacher for studying the recent events in South Africa, I assume you
would be open to it). Similarly, if we are going to study the renaissance,
does it matter greatly whether we follow the effects of the Italian
renaissance in English or Dutch history? (You might want English because
you are a fan of Shakespeare, and I might prefer Dutch because I am a fan
of Vermeer. The teacher might prefer Dutch because his students are very
visually oriented, or English because her students are very verbal -- or
because they are very visually oriented and she wants to give them a
challenge!)
On the other hand, if you believe in pushing intellectual activity down as
far as possible and want your Waldorf school to start teaching reading and
writing in nursery school, not only are you going to have a much harder
sell, but I believe it is fair to say that if you succeeded, you would not
have a Waldorf school. Something like this has happened at the
Waldorf-inspired school in the Detroit Public Schools. Here I have to
agree with Stephen, if your "adaptations" go against the underlying
world-view of Steiner education, why are you sending your children to a
Steiner school?
On a lighter note:
> [By the way, I do understand that in Britain a public school is a
> private school, but what are the state-supported schools commonly
> called?]
As Stephen has indicated he will be on vacation this week, I'll add that
I believe what we call "public schools" in America are known as
state-schools [state-run-schools] over the water.
Warmly,
JoAnn M. Schwartz, Detroit Waldorf School parent
, Detroit MI USA
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n075 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n076 --------------
001 - William Bean
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 03:07:03 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Lee Story:... yet I've heard of only one case where volunteer
>instructors were used for anything beyond fund-raisers and repair of
>the physical plant (and that was for an optional, extracurricular
>science- enrichment program).
I don't know about schools with "grades," but the kindergarten here
extensively uses parents as aides (usually in exchange for tuition
reduction.) There were usually two parents in the KG, which also made it a
very nice high adult/child ratio.
>(Is this the same reason that the Church does not invite historians
>and paleontologists to speak from the pulpit, but rather trains its
>own priests?)
If you are referring to the Catholic Church, the Vatican has long
had "academies" where scientists, historians etc. meet to discuss various
scientific questions (evolution, which the Church does NOT oppose across the
board; the "big bang" theory; bioengineering & ethics, etc.) Historians and
paleontologists are not necessarily experts in Catholic theology, although
of course they may be (i.e. Teilhard deChardin.)
Stefanie Bean
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n076.2 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 10:42:29 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> The Wadorf teacher must choose between Steiner and science. Considering the
> minimal scientific background of most candidates, and the nature of Waldorf
> teacher training, I would expect the majority to choose Steiner.
>
> -Dan Dugan
>
The Waldorf teacher must choose between Steiner and _Darwin_. Your
equation: Darwin = Science is a bit to easy. Darwin's theory of
evolution is just that: A theory. A very likewise theory, but still a
theory!
In other fields, e.g. anthroposophic medicine, you are so strict
about what is science and what is not. I think here you tend to be a
bit more sloopy, just as it suits you...
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n076.3 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 12:15:34 -0400
>
> >
Dan Dugan:
> > The Waldorf teacher must choose between Steiner and
> > science. Considering the minimal scientific background of most
> > candidates, and the nature of Waldorf teacher training, I would
> > expect the majority to choose Steiner.
Peter Schwab:
> The Waldorf teacher must choose between Steiner and _Darwin_. Your
> equation: Darwin = Science is a bit too easy. Darwin's theory of
> evolution is just that: A theory. A very likewise theory, but still a
> theory!
Excellent observation, Peter, and I agree. Also, it appears to me
that a Waldorf teacher is likely to know at least as much about
natural science as an American public-school teacher in grades K-8
(which too often is very little).
But I would add that [1] Steiner seems fairly well in agreement
with Darwin in accepting a non-teleological, survival-selected
physical evolution; it seems to be when the mental/spiritual are
discussed that they radically diverge. (Charles ended up about as
much of an atheist as grandpa Erasmus!)
Also [2], the teacher should be _free_ to choose Steiner or Darwin,
and might recognize that within the hypothesize/test regimen of
natural science, "natural selection" can offer a possible explanation
for things (both body parts and behavior) for which Steiner can only
hand-wave and claim revealed knowledge. On the other hand, Steiner's
philosophy of free will, whether ultimately correct or not, is likely
to be of greater value in developing a reasoned moral sense than is
Darwin's morally-neutral theory.
I do hope that the Waldorf teachers are not pressured to accept
Steiner's unverifiable hypotheses about spiritual evolution (as in the
quotes that Dan provided: that the human spirit extends backward in
time to the beginning of the physical evolution of animals, that it
encompasses the spirit of all animals, and so on and so on...all of
which seems to me mere human self-aggrandisement!), any more than they
should be required to be partisans of Darwin's theory.
Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n076.4 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 13:51:20 -0400
JoAnn Schwartz writes:
> Can't comment as an Anthropop, but I do agree (in general) that parents
> and teachers (and other class parents!) need to present a "united front"
> on many/most issues, particularly when young children are involved.
[....]
> To use one of Stephen's examples from a previous post, if the
> curriculm calls for the students to study the history of
> revolution, it may not matter (from the standpoint of the
> curriculum) if the revolution studied is the American, French or
> South African.
Of course it's simply a matter of preference (and of the teacher's
expertise, and of the child's interest) which revolution is examined
_first_. I might protest if the "historical" example was the revolt
of the Atlanteans against...someone or other.
"Revolution" is not such a clearly definable concept that one can
use the French as a paradigm. (That's what Burke and the reactionary
British autocrats did, pointing out along the way all its problems,
and minimizing both its uniqueness and its successes.) The solution
here would seem to be to encourage the children to read, read, read,
until they at least begin to see the unique features of _each_ of
these revolutions.
By the fourth grade a child should be able to use our civilization's
tools...at present primarily books!...to gather simple information.
By the seventh or eighth grade (and for some, much sooner) most should
be able to read serious, detailed books requiring a large vocabulary.
That's soon enough to treat "revolution," lest by over-selection and
the instructor's bias the treatment become mere indoctrination.
Likewise for English, Italian and Dutch renaissance: they're _all_
very important. Capsule history is inconsistent with the very nature
of history.
> On the other hand, if you believe in pushing intellectual activity
> down as far as possible and want your Waldorf school to start
> teaching reading and writing in nursery school, not only are you
> going to have a much harder sell, but I believe it is fair to say
> that if you succeeded, you would not have a Waldorf
> school. Something like this has happened at the Waldorf-inspired
> school in the Detroit Public Schools. Here I have to agree with
> Stephen, if your "adaptations" go against the underlying world-view
> of Steiner education, why are you sending your children to a
> Steiner school?
But JoAnn, this is the very core my disagreement with Stephen. A
world-view that doesn't transmute is dead. (And besides, whether or
not one teaches early reading/writing can hardly be fundamental to
anything that one reasonably calls a "world-view").
It should be possible to call a school a "Steiner school" in tribute
and thanks to the man who started an educational process on its way,
without feeling beholden to retain the premises and approaches which
he suggested. There's a "Horace Mann School" in Boston; Dr.Mann would
presumably not embrace the modern curriculum as his own, and that's
very much to the good! Yes, I do think that _everything_ about the
process of stimulating the intellect and passing on culture that we
call "education" should be modified and adapted and tinkered with, as
we learn what little we can about psychology, and thus about learning
itself, in the never-ending search for improvement. Behind that is my
strong feeling that, though some people are harder working and have
better ideas than others, and though some people are more ethical than
others, there is not an unbridgeable intellectual chasm between a
Goethe and a typical _intelligent_ man, as there is not a huge moral
chasm between those persons often thought to be saints or
gods-on-earth (Gautama, Socrates, Moses, Jesus, etc.) and a typical
_moral_ man. I feel at least marginally qualified to adapt and modify
the teachings of any of these, and I hope that others do also. That
certainly includes the teachings of R.Steiner.
Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n076.5 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 22:38:23 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
And if you want to study the protoype of all revolutions: read
"Animal Farm"
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n076.6 ---------------
From: JoAnn Schwartz
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 17:49:23 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Lee Story USG wrote:
>
> [SNIP] The solution
> here would seem to be to encourage the children to read, read, read,
> until they at least begin to see the unique features of _each_ of
> these revolutions.
> By the fourth grade a child should be able to use our civilization's
> tools...at present primarily books!...to gather simple information.
> By the seventh or eighth grade (and for some, much sooner) most should
> be able to read serious, detailed books requiring a large vocabulary.
> That's soon enough to treat "revolution," lest by over-selection and
> the instructor's bias the treatment become mere indoctrination.
> Likewise for English, Italian and Dutch renaissance: they're _all_
> very important. Capsule history is inconsistent with the very nature
> of history.
Read Read Read -- couldn't agree more! And all the children going into my
daughter's fourth grade class _can_ read (although some enjoy it more than
others).
> [JoAnn wrote:]
> > On the other hand, if you believe in pushing intellectual activity
> > down as far as possible and want your Waldorf school to start
> > teaching reading and writing in nursery school, not only are you
> > going to have a much harder sell, but I believe it is fair to say
> > that if you succeeded, you would not have a Waldorf
> > school. [Snip] Here I have to agree with
> > Stephen, if your "adaptations" go against the underlying world-view
> > of Steiner education, why are you sending your children to a
> > Steiner school?
>
> But JoAnn, this is the very core my disagreement with Stephen. A
> world-view that doesn't transmute is dead. (And besides, whether or
> not one teaches early reading/writing can hardly be fundamental to
> anything that one reasonably calls a "world-view").
> It should be possible to call a school a "Steiner school" in tribute
> and thanks to the man who started an educational process on its way,
> without feeling beholden to retain the premises and approaches which
> he suggested. [snip] Yes, I do think that _everything_ about the
> process of stimulating the intellect and passing on culture that we
> call "education" should be modified and adapted and tinkered with, as
> we learn what little we can about psychology, and thus about learning
> itself, in the never-ending search for improvement.
Perhaps world-view is too strong. Would you accept "theory of how the
intellectual/mental/moral development of a human being proceeds"? Because
Steiner's ideas on how children develop into free, fully-functioning human
beings _is_ at the heart of Waldorf/Steiner education. And Steiner's
ideas on how children (and thus human beings) develop
are not so far out of step with many modern findings in psychology and
neurobiology (see David Eklund's _Miseducation_ or Jane Healy's
_Endangered Minds_ -- only two of the many *mainstream* works that agree
that early _intellectual_ work may be damaging to children's brains...)
> Behind that is my
> strong feeling that, though some people are harder working and have
> better ideas than others, and though some people are more ethical than
> others, there is not an unbridgeable intellectual chasm between a
> Goethe and a typical _intelligent_ man, as there is not a huge moral
> chasm between those persons often thought to be saints or
> gods-on-earth (Gautama, Socrates, Moses, Jesus, etc.) and a typical
> _moral_ man.
I would only add that for "man" I would substitute "_adult_ human being".
I might possibly agree to "_adolescent_ human being", depending on the
maturity of the adolescent. I have serious reservations about the typical
_pre-adolescent_ human, no matter how intellectually precocious they might
be.
> I feel at least marginally qualified to adapt and modify
> the teachings of any of these, and I hope that others do also. That
> certainly includes the teachings of R.Steiner.
Adapt away! But when you adapt your school to include early
intellectually-focused education and name it after the good doctor, don't
be surprised if my kids don't show up there. (This is, I understand, one of
the reasons the Waldorf movement trademarked the name -- because the
Montessori folks did not and now anyone can call their school a Montessori
school whether they follow the educational ideas of Maria Montessori or not.)
Warmly,
JoAnn Schwartz, Detroit Waldorf School parent
Detroit MI USA
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n076 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n077 --------------
001 - Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 12:30:49 -0400
I wrote:
> > Behind that is my strong feeling that, though some people are
> > harder working and have better ideas than others, and though some
> > people are more ethical than others, there is not an unbridgeable
> > intellectual chasm between a Goethe and a typical _intelligent_
> > man, as there is not a huge moral chasm between those persons
> > often thought to be saints or gods-on-earth (Gautama, Socrates,
> > Moses, Jesus, etc.) and a typical _moral_ man.
and JoAnn Schwartz responded:
> I would only add that for "man" I would substitute "_adult_ human being".
> I might possibly agree to "_adolescent_ human being", depending on the
> maturity of the adolescent. I have serious reservations about the typical
> _pre-adolescent_ human, no matter how intellectually precocious they might
> be.
Woops, I wasn't at all clear. Sorry. I meant to comment on the
relative value of Steiner's (and Goethe's) ideas and opinions versus
those of an adult who might want to make selective use of Steiner's
educational ideas, and to emphasize that we shouldn't be intimidated
by the "big names" from trying alternatives.
> Adapt away! But when you adapt your school to include early
> intellectually-focused education and name it after the good doctor, don't
> be surprised if my kids don't show up there.
Sure, that's fair. But now that we're down to the practical bones of
the subject, what is it about the application of the brain to the more
"abstract" parts of our culture at age 4 (or, in the case of Steiner's
theories, at age 13 as well) that might "damage" its capabilities? I
must confess this whole thing seems rather far-fetched to me. Sure,
over-aggressive promotion of just about _any_ subject by a parent or
teacher can turn a child against it temporarily; that's part of
growing up, but I don't think it's what's being discussed... Can you
provide any information on what Eklund, Healy or yourself claim to be
the problems? With statistical surveys and/or case studies if possible?
Also, I've ordered the Healy book from amazon.com, but they list
nothing by Eklund; since they pretty much work from the online "books
in print" (including, for example, what appears to be just about the
complete A.Press Steiner list), I suspect his book may be out of
print. Do you have a source?
> (This is, I understand, one of the reasons the Waldorf movement
> trademarked the name --
Loud "no comment," except that this reminds me most of the
Scientologists suing about disclosure of their pitiful "trade
secrets." (I'd probably get angry, and that wouldn't improve the
discussion. Anyway, I guess they'd better pull the signboards down
from all those Dewey and Mann schools, to say nothing of the Phillips
academies and Harvard College, so as not to be accused of false
labelling....) Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n077.2 ---------------
From: lefty apple.com (Lefty)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 11:09:09 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lee Story writes
>
> > Adapt away! But when you adapt your school to include early
> > intellectually-focused education and name it after the good doctor, don't
> > be surprised if my kids don't show up there.
>
>Sure, that's fair. But now that we're down to the practical bones of
>the subject, what is it about the application of the brain to the more
>"abstract" parts of our culture at age 4 (or, in the case of Steiner's
>theories, at age 13 as well) that might "damage" its capabilities? I
>must confess this whole thing seems rather far-fetched to me. Sure,
>over-aggressive promotion of just about _any_ subject by a parent or
>teacher can turn a child against it temporarily; that's part of
>growing up, but I don't think it's what's being discussed... Can you
>provide any information on what Eklund, Healy or yourself claim to be
>the problems? With statistical surveys and/or case studies if possible?
Come on, Lee, I provided _numerous_ citations from Healy, Winn and others
on several occasions. This is far from the first time _Endangered Minds_
has come up in the discussion.
>Also, I've ordered the Healy book from amazon.com, but they list
>nothing by Eklund; since they pretty much work from the online "books
>in print" (including, for example, what appears to be just about the
>complete A.Press Steiner list), I suspect his book may be out of
>print. Do you have a source?
That's because the name of the author in question in David Elkind.
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa]
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n077.3 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Elkind, Healy, early academics, TV, computers
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 15:44:18 -0400
> That's because the name of the author in question in David Elkind.
Thanks, Lefty. I knew the name was vaguely familiar. I'll place
another order...
> Come on, Lee, I provided _numerous_ citations from Healy, Winn and others
> on several occasions. This is far from the first time _Endangered Minds_
> has come up in the discussion.
I was going to reply briefly to Lefty, but the comments and quotes
he's provided over the last year or more are interesting enough to
repeat again for the whole list, and I have some comments on them.
There's more there than I'd remembered. They deserve more study, but
looking them over quickly I have one point of agreement:
[1] Recently I was given a television set after three years without,
and couldn't resist hooking up the cable service to see how TV
programming had fared while I was spending my time reading, arguing,
learning the fiddle, boating, climbing, eating ice cream... Well, my
conclusion is that the quality seems to have deteriorated (still
further) in that short time: NBC's Olympic coverage was mostly a
series of op-ed pieces, nationalistic and jingoistic and horrid;
"public" TV continues its sell-out to the ratings game (a matter of
operating funds, I suppose); the Canadian Bravo net, which seemed the
only bright spot in '91-'92, must have come under new management, and
is barely better than PBS. All in all there's next to nothing there
that's worth a child's (or an adult's) time. The cable box is going
back to TCI Cablevision, and the TV set to the community "take it or
leave it" bin.
So I don't think children should be encouraged to watch television.
But I suspect that the problem is in our society, and especially in
our economic system, and not specifically in the medium. Yes it's a
wholly non-interactive medium, and I'm not much surprised by results
suggesting that it isn't worth much for language learning (since
experienced foreign-language teachers have insisted on "immersion" and
active use for many years).
But [1a] based on the brief quotation below, I think Healy's dead wrong
about "computers" (at least at point-in-time CE1996), and confuses the
presence of an "electronic medi[um]" with its content, and assumes
that the CRT display signifies just another television-like thing
(sort of like seeing a sailboat and thinking "just another vicious
pirate"). I would agree that "educational software" is quite
uniformly misguided and lousy, but the computer as a tool for written
composition, also (with data network, esp. the WWW) as an
encyclopaedic resource, promises to revolutionize education: maybe
even separate it almost completely from "schooling." (This is, I
admit, based on another debatable premise: that a child given free run
of a major university library system , and a modest amount of
tutoring, will not need schooling.)
[2] I remain very skeptical on precisely the point which is at issue:
the undesirability and/or ineffectiveness of very early intellectual
exercise. Two comments and one quote in this list's archive seemed to
bear directly on it, so I'll put that first, and the TV-related stuff,
just about all from Lefty Schlesinger, at the end of this note:
===========Concerning early academics:=============
[Lefty]
By the way, Jane Healy cites research which seems to be at odds with your
view that early emphasis on academics isn't a problem.
--------
Here's a representative quote:
"Before brain regions are myelinated, they do not operate efficiently.
For this reason, trying to "make" children master academic skills for
which they do not have the requisite maturation may result in mixed-up
patterns of learning. As we have seen, the essence of functional
plasticity is that any kind of learning -- reading, math,
spelling, handwriting, etc. -- may be accomplished by any of several
systems. Naturally, we want children to plug each piece of learning into
the best system for that particular job. If the right one isn't yet
available or working smoothly, however, forcing may create a functional
organization in which less adaptive, "lower" systems are trained to do
the work."
Somne representative citations:
Kaas, J. H., M. Merzenich, and H. Killackey. "The reorganization of
somatosensory cortex following peripheral nerve damage in adult and
developing mammals." _Annual Review of Neuroscience_ 6, 1983, pp.
325-356.
Epstein, H. "Growth spurts during brain development: Implications for
educational policy and practice." In J. Chall and H. Mirsky, eds.,
_Education and the Brain_. Seventy-fifth Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education (Part 11). Chicago: NSSE, 1978.
-------
[Lefty]
Newborns' brain are largely unmyelinated; myelination occurs over the
course of several years, with the process finishing at around age 12. A
six-year-old's brain would be partially, but not completely myelinated.
There are many other changes which occur in the brain during this time
period. Newborns have many more neurons than adults, but few dendritic
connections. Dendritic connections are established over the next decade or
so, and, again around age 12, unconnected neurons die off en masse.
Myelin essentially acts as insulation on neurons and dendrites, inhibiting
nerve signals from passing randomly from one neuron to another.
=============================
[my comments on this material:]
Indeed it seems that there may be reason not to "'make' children
master academic skills for which they do not have the requisite
maturation." (I don't even think academics should be _forced_ on
adults.) And it seems very possible that small children's brains
do not associate intellectual/cultural material as well as those
of 12-year-olds. This I can accept as probably (on average) even
though the various prodigious feats would seem to bely it.
But it's a long way from those claims to:
"[....] we want children to plug each piece of learning into
the best system for that particular job. If the right one isn't yet
available or working smoothly, however, forcing may create a functional
organization in which less adaptive, "lower" systems are trained to do
the work."
There appears to be no justification for declaring certain parts of
the brain "right", except that it is commonly used "for [a] particular
job." "Forcing" is vague. "Functional organization" is ill-defined.
"Less adaptive" may well be unproven. "Lower" is a mere perjorative.
This strikes me, as Mr.Tonkin and Mr.Schwab might say, as pseudoscience.
And the connection between myelin and intellect is not made clearly.
And even if there _is_ a connection, the time periods (0 to 12, not 7,
14,21) don't seem to coincide with Dr.Steiner's child-development
ideas, which rather seem numerological, not observational.
So given the counterexamples (Mozart, Mendelssohn, Menuhin, Milstein,
in an area of endeavour with which I'm fairly familiar...hey, maybe
you have to have a surname beginning with "M"...:), I see no reason so
far to accept those claims. --lee
===========and now the TV-related and other comments:=============
[...] language acquisition seems to come solely from face-to-face oral
interaction (as documented by Sanders and in studies cited by Jane Healy)
------
Television has a dismal record as an educational medium. Even the results
of such a highly-touted program as _Sesame Street_ are quite doubtful, as
Jane Healy has detailed. Numerous studies (such as those cited in
_Endangered Minds_ and in _The Plug-In Drug_) have demonstrated the
medium's detrimental effect on language skills in general, reading skills
in particular, imagination and creativity.
-------
Computers are indeed compelling, but mostly to adults, particularly to
those in search of yet another easy fix solution to problems with
traditional education which are structural and inherent to the system.
The effects of premature pushing of academics as well as the use of
electronic media is fairly well documented by Jane Healy in
_Endangered Minds_.
-------
Television, in particular, has been clearly linked to lower levels of
literacy and shown to have an adverse effect on academic performance. One
example, from Jane Healy's _Endangered Minds_ (p. 198):
--------
Since much of interactive multimedia uses techniques derived from
television, a criticism Healy levels at _Sesame Street_ is, I think,
applies as well to those imaginative computer simulations:
--------
"While young children watch television, their attention tends to wander
unless it is continually pulled back. Researchers who cite studies
"proving" that children "pay attention" to TV are usually referring to this
type of _involuntary attention_, which is quite different from the sort of
_voluntary attention_ needed to do well in school in general and reading in
particular...The average look at the screen is actually less than five
seconds in duration...Reading demands sustained voluntary attention from a
mind that can hold a train of thought long enough to reflect on it, not one
accustomed to having its attention jerked around every few seconds."
"Real education" doesn't appear, in the face of the available evidence, to
be proceeding from the television screen or the computer monitor.
I look forward to reading her book over vacation.
----end----
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n077.4 ---------------
From: JoAnn Schwartz
Subject: Re: Elkind, Healy, early academics, TV, computers
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 17:27:08 -0400 (EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Dear Lee--
Another book you might enjoy reading on this subject is "A is for Ox" by
Barry Sanders (you can get it at Amazon.com or (possibly) at your local
library :)
I will have more to say when I have more time....
Warmly,
JoAnn Schwartz, Detroit Waldorf School parent
Detroit, MI USA
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n077.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: The Hurried Child
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 01:36:29 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Lee Story, you wrote,
>Also, I've ordered the Healy book from amazon.com, but they list
>nothing by Eklund; since they pretty much work from the online "books
>in print" (including, for example, what appears to be just about the
>complete A.Press Steiner list), I suspect his book may be out of
>print. Do you have a source?
Spelled wrong; it's David Elkind. I'm sure he has several in print, he's a
darling of Waldorfians because he gives corroboration from "outside."
I have "The Hurried Child." Elkind quotes a study that said "adolescents
who were introduced to reading late were more enthusiastic, spontaneous
readers than were those who were introduced to reading early."
[his reference: J. Underwood, "A Game Plan for America," *Sports
Illustrated*, February 23, 1981.]
[Elkind, David. *The Hurried Child: Growing Up Too Fast Too Soon*.
Revised Edition. Addison-Wesley 1989 p. 34]
Can anyone follow this up? Was that real research, and are there other
tests of the same hypothesis?
Other passages noted:
"Pee Wee Herman is the hurried child's revenge."
[Ibid, p. 89]
"Being polite to children is very important and may do as much for
parent-child relations as many of the more elaborate parent-child
strategies that are currently being proposed."
[Ibid. p. 191]
[M. Aurelius] "Every moment think steadily as a Roman and a man to do what
thou hast in hand with perfect and simple dignity, and feeling of
affection, and freedom and justice and to give thyself relief from all
other thoughts. And thou wilt give thyself relief if thou doest every act
of thy life as if it were thy last, laying aside all carelessness and
passionate aversion from the commands of reason, and all hypocrisy and self
love, and discontent with the protion which has been given to thee."
[Ibid. p. 201]
His book is attractive, but 99.8% unsubstantiated opinion. The Sports
Illustrated article is the only reference to evidence that I noted. I'm
unimpressed.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n077.6 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: minor corrections to: Elkind, Healy, early academics, TV, computers
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 10:53:12 -0400
I must be the world's worst proofreader, somehow turning
"This I can accept as probable (on average) even though various
prodigious feats would seem to bely it."
into
"This I can accept as probably (on average) even though the various
prodigious feats would seem to bely it."
also "it is commonly used" should have been "they are commonly used",
etc. etc. I blush. --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n077.7 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 11:15:47 -0400
"Peter Schwab" writes:
> And if you want to study the protoype of all revolutions: read
> "Animal Farm"
Well, Peter...that was written by one of those reactionary Brits I
mentioned, and it certainly does not predate all revolutions, thus can
hardly be taken as a prototype for them. It's merely one witty man's
rather rabid opinion in the form of a novel. Taking the book as a
description of the probable outcome of all radical change (which seems
to be what you imply) is too deeply pessimistic for me, though that
seems to be what Orwell intended, and may be the essence of political
and social conservatism. But the book appears a pretty good fictional
example of the common development of partisan politics, whether of the
Left or the Right, into oligarchy and dictatorship! Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n077.8 ---------------
From: hoffmanl neb.com
Subject: Re: Elkind, Healy, early academics, TV, computers
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 11:31:45 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hello!
Lee Story wrote:
>But [1a] based on the brief quotation below, I think Healy's dead wrong
>about "computers" (at least at point-in-time CE1996), and confuses the
>presence of an "electronic medi[um]" with its content, and assumes
>that the CRT display signifies just another television-like thing
>(sort of like seeing a sailboat and thinking "just another vicious
>pirate").
Actually if you read the whole book, she was not as negative about
computers as she was about television. In _Endangered Minds_, along with
citing drawbacks to computer use, she made some positive comments about
them and cited some positive studies on the results of using them. She did
feel that they should not replace experiential learning, especially for
young children, and she further felt that they could not replace a caring,
committed teacher in guiding a child's learning. I don't think either of
these ideas is revolutionary. She also made some interesting comments on
the historic effect of available technology on people's thinking, and,
reasonably enough, said the jury was still out on the eventual effect of
the extensive use of computers. It is an interesting book.
Linda Hoffman
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n077 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n078 --------------
001 - Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Elkind, Healy, early academics, TV, computers
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 13:58:30 -0400
I wrote:
> >But [1a] based on the brief quotation below, I think Healy's dead wrong
> >about "computers" (at least at point-in-time CE1996), and confuses the
> >presence of an "electronic medi[um]" with its content, and assumes
> >that the CRT display signifies just another television-like thing
> >(sort of like seeing a sailboat and thinking "just another vicious
> >pirate").
hoffmanl neb.com replied (in part):
> Actually if you read the whole book, she was not as negative about
> computers as she was about television.
All I have to go on is the quote that Lefty provided. The book is on
order, but hasn't arrived. Anyway, perhaps over-analyzing it, but
trying not to wax overly McLuhan-esque, I take exception to the claim
that computers are:
"compelling, but mostly to adults, particularly to those in search
of yet another easy fix solution to problems with traditional
education which are structural and inherent to the system."
There's nothing in that which doesn't (or didn't once) apply to the
printed book. (Okay...so Waldorf doesn't push printed books on
four-year-olds...but we're talking about educational resources in
general here, and not concentrating on preschoolers.) It's some
(surely not all) of the problems "inherent to the system" that digital
media may be able to fix!
What I find fascinating about the Internet (esp. the Web) is that in a
mere 2-3 years it's gone from a tool for academics and computer
hobbyists to a general resource that's _very_ often more helpful than
my thousands of books...and it's still growing. Suddenly we have a
vast library that kids _LIKE_ to browse. That's important. That's
wonderful.
Meanwhile, my local primary school has a room full of Macs which are
not externally networked, and which are used sporadically for typing
and for arithmetic drill. The educational establishment was sold a
bill of goods concerning computers and "educational software", and now
doesn't have plans in place for networking. They are, understandably,
paralyzed by fear that some sleazy political pressure group like the
PseudoChristian Coalition will publicize that the kids are permitted
to roam alt.binaries.sex.wierd or somesuch. (Not that there's
anything wrong with a digital extension of playground humor and the
corner magazine store, but I wouldn't bother trying to sell that to
right-wing America!) I'll bet that school administrations are
similarly unwilling to give up any _control_ --- all very much in the
perceived "interest of the children," of course. (When I was a kid in
"rock-ribbed Republican" Northern New England they didn't want us
wandering the public or school libraries freely, for fear we'd get
interested in Voltaire, Sade, Joyce or...heaven forfend...commie
literature...now we have SurfWatch and the W3C ratings [indirect
censorship scheme]...so not much has changed.)
"Easy" fixes? Not at all. The traditional schoolmen are really
suffering over the computer, because their institutions (below the
level of a really good independent secondary school) are not prepared
to adapt.
Waldorf, with its extreme pedagogical conservatism, its resistance to
any major changes that weren't preordained by Dr.Steiner, its large
numbers of religious and conservative parents, and the anti-
technological (anti-Ahriman?) bent of its anthroposophical basis, would
seem to be in an even worse position.
My present guess is that Waldorf fail to adapt, and that it will
remain a niche market which will offer an increasingly archaic
educational experience to a more and more hardened and enclosed
community of Steiner followers.
> She did feel that they should not replace experiential learning,
> especially for young children, and she further felt that they could
> not replace a caring, committed teacher in guiding a child's
> learning.
Absolutely! For one example, replacing the examination of real, messy
plants and animals in a biology lab session with the perusal of
computer-generated images (e.g., frog dissection software...) seems
ridiculous, although I wouldn't deny that this could be useful for a
_review_ of structure. But for young children, teaching from
computer-generated idealizations is a peculiar sort of indoctrination.
Show them the "real world!" Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n078.2 ---------------
From: William Bean
Subject: Re: The Hurried Child
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 20:01:53 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>[Elkind's] book is attractive, but 99.8% unsubstantiated opinion. The Sports
>Illustrated article is the only reference to evidence that I noted. I'm
>unimpressed.
>
>-Dan Dugan
I have read both "Hurried Child" and "Miseducation: Preschoolers at
Risk," and I don't believe Elkind intended either book to meet the standards
of a refereed paper in "Nature." He is a psychiatrist, and his approach is
anecdotal and intuitive. Personally, I think his observations are dead-on
accurate. But as far as I'm concerned, that's fine: a great deal of insight
can be obtained through perceptive observations and analyses. Fortunately
most people, also, don't need a "statistical study" upon which to base every
decision or form every opinion in their lives.
Stefanie Bean
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n078.3 ---------------
From: William Bean
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 20:01:56 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 03:15 PM 8/15/96 +0000, you wrote:
>
>"Peter Schwab" writes:
> > And if you want to study the protoype of all revolutions: read
> > "Animal Farm"
>
>Well, Peter...that was written by one of those reactionary Brits I
>mentioned, and it certainly does not predate all revolutions, thus can
>hardly be taken as a prototype for them.
Not to speak for him, but Peter may have meant "archetype", not
"prototype." Animal Farm describes an archetypal revolutionary scenario -
the elements described therein seem to be common to most communist/fascist
revolutions.
Stefanie Bean
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n078.4 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: The Hurried Child
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 17:07:36 -0400
> I have read both "Hurried Child" and "Miseducation: Preschoolers at
> Risk," and I don't believe Elkind intended either book to meet the standards
> of a refereed paper in "Nature." He is a psychiatrist, and his approach is
> anecdotal and intuitive. Personally, I think his observations are dead-on
> accurate. But as far as I'm concerned, that's fine: a great deal of insight
> can be obtained through perceptive observations and analyses. Fortunately
> most people, also, don't need a "statistical study" upon which to base every
> decision or form every opinion in their lives.
>
> Stefanie Bean
Stefanie, I don't think any of us need statistical studies to make
everyday decisions (unless we're experimental scientists or
professional gamblers :), but if we wish to know whether certain
arguments for an educational methodology are valid, that's amenable to
scientific investigation, and statistical controlled experiments are
the way to go. The original insight, as you say, comes from personal
observations and informal analyses of them; to be worthy of
publication to a wide audience, the recommendations of a professional
psychiatrist demand an additional (statistical testing) step of the
"scientific method."
This is a response to your comment about what we "don't need", and not
intended as any criticism of Elkind in particular. I haven't read his
book yet. --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n078.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: short talk 8/20
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 02:34:24 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Tuesday night I'm going to speak for 20 minutes at the annual meeting of
the local chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The main speaker will be Barry Lynn, ordained minister, head of AU. I look
forward to his presentation; I've seen him be very effective in television
debates. Someone a philosophy warrior can look up to.
Ameicans United for Separation of Church and State
Tuesday August 20, 7:00 PM in San Francisco at Fort Mason, Building C, Room 210.
Program:
Annual Business Meeting (brief)
Dan Dugan
Barry Lynn
I will give a short selection of highlights from my lecture "Why Waldorf
Programs Are Unsuitable for Public Funding." Maybe a dozen favorites from
the 75 overheads in the full program, and some questions.
Y'all come.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n078.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine-Sampson
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 02:34:31 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dan asked Peter Schwab,
>> Would you clarify what D5 signifies? Is that 5X or 1/100,000? (6X is 1 ppm,
>> 24X is about Avogadro's number.)
>>
>> -Dan
>I checked with Weleda in Arlesheim, it a dilution of 5 decimals,
>hence the D designation. This gives us one part of formic acid in
>100'000 parts of water, mixed in 5 increments of 10 each.
>
>This is still enough to make the stuff taste awful. It does definitly
>not taste like pure water.
>
>+peter+
At first glance this seems to be a very high substance concentration (low
"potency") for homeopathy. I glanced through Bott's "Anthroposophical
Medicine" looking for D's, and it appears that in general low dilutions are
used, the range of D3 to D10 being common. There was a rare D20 and a D30,
which would be considered "potent" homeopathically, right?
>From Bott I gather that in AM sustances supposed to have a range of action
over dilution that encompasses polar opposites. In a discussion of
insomnia, Bott says:
"[W]ith regard to phosporous what would be the action of a very high
dilution, such as D25 for example? This question equally concerns the
treatment of insomnia, for if in D5 dilution this substance concentrates
the ego in the lower pole, in high potencies it disperses it and draws it
into cosmic spaces. We can therefore prescribe *Phosphor D25* at night to
help a patient go to sleep."
[Bott, Victor. Anthroposophical Medicine: Spiritual Science and the
Art of Healing. Rochester, VT: Healing Arts Press, 1984, p. 64.]
Does this make sense to you, Peter?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n078.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 02:34:47 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
STEPHEN TONKIN
>>>The use of the word "element" is, I agree, confusing in the context of
>>>the common usage, but a little open-mindedness will show that the Earth
>>>Air Water and Fire perspective _includes_ the Solid, Liquid, etc
>>>perspective as well as other things.
>
DAN DUGAN
>>It's more than confusing, it's obfuscating. Waldorf teachers often
>>emphasize that it's "the four elements" that are important in a chemistry
>>lesson. What results isn't chemistry at all. For example, I copied the
>>following paragraph from a student workbook put on display at the San
>>Francisco Waldorf School in May, 1994. It is one question from an organic
>>chemistry test.
>>
>>"1. Describe the nature of sugar in relationship to the four elements of
>>nature. Use examples from our experiments to illustrate."
>>
>> "Sugar is always found in liquid form in NATURE. Sugar has a very
>>strong relationship to fire as we saw in our experiment (the nature of
>>sugar). We saw how when we placed some sugar into a crucible, it burst
>>into flame (highly combustible after advancing [to] its middle form a
>>caramel -like substance). It also has an affinity to air (as we saw from
>>the smoke that arose) and water because we saw that it was highly soluble .
>>Not very strong relationship to earth."
>>
>>"[teacher] Perfect!"
>>
>>This is mis-education. Waldorf education.
STEPHEN TONKIN
>I am not going to be drawn into a public discussion of the alleged
>content of a workbook unless the colleague who is responsible for it is
>also able to take part. If you take issue with the contents of a
>workbook, do you not think the first person with whom you should discuss
>it is the teacher concerned? This would seem to me to be the
>professional approach.
Twist and squirm, Stephen. I trace a line from Steiner through the teacher
training down to the classroom, and your defense is to say that it's
improper to quote something that was put on public display! Fall down, you
haven't a leg to stand on!
STEPHEN
>However, what I can say to that is the following:
>
># I would not teach it in that way -- that is not a judgement of the
>above example, but an example of the lack of the alleged (in other
>posts) "party line" in Waldorf education.
This is to your credit. Each teacher (and Anthroposophical physician) makes
his or her own mix of Steiner and the real world.
># Whatever your view of the above, do you really believe that the nature
>of an entire education system can be determined by selecting specific
>examples which support the view you are attempting to propogate? If you
>do, then I suggest to you that one could pseudoscientifically "prove"
>whatever one likes about any education system.
I am showing the extreme examples I find, of course, for rhetorical effect.
I am raising consciousness, not conducting scientific research. I do
believe that faith in Steiner's claimed supernatural perceptions, and the
value of his "indications," is common among the people doing Waldorf
education, don't you? From this follows my conclusion that the nuttier
things that Steiner taught occur in the schools at least as commonly as
they do in the literature.
There is an appalling lack of knowledge all around regarding the value of
Waldorf school practices. I'm hungry to see more research done.
DAN
>>Even if this three-system concept -was- all-inclusive (and it's not, the
>>circulatory system is missing the function of the heart, and the nervous
>>system lacks the motor nerves),
STEPHEN
>I think I must misunderstand you, because the bit above in brackets is
>so demonstrably false. Perhaps you would clarify what you actually mean
>by that bit.
You don't follow Steiner's indications about the nature of the heart, then?
Are you aware that he denied the function of motor nerves?
DAN
>>My critique is based on my experience
>
STEPHEN
>Wasn't it you who, in another context, denigrated experience (and
>empiricism) as a valid basis for a scientific conclusion? (My apologies
>if it wasn't -- my mail-base was recently corrupted and I cannot,
>therefore, check this)
Yes it was I. I am not writing a scientific report here, this is a
discussion. Empiricism is much inferior to the hypothetical-deductive
method that has replaced it. 19th-century science vs 20th century science
shows real progress in epistemology, IMHO.
DAN
>> I can back up many of my assertions with
>>documentary evidence.
>
>Only "many" of your assertions? Perhaps you would then give (or state
>public source of) evidence for those assertions which you claim are
>supported by documentary evidence. We can then assume that, where this
>information is not given, you cannot support your assertion.
Same to you, buddy. I'm the one that's always giving quotes with
bibliographic references.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n078.8 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 02:40:06 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Peter, you quoted my quote of Wilkinson,
>> of view. In the first place, the teacher must subscribe to, or be in
>> sympathy with, the ideas on evolution propounded by Dr. Steiner.
>> (Otherwise, of course, he should not be in the school).
and replied,
>
>All anthroposoph I am, the "of course" bit leave some bad taste in my
>mouth... I perceive Anthoposophy rather as the _absence_ of dogma
>which the author of these lines seems to attempt to smuggle into
>Waldorf Education.
To me, Anthroposophy is contradictory about freedom and dogma. One doesn't
have to "smuggle in" dogma. Steiner and the literature are stuffed with
dogma. Of course you're not required to believe anything. But if Steiner
could report "scientifically" on the spiritual world, who's to say nay?
It's a guru trick. As long as people repeat his terminology, the trick
keeps working.
Steiner talked a lot about freedom and democracy. But almost everything he
said was a dogmatic pronouncement. He goes on and on and says over and
over, "this is how it is." He describes his priviledged view of the
universe, like claiming to be able to read the past in the "akashic
record," for the benefit of those who haven't developed organs of spiritual
perception yet.
BTW, he said that "spiritual activity" would be a better English
translation of "freiheit" in the sense he used it.
Repeat after me: you are free. Repeat after me: repeating after me is freedom...
In my view the only way one could view Anthroposophy as being "the
_absence_ of dogma" would be from the inside, where you are, Peter, and
where what appear to be dogmas to me are just facts to you. Let me hasten
to say that implying that you are the victim of a guru trick does not in
any way disparage your intelligence, only your epistemology.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n078.9 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 09:40:55 -0400
Dan Dugan writes:
> You don't follow Steiner's indications about the nature of the heart, then?
> Are you aware that he denied the function of motor nerves?
Dan,
Are you aware that Darwin supported pangenesis (roughly, that each
cell in the body contributes a little bit to the gametes) for most of
his career, and never retracted it? Are you aware that he worked
inheritance of acquired characters into later editions of the _Origin_
in order to combat certain criticisms? Are you aware of Einstein's
little adventure with the "cosmological constant" in his gravitational
equation?
It's very rare that a working scientist or philosopher (or any of
us) retracts a technical misstep unless it's so gross that the
community howls for a retraction. (Einstein would seem to be an
exception.) Thus I don't think one can make useful contributions to the
evaluation of Steiner's ideas with this approach:
[Dan:]
> I am showing the extreme examples I find, of course, for rhetorical
> effect. I am raising consciousness, not conducting scientific
> research.
I'm sure you know that "consciousness raising" is a term used by
special-interest political groups in America, and means something between
"indoctrination" and "applying a political litmus test." Gak!
No, I'm haven't suddenly become a Steiner follower...I just think that
Stephen is probably right when he writes:
[Stephen Tonkin:]
> Whatever your view of the above, do you really believe that the nature
> of an entire education system can be determined by selecting specific
> examples which support the view you are attempting to propogate? If you
> do, then I suggest to you that one could pseudoscientifically "prove"
> whatever one likes about any education system.
Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n078.10 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 11:23:09 -0400
Dan Dugan writes:
> Steiner talked a lot about freedom and democracy. But almost everything he
> said was a dogmatic pronouncement. He goes on and on and says over and
> over, "this is how it is." He describes his priviledged view of the
> universe, like claiming to be able to read the past in the "akashic
> record," for the benefit of those who haven't developed organs of spiritual
> perception yet.
This would seem to deserve exploration. Steiner's central occultist
books, including _Theosophy_ and _How to Know Higher Worlds_,
primarily seem to be tutorials for development of those "organs of
spiritual perception" along the lines of his own flavor of theosophy.
It then seems VERY odd that he would devote thousands of pages to
describing situations (from Persia to Golgotha to Atlantis) and
concepts which would presumably be available to anyone who completed
his course of "spiritual" training and could read the record himself!
But most of this stuff is in lectures given to the (presumably)
initiated, so perhaps it could be considered "comparing notes on the
akashic record"?? After all, he did say that some of his lectures
were unsuitable for beginners, so perhaps we should look at the
beginning of a book to see whether the material correlates with our
own experience before reading on....
The place in life of the conflict-ridden process of political
democracy (which would seem to have an important place in overall
"Freiheit" as long as humans have political organizations) is a whole
other subject which goes beyond Steiner's tendency toward
pronouncements. In nothing I've read has he delved into the tensions
between various methods of conflict resolution and decision making
(consensus, voting, authoritarian edict, ..., suicide :} )
sufficiently to provide practical justification for his threefold
order and such social theory, but maybe someone can offer references.
> Repeat after me: you are free. Repeat after me: repeating after me is freedom...
Cute. Reminds me immediately of the copycat "Steiner art" (all the
geometrical figures and pastel-colored blackboards and extreme
stylization of eurythmy and such...) --lee
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n078 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n079 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
002 - Stephen Tonkin > The Wadorf teacher must choose between Steiner and science. Considering the
>> minimal scientific background of most candidates, and the nature of Waldorf
>> teacher training, I would expect the majority to choose Steiner.
PETER SCHWAB
>The Waldorf teacher must choose between Steiner and _Darwin_. Your
>equation: Darwin = Science is a bit to easy. Darwin's theory of
>evolution is just that: A theory. A very likewise theory, but still a
>theory!
>
>In other fields, e.g. anthroposophic medicine, you are so strict
>about what is science and what is not. I think here you tend to be a
>bit more sloopy, just as it suits you...
Peter, Darwin's theory of evolution, both originally and as it has evolved,
is science. Anthroposophy, both originally and as it has evolved, is not.
The U.S. courts have agreed with me when matters of this nature have been
tested there. I believe in *Malnak vs. Yogi* the contention that
Transcendental Meditation was science and could be taught in public schools
was tested, and found wanting.
The biblical literalist creationists use the "just a theory" argument when
attempting to justify equal time for mythology. An Australian skeptic
called this bluff once in a public debate. He plugged in a power cord and
held the bare ends out to the creationist. "Why won't you take it?
Electricity is just a theory!"
A well-tested theory is a better guide than your own experience!
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n079.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 18:22:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lee Story USG writes:
> "Revolution" is not such a clearly definable concept that one can
>use the French as a paradigm.
In my original post I think I alluded to something like "struggle for
identity" or somesuch -- I believe that that _is_ a common factor.
>
> By the fourth grade a child should be able to use our civilization's
>tools...at present primarily books!...to gather simple information.
>By the seventh or eighth grade (and for some, much sooner) most should
>be able to read serious, detailed books requiring a large vocabulary.
You'd then be pleased to know that I have had class six pupils borrow my
(and public library) copies of Homer and Livy after I had "done"
Odysseus and Rome respectively -- they wanted to read _my_ sources -- I
took that as a compliment, but I was only trying to do what Steiner
suggested -- your interpretation may differ. :-)
>That's soon enough to treat "revolution," lest by over-selection and
>the instructor's bias the treatment become mere indoctrination.
My "bias for treatment" is this: young adolescents correctly question
society/authority/whatever -- this is part of a search for identity. By
looking at _any_ revolution (from slave rebellions in Rome, through the
Reformation, to what's going on today in Grozny) they can have that
search mirrored and can learn from it. I will choose to teach something
on the grounds that I think it will be right for my class and it is
something I either know about or can become very familiar with in time
to do it justice.
> Likewise for English, Italian and Dutch renaissance: they're _all_
>very important. Capsule history is inconsistent with the very nature
>of history.
Of course they are all important -- however, I have one minor problem --
In any one year I have approximately 36 school weeks of approximately 30
hours each -- into this time the kids have to fit Maths, English,
German, Woodwork, Science, Handwork, Games, Religion, Singing, Eurythmy,
Music, Art, Geography, a major play and anything else they are doing.
It is impossible to teach History in anything other than a "symptomatic"
way (I presume this is what is meant by "capsule") unless one is going
to teach nothing else for 8 years (and probably even then).
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n079.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 16:22:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Peter Schwab writes:
>And if you want to study the protoype of all revolutions: read
>"Animal Farm"
Did, January this year with class 8 -- probably do the same next year as
well...
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n079.4 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 17:23:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes:
>
>
>STEPHEN TONKIN
>>I am not going to be drawn into a public discussion of the alleged
>>content of a workbook unless the colleague who is responsible for it is
>>also able to take part. If you take issue with the contents of a
>>workbook, do you not think the first person with whom you should discuss
>>it is the teacher concerned? This would seem to me to be the
>>professional approach.
>
>Twist and squirm, Stephen.
You may squirm, squire -- but it's not my style...
> I trace a line from Steiner through the teacher
>training down to the classroom, and your defense is to say that it's
>improper to quote something that was put on public display!
No, I did not say it was "improper to quote something that was put on
public display". I said I would not be drawn into a discussion into it
in the absence of the teacher concerned. I also suggested that the
teacher concerned should be the first person you asked if you wished to
discuss it.
I find discussions tend to be easier if we comment on what was actually
said rather than what we wish had been said.
>
>>Only "many" of your assertions? Perhaps you would then give (or state
>>public source of) evidence for those assertions which you claim are
>>supported by documentary evidence. We can then assume that, where this
>>information is not given, you cannot support your assertion.
>
>Same to you, buddy. I'm the one that's always giving quotes with
>bibliographic references.
_always_ ?????
Possibly because I tell you what I actually *do* in the classroom --
it's a bit tricky to give quotes and references for that. If I start
making allegations about what others have said/done, be sure I will give
a reference.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n079.5 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 17:59:53 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lee Story USG writes:
>Finally (from Stephen):
>
> > If, having decided that they want Waldorf education for their
> > child, I believe that the parent is "buying in" to the education as
> > a whole. I do not believe that it is practical (even if it were
> > desirable; and I do not believe that it is) to make piecemeal
> > "adaptations" to the curriculum based solely on the desires of
> > parents. I suggest that, if this were to happen, Waldorf education
> > would lose the qualities which characterise it and IMO make it
> > unique.
>
>It's hard to express coherently (that is, in anything save expletives
>and interjections) the extent to which I disagree with you. Teachers,
>parents, children, and others _are_ the community being served by the
>school. That's almost a tautology.
I agree with that...
> It is a very positive thing when
>these people cooperate, contest, and negotiate to modify _any_ school
>to its very foundations in the pursuit of what they view as better
>education. Consistency is not a necessary virtue in this process.
...but not that -- see later.
>Almost all these adaptations (and I think the word is just fine
>without being enclosed in quotes) are piecemeal. This process of
>change _is_ much of education. A teacher needs must be buffeted
>unpleasantly at times by conflicting opinion; he must have the
>integrity to listen to as many of these opinions as he can, and
>evaluate them, and the strength sometimes to continue to teach what he
>considers important (_especially_ when it's not "in line" with the
>institutional position _or_ the parents' wishes).
Yes -- I will only *ever* teach what *I* can stand behind -- but if that
stops being from a standpoint of an Anthroposophical view of human
development, then I am no longer a Waldorf teacher and it would be
downright diishonest for me to continue to call myself one.
Similarly, if a school is no longer based on that ethos, it is no longer
a Waldorf school.
I have no wish to prevent parents choosing whatever education they want
for their children, I have no wish to see education stagnate -- I just
wish they'd get on and do it by founding such a school afresh.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n079.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Parental choice, school diversity
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 17:41:44 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lee Story USG writes:
>We all seem to agree on this, but I find it odd that Stephen Tonkin replies:
>
> > I find it instructive that so few people try to do this -- many
> > more try to subvert something that already exists.
>
>Stephen, I'd like to know why you use the rather perjorative word
>"subvert",
Because that is what I see happening -- if I see something and pretend
to agree with it in order to join it, then try to impose my own agenda
on it, I consider that to be an attempt at subversion.
>and what it is that you find "instructive" here.
That those who want a different kind of school for their children don't
want it enough to put in the hard work to establish such a school --
they would rather subvert an initiative where all the hard groundwork
has been done. My interpretation is that this implies either laziness
or lack of commitment or underhandedness or insensitivity or any
combination thereof. YMMV.
> Few people
>try to start new educational institutions (beyond home-schooling)
>because it's hugely expensive and takes enormous amounts of time that
>they's rather spend on something else. That seems obvious.
I agree -- yet they expect those that found Waldorf schools to do this.
ie they would rather someone else put the time, expense and effort for
them. Funny old world, isn't it, where some people think this sort of
thing is perfectly in order?
>
>Stephen:
> > That is a very important point -- it is also important to try to
> > understand how the child will experience the broken trust between
> > teacher and parent.
>
>My experience (especially with adolescents and pre-teens) indicates
>that the student is likely to consider unyielding dogmatism in parent
>or teacher the moral equivalent of the mark on the pavement produced
>by a horse's arse. That is, if they both have to always be "right",
>they're both "wrong." And the student is the one who's right!
Careful reading of the above (and what I responded to Suzanne) will
indicate to you that I have never suggested thata parent and teacher
should not disagree, neither have I suggested that this disagreement
should never be communicated to the child.
The passage to which you respond alludes to a breakdown of trust, yet
you make no comment directly to that point.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n079.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 17:12:33 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lee Story USG writes:
>Stephen, could you venture to suggest why is it that parents, and
>other potentially knowledgeable members of the surrounding community,
>are not used more in the actual Waldorf schooling process?
My experience must be different to yours -- we have parental help in a
number of lessons -- one problem is finding sufficient parents who are
willing to give up their time to help.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n079.8 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Elkind, Healy, early academics, TV, computers
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 17:50:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lee Story USG writes:
>
>Waldorf, with its extreme pedagogical conservatism, its resistance to
>any major changes that weren't preordained by Dr.Steiner, its large
>numbers of religious and conservative parents, and the anti-
>technological (anti-Ahriman?) bent of its anthroposophical basis, would
>seem to be in an even worse position.
Anti-technology? My perspective suggests that it is pro *appropriate*
technology -- whether or not pre-ordained by RS. It is also about
*economy* in teaching -- one aspect of that is that if you teach
something at the right time (ie when the child is ready for it) it takes
a lot less effort on the part of all.
Of course, we can argue the toss about when a child is ready for
something.
>
>My present guess is that Waldorf fail to adapt, and that it will
>remain a niche market which will offer an increasingly archaic
>educational experience to a more and more hardened and enclosed
>community of Steiner followers.
Time will tell if your guess is correct. However, are you aware that
discussions are in progress among some teachers about appropriate use of
the web in Waldorf upper schools? (and I believe that one or two USs
are already wired -- if I can find out more details, I'll let you know -
- just treat it as hearsay until then)
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n079 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n080 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - WERI Racism article
002 - "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 12:32:51 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> BTW, he said that "spiritual activity" would be a better English
> translation of "freiheit" in the sense he used it.
>
Yes he did:
"Therefore today we need above all a view of the world based on
Freiheit -one can use this word in German, but here in England,
one must put it differently because the world 'freedom' has a
different meeaning - one must say a view of the world based on
spiritual activity, on action, on thinking and feeling that arise from
the individual human spirit."
RS Oxford 1922.
Where is the problem? "Freedom" is _not_ the exact translation of
"Freiheit", which in German always had a strong spiritual relation.
Rudolf Steiner does just what every precise working writer should do:
he advises the public of possible translation errors.
> Repeat after me: you are free. Repeat after me: repeating after me is freedom...
>
Is this a Rudolf Steiner quote or Dan Dugen newspeak?
> In my view the only way one could view Anthroposophy as being "the
> _absence_ of dogma" would be from the inside, where you are, Peter, and
> where what appear to be dogmas to me are just facts to you. Let me hasten
> to say that implying that you are the victim of a guru trick does not in
> any way disparage your intelligence, only your epistemology.
>
I am not inside of anything, Dan. I am not even member of the
Anthroposophic Society here in Switzerland. And with all the noise
they actually produce up there in Dornach this is not likely to
change. And believe me that can make the difference between a fact
and a guru trick. And that I am incurable allergic to the words:
"Aber der Doktor hat gesagt ..."
I believe that a true anthroposophic view excludes dogma. This does
not exclude the existance of docmatic antroposophs. They occupy
in fact a very close position to yours on my personal popularity hitlist.
Best whishes
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n080.3 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Anthroposophical Medicine-Sampson
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 12:32:50 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> At first glance this seems to be a very high substance concentration (low
> "potency") for homeopathy. I glanced through Bott's "Anthroposophical
> Medicine" looking for D's, and it appears that in general low dilutions are
> used, the range of D3 to D10 being common. There was a rare D20 and a D30,
> which would be considered "potent" homeopathically, right?
>
Well, I am a _patient_ of anthroposophic medicine, not a doctor! My
knowledge comed mostly from discussions which my doc, based on the
fact that after years of swallowing blindly everything conventional
medicine had to offer, anything new proposed to me has to pass my
very skeptical inquiry, even if it is anthroposophic medicine.
Most medicaments my family or myself got the last years either ranged
from the D5 to the D10 category. Some were even pure, undiluted
plant extrats, so called "Urtinkturen". Maybe here is a difference
between "traditional" and "anthroposophical" homeopathy.
> >From Bott I gather that in AM sustances supposed to have a range of action
> over dilution that encompasses polar opposites. In a discussion of
> insomnia, Bott says:
>
> "[W]ith regard to phosporous what would be the action of a very high
> dilution, such as D25 for example? This question equally concerns the
> treatment of insomnia, for if in D5 dilution this substance concentrates
> the ego in the lower pole, in high potencies it disperses it and draws it
> into cosmic spaces. We can therefore prescribe *Phosphor D25* at night to
> help a patient go to sleep."
> [Bott, Victor. Anthroposophical Medicine: Spiritual Science and the
> Art of Healing. Rochester, VT: Healing Arts Press, 1984, p. 64.]
>
> Does this make sense to you, Peter?
>
> -Dan Dugan
>
Yes, it does. I have to take Phosoporus D5 against fatigue. And it
helps very good. Any other dilution may change the effect into the
opposite.
Stay well,
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n080.4 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 13:15:31 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> The U.S. courts have agreed with me when matters of this nature have been
> tested there.
Dear Dan,
the day I believe in something just because U.S. courts do so, you
have my permission to send me to the next fool's house.
U.S. cours also tell that capital punishment is not cruel and
inhuman. So far for their ability of impartial and civilised judgement...
>
> The biblical literalist creationists use the "just a theory" argument when
> attempting to justify equal time for mythology. An Australian skeptic
> called this bluff once in a public debate. He plugged in a power cord and
> held the bare ends out to the creationist. "Why won't you take it?
> Electricity is just a theory!"
>
I am certainly no "biblical literalist creationists" but I believe
that Darwin's theory is to much based on hasards and chances. I
firmly believe that someone had to push a trigger as least at the
very beginning of the process of man's creation.
There is a very famous movie about this matter with Specer Tracy and
Gene Kelly (one of his rare non-dancing appearances). Unfortunatly I
do not know the original title. At the end, Spencer Tracy looks at
both books, Darwin's theory and the Bible, then he puts them together
under his arm. I think this is the way to go because there is
certainly truth in _both_. Future will tell us the correct micture,
but for now I don't want to discard either of them.
> A well-tested theory is a better guide than your own experience!
If the test is done by myself, certainly....
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n080.5 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 17:53:46 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Peter Schwab writes:
>I believe
>that Darwin's theory is to much based on hasards and chances
I once heard someone refer to Darwin's theory as the crippled winner of
a race where the other competitors were limbless.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n080.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: NBC critiques Zen Master Rama
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 23:35:13 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Friday night August 16, NBC's "Dateline" program profiled Frederick Lenz,
a.k.a. "Zen Master Rama." Reporter John Hockenberry took him apart piece by
piece. The program showed how today's sophisticated cults attract smart and
successful people. Of course, when devotees were asked about being in a
cult, they laughed and said "what cult?"
Watching Lenz work his devotees, I could better imagine imagine how Rudolf
Steiner, a.k.a. "the spiritual investigator" used to do it. Lenz is better
at it, I think. He learned at the feet of a master, Sri Chinmoy.
If you're interested in cults, this is a must-see.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n080.7 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Goethean Science
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 02:50:40 -0400
Dan Dugan --
Your recent discussion with Tom Mellet on color theory reminded me of your
earlier comments on Goethe, in which you characterized him (Goethe, not Tom)
as an "armchair scientist" and described his criticisms of Newtonian color
theory as "egregious." I was puzzled by that characterization at the time
and since then have been keeping an eye out for information that would help
me come to my own conclusions about the matter.
I recently came across a piece by Oliver Sacks, Professor of Neurology at
Einstein Medical College, titled "Scotoma: Forgetting and Neglect in
Science," published in the book "Hidden Histories of Science," edited by
Robert B. Silvers, published by The New York Review of Books in 1995. The
word "scotoma," explains Sacks, is a neurological term meaning a dark area or
gap in the visual field. In the context of this article, Sacks uses the term
in reference to repeated examples of science (and medicine) failing to
recognize--and in some cases, actively resisting--important new insights for
year or decades after they first appear.
One of his examples is Goethe's color theory. Sacks notes Newton's
conclusion from prism experiments "that white light was composite, and that
the color of its constituent rays was determined by their differing
"refrangibilities." He describes Goethe's view as follows:
"The idea of a purely physical determination of color, however, was anathema
to Goethe when he started his own explorations of it. Reality, for him, was
not to be found in the simplifications and idealizations of physics but in
the complex phenomenal reality of experience. Intensely aware of the
subjective reality of colored shadows and colored afterimages, of the effects
of contiguity and illumination on the appearance of colors, he felt that
these, rather than a Newtonian prism in a dark room or a spectrum on a wall,
must be the basis of proper color theory. Goethe was fascinated above all by
the subjectivity of color, and its unexpected appearances and modifications
and disappearances, which seemed to resist physical explanation. It was
evident to him that colors were constructed by the mind in an exceedingly
complex manner, not at all comparable to a simple physical reproduction."
Sacks notes that "His color theory was seen by his scientific contemporaries
as unscientific and mystical, and this was not helped by the contemptuous way
in which he referred to Newton and others." So, Dan, your counterparts of
200 years ago would agree with your use of the term "egregious." Sacks
recognizes, of course, that Goethe's own theory was not correct:
"He was intensely aware that there was not any simple equivalence of
wavelength and color (as Newton thought), and felt that color was not a
simple sensation but an "inference" or "act of judgment." Feeling this
intuitively, but wholly ignorant of what physiological mechanisms could allow
such an inference, Goethe made a great error: he bypassed physiology, made a
mythical leap to "the mind," and proposed an entire mental or subjective
theory (or pseudo-theory) of color."
Sacks says that it was not until 150 years later (the demonstrations of Edwin
Land, inventor of the Polaroid instant camera) that there began to be serious
exploration of the phenomena that had fascinated Goethe, by which time there
had been enough advances in physiology and psycophysics to permit more
objective accounting for color phenomena. The theme question of Sacks'
article (for this and several other examples) is "Why did it take so long?"
Part of Sack's answer, relative to Goethe is this: "His style and language
were alien to those of contemporary scientific researchers. And there was a
feeling, steadily increasing after 1800, that poets and scientists were set
apart, had their own place, and that Goethe was trespassing in a realm not
his own."
I understand this to mean that most of the contemporaries of Goethe who
characterized themselves as scientists chose to ignore the vast body of
experimentation that he documented so carefully because they didn't like his
style and they didn't like the theory he derived from it, even though the
then-current ideas about the nature of light and color could not explain
those observations. It appears you are still in that frame of mind, even
though now it is hardly relevant in terms of color theory, which has moved
beyond both Newton and Goethe.
I also came across the following recently, in Roger Lewin's book "Complexity:
Life at the Edge of Chaos" (Macmillan, 1992). Lewin is describing an
interview with Brian Goodwin, one of the pioneers in application of
complexity theory to biology:
'"Ours is a science of qualities, not quantities, and is therefore a Goethean
science," said Brian, as we turned from the tangible to the philosophic.
"Goethe is one of my heroes in this respect." Responding to the suggestion
that this may sound a little mystical to some ears, Brian said, "Maybe. But
our approach views nature as intelligible. The creative principle of
emergence is a deep mystery in many ways, its true, and that's a property of
complex dynamical systems. But ultimately it is intelligible. You can't say
that about neo-Darwinism."
Lewin's book contains interviews with other complexity theorists who clearly
eschew this "mystical" dimension, but it was interesting to come across the
phrase "Goethean science" in a non-anthroposophical setting. Perhaps
Goodwin is a closet anthroposophist (or a declared one, for all I know).
Returning to Sacks, he says "Though Goethe showed himself an admirable
empirical scientist (for example, in his discovery of the intermaxillary
bone), he was also given to mystical pseudo-theories, such as his almost
Platonic theory of the archetypal plant (Ur-Pflanze)." The phrase "admirable
empirical scientist" refutes your description of Goethe as an "armchair
scientist," while the statement as a whole confirms (what I understand to be)
your position that Goethe was "given to mystical pseudo-theories."
Finally, Sacks says "The intriguing relation of Goethe's concepts to current
theories of color is finely discussed by Arthur Zajonc in "Catching the
Light: The Entwined History of Light and Mind (Bantam, 1993)." As I'm sure
you know, Arthur is an admitted anthroposophist; in fact, is presently one of
the leaders of the Anthroposophical Society in America.
This all confirms a couple of points for me. First, "Goethean science" is a
legitimate phrase, not an oxymoron, when it is taken to mean "let the
phenomena speak for themselves"--that is, without forcing interpretation of
observations into a predefined conceptual framework. In the aphorism of
tailoring and carpentry, "Measure thrice, cut once." As Goodwin observed,
this aspect of Goethean science is consistent with "the creative principle of
emergence" that is associated with contemporary complexity theory.
Second, when the phenomena are allowed to speak for themselves it may be in a
language that doesn't fit the scientific conventions of the time. I take the
various interpretations of the meaning of quantum mechanical phenomena to be
an example of this, still unresolved and perhaps unresolvable. The result
may have the appearance of mystical pseudo-theory (unless you have the
credentials of a Neils Bohr--but seriously, can there be anything more
mystical than the idea that reality fundamentally consists of probability
waves that collapse upon being observed?), until new knowledge and experience
(and just plain getting used to the ideas) lead to acceptable
reinterpretation. Or it may be bullshit, of course. But until the
distinction can be made it is foolish--an example of scotoma, to use Sacks'
term--to reject the information represented by Goethe-type reports of
experience.
Best regards,
Rigby
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n080 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n081 --------------
001 - "Peter Schwab" - Re: Admin: etiquette
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n081.1 ---------------
From: "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: NBC critiques Zen Master Rama
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 07:40:43 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
>
> Watching Lenz work his devotees, I could better imagine imagine how Rudolf
> Steiner, a.k.a. "the spiritual investigator" used to do it. Lenz is better
> at it, I think. He learned at the feet of a master, Sri Chinmoy.
>
You take a crook of today (Al least you say he one, I dont't know
this guy). And _you_ say he uses the same *technique* as Rudolf
Steiner (How many times did you assist a lecture held by Dr. Steiner,
you lucky old man?).
You conclusion: Because this "zen-master-crook" Lenz uses the same
"technique" as a certain Rudolf Steiner did, Rudolf Steiner was a
crook, too!
This is not only pseudo science, this is pure speculation!
Normally you do better than that, Dan.
Disappointatly yours
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n081.2 ---------------
From: Lefty Redux
Subject: Re: NBC critiques Zen Master Rama
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 23:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Tue, 20 Aug 1996, Peter Schwab wrote:
>
> You conclusion: Because this "zen-master-crook" Lenz uses the same
> "technique" as a certain Rudolf Steiner did, Rudolf Steiner was a
> crook, too!
>
> This is not only pseudo science, this is pure speculation!
>
> Normally you do better than that, Dan.
Actually, this sort of cheap, content-free innuendo is not atypical of
Dan's approach. His speculations about swastikas in Waldorf
classrooms expressed in his _Free Inquiry_ article is a notable
example.
--
Lefty Redux [gYon-Pa] ,
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n081.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: NBC critiques Zen Master Rama
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 08:12:52 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Peter Schwab writes
>
>>
>> Watching Lenz work his devotees, I could better imagine imagine how Rudolf
>> Steiner, a.k.a. "the spiritual investigator" used to do it. Lenz is better
>> at it, I think. He learned at the feet of a master, Sri Chinmoy.
>>
>
>You take a crook of today (Al least you say he one, I dont't know
>this guy). And _you_ say he uses the same *technique* as Rudolf
>Steiner (How many times did you assist a lecture held by Dr. Steiner,
>you lucky old man?).
>
>You conclusion: Because this "zen-master-crook" Lenz uses the same
>"technique" as a certain Rudolf Steiner did, Rudolf Steiner was a
>crook, too!
>
>This is not only pseudo science, this is pure speculation!
>
>Normally you do better than that, Dan.
I beg to differ -- IMHO pseudoscientifiic argument, "proof by innuendo"
and other cheap tricks infest Dan Dugan's writing -- I pointed out
various examples of this a fortnight or so ago -- Dugan's defence (and
that of others, like Sampson) is that this is a discussion group, not a
scientific journal.
Draw your own conclusions.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n081.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Admin: etiquette
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:50:58 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Actually, this sort of cheap, content-free innuendo is not atypical of
>Dan's approach.
Lefty, this ad hominem is out of order. Please confine your comments to the
topic, not the character of the speaker.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n081.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: NBC critiques Zen Master Rama
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:50:49 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
DAN DUGAN
>> Watching Lenz work his devotees, I could better imagine imagine how Rudolf
>> Steiner, a.k.a. "the spiritual investigator" used to do it. Lenz is better
>> at it, I think. He learned at the feet of a master, Sri Chinmoy.
>>
PETER SCHWAB
>You take a crook of today (Al least you say he one, I dont't know
>this guy). And _you_ say he uses the same *technique* as Rudolf
>Steiner (How many times did you assist a lecture held by Dr. Steiner,
>you lucky old man?).
>
>You conclusion: Because this "zen-master-crook" Lenz uses the same
>"technique" as a certain Rudolf Steiner did, Rudolf Steiner was a
>crook, too!
>
>This is not only pseudo science, this is pure speculation!
I think Lenz is harmful to society. If I were king I'd throw him in the
dungeon, but luckily he and you and I live in a free society. Whether he's
a "crook" in a free society I'm not sure. If it were against the law to
preach one's world view to anyone who will listen, and gather a flock, none
of our respected religions would be in business.
Sorry, I'm too young to have experienced Steiner. Does anyone know of any
sound recordings or films of him lecturing? I can only form an impression
of his stage manner from reading scores of his lectures, and his meetings
with the teachers, through many different stenographers and translators.
Lenz projects brilliant intelligence, great knowledge, sincerity, and
warmth. He can hold a large crowd of people in the palm of his hand.
Steiner did likewise.
Perhaps, after Annie Besant took over Theosophy, Steiner realized that he
could do it too, the guru thing, all by himself. I suspect Lenz had the
same revelation as he followed Sri Chinmoy. Lenz and Steiner are/were both
master manipulators, improving on the techniques of their mentors. NBC's
John Hockenberry out-manipulated Lenz, though, because he had the power of
the edit. I think Steiner was too smart to ever face an opponent in an
public forum. Perhaps Lenz let his vanity get the better of his judgement.
An appearance on nationwide television is hard for a megalomaniac to
resist!
Enough with the calling everything I say "pseudo science," Peter. Please
save the term for something it might remotely apply to.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n081.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:51:04 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Dan Dugan:
> > > The Waldorf teacher must choose between Steiner and
> > > science. Considering the minimal scientific background of most
> > > candidates, and the nature of Waldorf teacher training, I would
> > > expect the majority to choose Steiner.
>
>Peter Schwab:
> > The Waldorf teacher must choose between Steiner and _Darwin_. Your
> > equation: Darwin = Science is a bit too easy. Darwin's theory of
> > evolution is just that: A theory. A very likewise theory, but still a
> > theory!
DAN DUGAN
It's not only Darwin, Peter. It's botany, physics, and physiology, too.
Teachers can't teach Steiner's views on these subjects and science, too.
His views are opposed to science.
LEE STORY
>Excellent observation, Peter, and I agree. Also, it appears to me
>that a Waldorf teacher is likely to know at least as much about
>natural science as an American public-school teacher in grades K-8
>(which too often is very little).
DAN DUGAN
The fact that no theory is proof against contrary evidence does not justify
taking well-tested theories lightly, i.e. "just a theory." That logic is
frequently used in the U.S.A. to lead to an argument for equal time for
creationism and evolution in biology teaching. Scientific theories may be
human creations in the same way mythologies are, but they're tested against
the real world. Theories are much more "real" than myth, else why not grab
the electric wire?
I highly recommend Isaac Asimov's essay "The Relativity of Wrong" on this.
LEE STORY
> But I would add that [1] Steiner seems fairly well in agreement
>with Darwin in accepting a non-teleological, survival-selected
>physical evolution; it seems to be when the mental/spiritual are
>discussed that they radically diverge. (Charles ended up about as
>much of an atheist as grandpa Erasmus!)
Lee, I don't think Steiner accepted "survival-selected" evolution, did he?
Steiner agreed with the -sequence- of the fossil record, but not with
either the time-scale or the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. If you're
referring to the story of Darwin's deathbed conversion, I believe it's been
debunked as a pious fiction.
> Also [2], the teacher should be _free_ to choose Steiner or Darwin,
>and might recognize that within the hypothesize/test regimen of
>natural science, "natural selection" can offer a possible explanation
>for things (both body parts and behavior) for which Steiner can only
>hand-wave and claim revealed knowledge. On the other hand, Steiner's
>philosophy of free will, whether ultimately correct or not, is likely
>to be of greater value in developing a reasoned moral sense than is
>Darwin's morally-neutral theory.
There's a special section in Skeptic, Vol. 4 No. 2, of articles about
"Evolutionary Ethics & Secular Morality." The evolution of altruism is a
hot topic today.
> I do hope that the Waldorf teachers are not pressured to accept
>Steiner's unverifiable hypotheses about spiritual evolution (as in the
>quotes that Dan provided: that the human spirit extends backward in
>time to the beginning of the physical evolution of animals, that it
>encompasses the spirit of all animals, and so on and so on...all of
>which seems to me mere human self-aggrandisement!), any more than they
>should be required to be partisans of Darwin's theory.
He's not talking about spirit, Lee, he's talking about bodies. In
Anthroposophy animals have mineral, etheric and astral bodies, but no "I",
no reincarnating individual spirit.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n081.7 ---------------
From: Lefty
Subject: Re: Admin: etiquette
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 12:55:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>>Actually, this sort of cheap, content-free innuendo is not atypical of
>>Dan's approach.
>
>Lefty, this ad hominem is out of order. Please confine your comments to the
>topic, not the character of the speaker.
Read it again: I made no comments as to your character; I only referred to
your style of argumentation.
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa]
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n081 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n082 --------------
001 - "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: NBC critiques Zen Master Rama
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 08:07:23 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-printable
> ... Watching Lenz work his devotees....
> ... Rudolf Steiner, a.k.a. "the spiritual investigator" ....
> ... He learned at the feet of a master ....
> ... I think Lenz is harmful to society....
> ... If I were king I'd throw him in the dungeon
> ... Whether he's "crook" in a free society I'm not sure....
> ... I can only form an impression of his stage manner from
> reading scores of his lectures, and his meetings with the
> teachers, through many different stenographers and translators...
> ... He can hold a large crowd of people in the palm of his hand.
> Steiner did likewise.
> ... Steiner realized that he could do it too, the guru thing, all by
> himself. I suspect Lenz had the same revelation as he followed
> Sri Chinmoy.
> ... Lenz and Steiner are/were both master manipulators,
> improving on the techniques of their mentors.
> ... Steiner was too smart to ever face an opponent in an public forum.
> ... Lenz let his vanity get the better of his judgement....
> ... is hard for a megalomaniac to resist!...
>
Dear Dan, this is just a sample of your vocabulary, extracted from
your last message. I would qualify it as:
- demagogic
- vague
- insulting
- speculative
- hearsay
- manipulatory
Sorry to say so, but if you accuse Steiner of hav=EEng paved the road
for the nazis, you should refrain from using their argumentation
methods and vocabulary.
Attention: I do not say and I do not believe that _you_are_ a nazi
or nazi friend! But you imitate their argumentative methods to closely
for my taste.
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n082.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Admin: etiquette
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 09:54:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>>Actually, this sort of cheap, content-free innuendo is not atypical of
>>Dan's approach.
>
>Lefty, this ad hominem is out of order. Please confine your comments to the
>topic, not the character of the speaker.
Sheesh! (TM)
Don't you think that's a bit rich, considering some of the things you
and your cronies imply about the characters of people and groups of
people?
Just a few examples from just one of your postings this week:
>I think Lenz is harmful to society.
>Lenz and Steiner are/were both master manipulators,
>Perhaps Lenz let his vanity get the better of his judgement.
>An appearance on nationwide television is hard for a megalomaniac to
resist!
Here you imply that Steiner is a manipulator and that Lenz is a harmful,
vain, megalomaniac manipulator. If those are not ad hominem comments, I
don't know what are. Isn't there a word to describe the quality of
berating people for what one does oneself?
(I refer the interested reader to the archives of this list if he wishes
to find further examples)
Anyway, if you read what Lefty _actually_ said, as opposed to what you
wish he'd said, he was criticising your approach, not your character --
it was neither you nor your character that he called cheap or content-
free.
I put it to you that what you _really_ don't like is that your vendetta
against Waldorf Education is being challenged and that many of your
arguments are being shown up as unsustainable.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n082.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 19:15:54 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>Lee, I don't think Steiner accepted "survival-selected" evolution, did he?
>Steiner agreed with the -sequence- of the fossil record, but not with
>either the time-scale or the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution.
*WHICH* timescale? -- it has been "revised" (ie fiddled with when faced
with contrary evidence) a number of times since I have been old enough
to be aware of such things and (speculation only) I imagine the same has
happened before I was old enough...
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n082.4 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Accountability in Schools
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:04:56 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Several people have brought up the limitations of standardized testing and
why they are not comfortable with it.
I'm wondering to what extent Waldorf parents care about accountability.
When my oldest daughter was in kindergarten and first grade, I visited a
local school. It didn't bill itself as a free school, but it more or less
was. There was no set curriculum and teachers used the students' interests
to incorporate learning.
Since I enjoyed reading Summerhill, I support in theory that concept that
children inherently love to learn and will do much on their own.
But I decided not to send my daughter to the free school because I wanted
some assurance that she would learn certain topics and would not fall
behind public school students.
Do Waldorf parents have certain expectations and if so, how are those satisfied?
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n082.5 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: NBC critiques Zen Master Rama
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 21:16:17 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>Enough with the calling everything I say "pseudo science," Peter. Please
>save the term for something it might remotely apply to.
Come on, Dan! Even if your perception is clouded by your emotional
vendetta against Waldorf Education and anything you deem associated with
it, surely you have enough intelligence to see that many of your
arguments _are_ pseudoscientific -- read them as though they came from
someone who opposed your point of view and you will see that you can
shred them, even if they are yours.
Oh, and Peter doesn't call _everything_ you say "pseudoscience" -- he
only picks on some of the pseudoscience.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n082.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Tarra, folks!
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 21:49:31 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Oh well, term starts soon, and I must get down to more work than mailing
lists permit, so I'll probably pull out of here in a few days.
I must say that I have been disappointed with the quality of argument
from the self-appointed guardians of the purity of American education.
For your entertainment, I enclose Dr Coker's list of common
pseudoscientific arguments -- see how many you recognise in the writing
of "the Dans" and others:
========================================================================
30 Flaws of Argumentation... frequently found in pseudoscience books
We have not tried to list here every type of fallacious argument,
logical fallacy, and flaw of argumentation found in pseudoscience (ps)
books, but have simply listed the ones most commonly encountered.
1) Error of fact:
2) Contradiction:
3) Deliberate creation of mystery; exaggeration; distortion; omission:
This includes deliberately leaving out important details, explanations,
results of investigation, later confessions.
4) Irrelevant data:
5) Failure to specify: Something extremely remarkable is stated as a
fact, but no reference or source is given and the statement is not
attributed to anyone, nor is it further discussed.
6) Accepting hearsay as fact, or accepting myths and legends as fact:
This is equivalent to (5), since no references are given by which one
could verify the incident. Hearsay and myth have no acknowledged
authors, and usually cannot be checked out.
7) Wild speculation: The writer begins with hearsay and spins out a
wild web of words, paragraph after paragraph, without a single
substantiated fact in the entire passage. This might be called 'winging
it'.
8) Irrelevant conclusion or non sequitur: Two statements are made in
sequence, as if one followed from the other, or the two were directly
connected; but there is no relation or connection between them, logical
or otherwise.
9) Argumentum ad hominem: This is a special kind of non sequitur in
which it is concluded that a person's ideas need not be considered
because of some personal characteristic which in fact is irrelevant to
the ideas under discussion.
10) Appeal to widespread belief: The author claims as evidence for the
truth of an idea the fact that many people believe in it now, or
allegedly believed in it in the past.
11) Failure to assert: The sentences appear to be saying something,
but close examination reveals that the statements are self-canceling or
self-negating.
12) Failure to follow up: The author presents a claim that he could
easily check out, but he does not do so. The author presents initial
reports about an incident, but not results of later studies and
investigations. The author presents inconclusive results and takes no
steps on his own to improve them or redo them, nor shows any interest in
the work of others who do progress in the same study.
13) Argument by analogy: Another very common feature of ps books is the
creation of an analogy which is then taken perfectly literally and
perfectly exactly. (The analogy is generally incorrect.)
14) Argument from spurious similarity: This is very similar to (13)
above. The author argues that since two things resemble one another, no
matter how superficially, they are related.
15) Undue familiarity: The author seems to have information that there
is no possible way for him to get, on the basis of his own statements.
16) Ignoring all plausible hypotheses: The author uses almost any
incident, no matter how commonplace, to support his 'theory'.
17) Argument or explanation by scenario: The author tells a story that
ties together unrelated assertions, and then takes the story as proof
that the assertions are related!
18) Affirming the consequent: This is probably the most common of all
logical fallacies, and results from confusion between the deductive
logic of mathematics and the inductive logic of science.
19) False cause, or subjective validation:
20) Complex question: Another favorite trick of pseudoscientists is to
ask a question which, to answer, would take several thick textbooks.
The pseudoscientist then finds it significant that experts cannot answer
his question in one glib sentence!
21) Sweeping generalization: Everybody generalizes too much.
Pseudoscientists generalize to an overwhelming extent.
22) Appeal to authority:
23) Appeal to false authority:
24) Appeal to sympathy, the Galileo argument: The author wants you to
know he's suffering for his beliefs... suffering all the way to the bank
where he'll cash his latest royalty check.
25) Innuendo: This is an invitation to the reader to jump to a
conclusion the author does not intend to ever get around to stating
explicitly.
26) Setup a false assumption: This is closely related to 25. A
preposterous statement is attributed to someone, or a preposterous
'fact' is asserted, so that the writer can knock it down.
27) Gibberish:
28) Fallacy of composition: To argue that the pieces of which a thing
is made must have all the properties of the thing itself.
29) Fallacy of Reduction: This, the reverse of 28, is to argue that it
is impossible for an object to possess any properties that its pieces do
not also possess.
30) Appeal to ignorance, obscuratinism; deliberate misrepresentation:
========================================================================
I must confess that I have yet to find examples of 15, 20, 22, 23 and 27
in the contributions of those who wish to denigrate this fine education
-- perhaps others may be able to point out what I've missed and fill
these 5 gaps which spoil an otherwise full set.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n082.7 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Admin: etiquette
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 23:59:21 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The etiquette I'm referring to is among us, the discussants. Steiner is
fair game here: "as viewed from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner."
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n082 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n083 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Re: Goethean Science
002 - Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Admin: etiquette
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 18:17:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>The etiquette I'm referring to is among us, the discussants. Steiner is
>fair game here: "as viewed from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner."
Presumably your "fair game" attitude extends to Lenz and anyone else who
is not in a position to defend themselves against ad hominem attack?
Also, I grant that I may have missed it as I haven't read the entire
archive, but I have yet to see any of those who share your views be
publicly reprimanded when they have made ad hominem attacks on
discussants who do not share your views.
I'm just trying to understand the rules so I can be certain that I don't
transgress...
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n083 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n084 --------------
001 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Admin: server was down
002 - Ida Oberman
Subject: Re: Goethean Science
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 12:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Dan Dugan wrote:
> Thanks, Rigby, for the essay about Goethe (19 August) with the quotes from
> Oliver Sacks. I do want to discuss it when I can.
>
> -Dan Dugan
>
>
>
Coluld you cirulate citation of essay on Goethe (Aug. 19) for those of us
who missed it? Thank you. Ida Oberman
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n084 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n085 --------------
001 - "Peter Schwab"
Subject: Re: Admin: etiquette
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 23:25:06 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
> The etiquette I'm referring to is among us, the discussants. Steiner is
> fair game here: "as viewed from outside the cult of Rudolf Steiner."
>
> -Dan Dugan
>
So are _you_, my dear ....
Someone sitting in a glass house should refrain from casting stones!
+peter+
---------------------------------------
Peter Schwab
pschwab access.ch
rte du Vanel 33, CH-2206 Les Geneveys-sur-Coffrane, Switzerland
Voice: (++41) 038 / 57.16.72
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n085.2 ---------------
From: RigbyL aol.com
Subject: Goethean Science
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 11:44:42 -0400
Dan D -- Take your time to comment on my Goethe essay. I will be on vacation
for the next couple of weeks, paying no attention whatsoever to anything
important.
--Rigby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n085.3 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Tarra, folks!
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 11:06:34 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen, thank you very much for Dr. Coker's list of common
pseudoscientific arguments. It's by far the most comprehensive I've ever
seen. Shall I fill in some examples of quotes from Steiner?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n085.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Flagstaff Waldorf charter
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 1996 11:06:40 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Recent correspondence with Steve Yulish in Flagstaff clarified what
happened there.
People complained about a Waldorf-inspired program in the Flagstaff public
schools, and that program was cancelled in 1994. In 1995 Arizona passed a
charter law which allowed schools to be chartered by school districts, the
state charter board, or the state board of education. The Pine Forest
(Waldorf-inspired) school was chartered by the state board, so the
Flagstaff school district had nothing to do with it.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n085 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n086 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin )
002 - Lee Story USG
Subject: Tarra, folks! (obviously not yet! )
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 10:17:48 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>Stephen, thank you very much for Dr. Coker's list of common
>pseudoscientific arguments. It's by far the most comprehensive I've ever
>seen. Shall I fill in some examples of quotes from Steiner?
Let me save you the trouble, Dan. A quote from Steiner himself (_Occult
Science - an outline_, Pharos Books, 1979, p26): "Needless to say, for
anyone who will admit as science only what is manifest to the senses and
to the intellect that serves them, what is here termed 'Occult Science'
can be no science."
Satisfied?
(I suggest that it is unreasonable to expect him to refer to
'pseudoscience', since the term was only coined a couple of decades
after he wrote the quote above. It is similarly unreasonable to expect
Steiner to have used the criteria for distinction between science and
pseudoscience which were subsequently developed by Popper and his
followers.)
It doesn't require a great intellect to demonstrate, as many have
previously done, that spiritual matters lie outside the remit of a
modern definition of science and, as I am sure someone of your wisdom
knows, it is a trivial matter to find examples of pseudoscientific
argument from almost anyone of significance who pre-dated Popper's
distinction between science and pseudoscience (1934). However, there is
evidence (eg the preface to the 1920 edition of _Occult Science - an
outline_) that Steiner was aware of the objections of those who accepted
a narrowing definition of science.
(As an aside, it is interesting to follow how "science" has narrowed its
definition from what was once broadly a quest for knowledge and truth --
(Latin: scire = to know)-- to the Popperian view)
What is far more instructive is to observe how some _later_ writers, who
claim (or imply) that their approach is scientific; who are (or ought to
be) aware of the distinction between science and pseudoscience; who
accept (or imply that they accept) the validity of scientific method,
_still_ manage to produce arguments infested with pseudoscience. I
mention no names...
Anyway, I thought this list was meant to be a critique of Waldorf
education? Surely your zeal would be better directed to what is
actually happening here and now, rather than the translated writings of
a man who died over 70 years ago? Would you consider it valid if I
criticised the present United States on the grounds that some (all?) of
the authors of your Declaration of Independence thought that slavery was
acceptable and demonstrated this by employing slaves?
Dan, if you want to, you can fall back on the "Steiner said..." crutch,
much like the pro- and anti- fanatics in Communism or religion use the
crutches "Marx said...", "The Bible says..." etc. (And, at the risk of
descending into a circular paradox, it was Steiner's intention that we
do not blindly follow what he says but that we apply those things we
ourselves discover to be valid).
Again, what may be more instructive as you pursue your vendetta, is to
discuss (without taking them out of context) the arguments of those who
are _today_ supporting Waldorf education; to debate with those people
the things _they_ have said.
After all, I am sure you wouldn't want to open yourself to the charge
that you are only able to successfully debate the words of those who are
unable to respond.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n086.2 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: a note on Darwin, etc....
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 12:05:15 -0400
me:
> > But I would add that [1] Steiner seems fairly well in agreement
> >with Darwin in accepting a non-teleological, survival-selected
> >physical evolution; it seems to be when the mental/spiritual are
> >discussed that they radically diverge. (Charles ended up about as
> >much of an atheist as grandpa Erasmus!)
>
Dan Dugan:
> Lee, I don't think Steiner accepted "survival-selected" evolution, did he?
> Steiner agreed with the -sequence- of the fossil record, but not with
> either the time-scale or the mechanisms of Darwinian evolution. If you're
> referring to the story of Darwin's deathbed conversion, I believe it's been
> debunked as a pious fiction.
True, I have no evidence that Steiner favored Darwin's natural selection
mechanism, even for mere "bodies". In _PofF_ he rails against teleological
explanations of observables, but as far as I remember doesn't supply his
own theory. Thus I assumed he deferred to Darwin, and probably assumed too
much.
But whoa! There seem to have been "deathbed conversion" stories about
every famous atheist (including T.Jefferson and T.Paine). My statement
"...as much of an atheist as grandpa Erasmus" was meant literally, although
Darwin would presumably have preferred his friend Huxley's term: agnostic.
Dan Dugan:
> There's a special section in Skeptic, Vol. 4 No. 2, of articles about
> "Evolutionary Ethics & Secular Morality." The evolution of altruism is a
> hot topic today.
Evolution or gift, it probably always has been a "hot topic". Hillel &
Jesus's "Golden Rule", Kant's "categorical imperative" in the _Grundlage_,
Darwin's "sexual selection" in _The Descent of Man_ and elsewhere...
> > I do hope that the Waldorf teachers are not pressured to accept
> >Steiner's unverifiable hypotheses about spiritual evolution (as in the
> >quotes that Dan provided: that the human spirit extends backward in
> >time to the beginning of the physical evolution of animals, that it
> >encompasses the spirit of all animals, and so on and so on...all of
> >which seems to me mere human self-aggrandisement!), any more than they
> >should be required to be partisans of Darwin's theory.
Dan Dugan:
> He's not talking about spirit, Lee, he's talking about bodies. In
> Anthroposophy animals have mineral, etheric and astral bodies, but no "I",
> no reincarnating individual spirit.
I'm puzzled by this. As I've read Steiner books and lectures, I've been
able to assume that his (theosophical) notions of etheric and astral
"bodies" were components of one's ability to perceive and to form concepts
(very Kantian, despite his claimed preference for Goethe). However, I
haven't been able to grok his concept of "spirit" (Geist) at all, so I find
refuge in Kant's (obscure enough!) and Goethe's uses of the term.
You quoted:
"Thus materialistic Darwinism arose, which believed that the animals were
there first and that man simply developed out of the animals. [....]
[He seems to represent Darwin fairly there. --l]
[....] It is true
that in his external form man is related to the animals, but he existed
earlier, and the animals really developed later after the world had gone
through a transformation.
[Steiner, Rudolf. The Evolution of the Earth and Man and the
Influence of the Stars. (1924) Trans. Gladys Hahn. Hudson, NY:
Anthroposophic Press, 1987 p. 15]
[That's the "extends backward in time" I meant. Hideously anthropocentric!
It reminds me of Snoopy lying on the roof of his doghouse in a snowstorm,
saying: "They say every snowflake is different; I wonder how they validate
a claim like that." --l]
and:
"[....] And all this idle talk of the scientists about man descending from
an animal will be laughed at by people who have been educated in this
way. For they will know that man unites within himself the whole animal
kingdom, he is a synthesis of all the single members of it."
[Steiner, Rudolf. The Kingdom of Childhood; Seven Lectures. (1924)
Trans. Helen Fox. Hudson, New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1988. p. 64]
[Here's what I took to be the notion that Man "encompasses the spirit of
all" the animals. The way I read him, his words only makes sense if he's
speaking of "Seele" or "Geist" or...consciousness, and not bodies. --l]
Dan, if my understanding of Steiner's terminology, or yours, is bent and
mangled, please correct me. Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n086.3 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 12:27:15 -0400
I wrote:
> > "Revolution" is not such a clearly definable concept that one can
> >use the French as a paradigm.
Stephen Tonkin replies:
> In my original post I think I alluded to something like "struggle for
> identity" or somesuch -- I believe that that _is_ a common factor.
and:
> My "bias for treatment" is this: young adolescents correctly question
> society/authority/whatever -- this is part of a search for identity. By
> looking at _any_ revolution (from slave rebellions in Rome, through the
> Reformation, to what's going on today in Grozny) they can have that
> search mirrored and can learn from it. I will choose to teach something
> on the grounds that I think it will be right for my class and it is
> something I either know about or can become very familiar with in time
> to do it justice.
In line with Marx, I see revolution as economically motivated, and consider
the "struggle for identity" a secondary motivation (see below).
Revolution (or any political/military conquest) seems prompted by a
struggle of tribal groups for resources which when monopolized offer a
more comfortable life than if they were shared, and thus seems to be a
natural, but perhaps increasingly obsolete, part of our animal
natures. Sometimes the economically motivated "tribe" is very small
(an autocracy or a dictator), and uses superstitions and prejudices as
secondary motivation (Islam seems to be a big motivator right now,
previously Christianity, etc....) But I wouldn't call myself Marxist
(!!) His path to Communism---the "dictatorship of the
proletariat"--was mistaken: too easily co-opted by yet more economically
motivated autocracies. But I do think he got quite a bit right.
Why this line of response? To show that there's an alternative explanation
to the "struggle for identity" one, and thus that you introduce quite a
bit of bias.
> You'd then be pleased to know that I have had class six pupils borrow my
> (and public library) copies of Homer and Livy after I had "done"
> Odysseus and Rome respectively -- they wanted to read _my_ sources -- I
> took that as a compliment, but I was only trying to do what Steiner
> suggested -- your interpretation may differ. :-)
That's wonderful! No, my "interpretation" does not differ, and I
think Dr. Steiner would have been pleased, though I'd expect some
current senior teachers to worry whether real classics with their
"adult themes" were age-appropriate. :-(
> It is impossible to teach History in anything other than a "symptomatic"
> way (I presume this is what is meant by "capsule") unless one is going
> to teach nothing else for 8 years (and probably even then).
Hm....Of course you're absolutely right! Thanks for the excellent
response, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n086.4 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Goethean Science
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 12:49:16 -0400
Rigby quotes Oliver Sacks:
> "He was intensely aware that there was not any simple equivalence of
> wavelength and color (as Newton thought), and felt that color was not a
> simple sensation but an "inference" or "act of judgment." Feeling this
> intuitively, but wholly ignorant of what physiological mechanisms could allow
> such an inference, Goethe made a great error: he bypassed physiology, made a
> mythical leap to "the mind," and proposed an entire mental or subjective
> theory (or pseudo-theory) of color."
...and much more from Sacks and Lewin that's relevant, including the
observation that Goethe probably turned the scientific establishment
of his time against him my his polemical attacks on Newton (who was
clever enough to state his theories in a form as close as possible to
that used by the ancient geometers, and to let them speak for
themselves!) The problem is not that Steiner encouraged a
reexamination of Goethean science (which I agree is not an oxymoron),
but that he dictated to his followers which side of a long-dead
controversy to promote. I wouldn't argue that Goethe's scientific
work wasn't valuable (though for all his belief in observation I agree
that he took some unfortunate inductive leaps without the neurological
observations which might have supported them), but that Steiner's was
archaic, and thus not a good basis for science teaching, even in his
own time.
> In the aphorism of tailoring and carpentry, "Measure thrice, cut
> once." As Goodwin observed, this aspect of Goethean science is
> consistent with "the creative principle of emergence" that is
> associated with contemporary complexity theory.
Too bad Dr.Steiner didn't subscribe to that. Maybe he could have
found his way back to Occam's razor, and sheared off some rather furry
speculation (and some rather furry "spiritual" beings) in his mature
works.
> Second, when the phenomena are allowed to speak for themselves it may be in a
> language that doesn't fit the scientific conventions of the time.
Excellent observation.
> [....] but seriously, can there be anything more mystical than the
> idea that reality fundamentally consists of probability waves that
> collapse upon being observed?
That's exactly why there's so much dissatisfaction and so much
partisanship surrounding the "Copenhagen interpretation." (I don't
think it's likely to stand as the majority opinion for long, but
that's only a guess.) But the mathematical quantum theory, while
philosophically less comprehensive than the "interpretations,"
satisfies tests of repeatability, predictive power, etc., and is
firmly a part of modern science. Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n086.5 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Parental choice, school diversity
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 16:16:34 -0400
Stephen Tonkin writes:
> Lee Story USG writes:
> >We all seem to agree on this, but I find it odd that Stephen Tonkin replies:
> >
> > > I find it instructive that so few people try to do this -- many
> > > more try to subvert something that already exists.
> >
> >Stephen, I'd like to know why you use the rather perjorative word
> >"subvert",
>
> Because that is what I see happening -- if I see something and pretend
> to agree with it in order to join it, then try to impose my own agenda
> on it, I consider that to be an attempt at subversion.
Stephen, don't you ignore the nature of the educational enterprise
here? Even if we were talking about a football team or the
Freemasons, I would not agree with you. I would feel it entirely
ethical to attempt to convert the football team to a tiddlywinks
team...though presumably I'd be laughed to scorn. But education in
particular is beholden to the maintenance of no prior conceptions when
a new approach to the cultivation of intellectual competence and the
transmission of our accumulated culture seems to work better than an
old one.
I don't think we're very far apart on most of this discussion, but on
the point of retaining some "fundamental" Waldorf character to Waldorf
schools we're talking in circles. I propose a simple test: please
describe for me, if you can, a modest number of tenets of Waldorf
education (perhaps just one really important one?) that you feel
_must_ be accepted and cannot be modified or adapted in the interest
of superior education.
Perhaps you really do think that it's unethical to question the
"anthroposophical view of human development" from within: that this is
a foundational element which simple must be accepted. I don't see
why. For myself: I think Steiner's child-development ideas are
brilliant intuitions that may be better than half-accurate (though I
feel certain that the developmental time-scale varies much more than
he thought, and that this has great impact on the wisdom of slowing
the introduction to reading, and to keeping a class together for eight
years). That seems as good as most psychological theory gets. But I
also suspect that his claimed sources in his theosophical world of
"spirit" are pure fantasy (willful or delusional I couldn't say), and
that his "occult science" is an interesting approach to meditation and
introspection that may be useful to some people but is also an
invitation to self-indulgence, intellectual error, and (as Dan likes
to say) megalomania.
What most characterizes the hoary public schools of England? Lots of
money. What characterizes the educational establishment of the United
States? Free access to state funds: lots of money. How was
Dr. Steiner able to found his school? Money...from an industrialist
whose business was peddling a dangerous drug. I do not fault Steiner
for this. I do not fault the American educational reformers who seek
to drive the final nail in the coffin of Dewey's industrial schooling.
I do not fault those near-indigent teachers who have changed the
thrust of public school curricula from the abysm of blind
nationalism/patriotism that it was in the Edwardian era. I
_certainly_ do not expect any of these people to devote a life to
becoming a successful capitalist, so that they can spend their capital
on education in the next life....So why should you fault those who
would seek to transform Waldorf education, as long as they did so with
good will toward the students and their families? You'd have to
explain this to me without using lots of words like "laziness or lack
of commitment or underhandedness or insensitivity."
> > Few people try to start new educational institutions (beyond
> >home-schooling) because it's hugely expensive and takes enormous
> >amounts of time that they's rather spend on something else. That
> >seems obvious.
>
> I agree -- yet they expect those that found Waldorf schools to do this.
> ie they would rather someone else put the time, expense and effort for
> them. Funny old world, isn't it, where some people think this sort of
> thing is perfectly in order?
I may be wrong in my interpretation of your words, but I seem to
detect a fallacy here. You say change is acceptable in general, yet
act as if it were corrupt for an advocate of change to work within an
existing educational institution. Yet we're often so embedded in our
institutions that it's virtually impossible to effect any kind of
transformation from outside them.
What you seem to delineate as the limits of the ethical here seems
to me the educational equivalent of insisting that large changes in
medical practice are dishonorable when made from within the medical
system by persons who may have partially subscribed to the previous
methods of treatment.
For another example, take your British government. The baronial
system shortly after the time of the Magna Carta bears little
resemblance to the parliament and courts of today, and yet the latter
is the result of many rather radical and fundamental revisions of the
former!
> >Stephen:
> > > That is a very important point -- it is also important to try to
> > > understand how the child will experience the broken trust between
> > > teacher and parent.
> >
> >My experience (especially with adolescents and pre-teens) indicates
> >that the student is likely to consider unyielding dogmatism in parent
> >or teacher the moral equivalent of the mark on the pavement produced
> >by a horse's arse. That is, if they both have to always be "right",
> >they're both "wrong." And the student is the one who's right!
>
> Careful reading of the above (and what I responded to Suzanne) will
> indicate to you that I have never suggested thata parent and teacher
> should not disagree, neither have I suggested that this disagreement
> should never be communicated to the child.
>
> The passage to which you respond alludes to a breakdown of trust, yet
> you make no comment directly to that point.
I'll comment on that point. You offer no example of "broken trust"
other than the implied one of thrashing out an honest disagreement (in
the presence of the child). Then you seem to deny that this is an
example. Perhaps there are none? Perhaps you refer to a social code
which you (and the Royal Family) implicitly expect us to decode and
follow? I'm completely puzzled? Where are the guidelines for which
conflicts to hide from children? I feel left hanging, a bit like
Falstaff: "What is honor?" Surely the parent does not really "turn
the child over to" the school and teacher, or vice versa; they do
their best, and the child should know that it's a human best, with
error and vituperation and hopefully eventual resolution, improvement,
and mutual satisfaction. Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n086.6 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 16:40:02 -0400
Stephen Tonkin writes:
> I once heard someone refer to Darwin's theory as the crippled winner of
> a race where the other competitors were limbless.
"Crippled" in the sense that it was formulated in the absence of tools
for investigating the nature of molecular biology which could have
made it more precise, but based on a level of independent observation
that probably surpassed that of any other scientist of his time.
Without the theory of Darwin and Wallace, and Mendel's brief paper, I
think it's fair to say that modern biology (expecially the search for
the biological mechanisms of inheritance finally explicated by Watson
and Crick) would never have occurred. Without Darwin's caution and
patience and willingness to work within the existing system, (and
without his independent means, to be sure), the politically and
academically powerful, in conjunction with the church (in the form of
Bishop Wilberforce and allies) just might have been able to suppress
the (for them) distasteful new world-view separating biological
inheritance from ethics. Darwin, apparently quite conservative
himself, sealed the victory of observation, human theorizing, and
natural science, over the conservative old guard. Even if his
evolutionary mechanism had been dead wrong (and I see no reason to
think it so), we'd owe him a great deal more than we owe to any
proclaimed religious leader of the last two hundred years.
What do we owe Steiner? Kant did as good a job of accommodating
science and religion (in _Kritik der Reinen Vernunft_). Steiner
revived some interest in Goethe outside the German-speaking world, but
Goethe's work is immortal anyways, and seems to fare better when
allowed to speak for itself without Steiner's theosophical
incrustations. His ideas on child development are interesting if not
taken too literally, though wildly intuitive and without the sort of
careful study that Darwin gave, for example, to barnacles. His
healing/medicine seems only for the believing initiate. His
agricultural guidelines mix useful peasant-farming wisdom with weird,
vaguely homeopathic soil treatments. Anything to compare with Darwin?
Or Goethe? Or even Mendel's one paper? I don't see it. --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n086.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 1996 18:31:24 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lee Story USG writes
>
>I wrote:
> > > "Revolution" is not such a clearly definable concept that one can
> > >use the French as a paradigm.
>
>Stephen Tonkin replies:
> > In my original post I think I alluded to something like "struggle for
> > identity" or somesuch -- I believe that that _is_ a common factor.
>
>and:
> > My "bias for treatment" is this: young adolescents correctly question
> > society/authority/whatever -- this is part of a search for identity. By
> > looking at _any_ revolution (from slave rebellions in Rome, through the
> > Reformation, to what's going on today in Grozny) they can have that
> > search mirrored and can learn from it. I will choose to teach something
> > on the grounds that I think it will be right for my class and it is
> > something I either know about or can become very familiar with in time
> > to do it justice.
>
>In line with Marx, I see revolution as economically motivated, and consider
>the "struggle for identity" a secondary motivation (see below).
[snip]
Well, I never got on with Comrade Karl...I've only been present during
one revolution: I was in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) during the Chimurenga
in the late '60s and early '70s. Certainly one of the main bugbears of
many of my black friends was partly to do with an oppression of their
identity. I agree that the economic oppression was there, too, although
many also recognised that black people in Rhodesia were economically
better off than in the independent nations beyond our borders and were
also better off than was likely to be the case _after_ the Chimurenga
(regrettably history now shows this to be the case). I also agree that
the motives of the white government for not relinquishing control were
almost exclusively economic.
I realise that one cannot generalise from an instance, but would it be
fair to suppose that the economic argument holds for the leaders and the
identity one for the idealists?
However, whether or not the struggle for identity is primary, would you
agree that it is there in some measure? Also, do you agree that it is
there in adolescence, again in some measure? If "yes" to both, then I
don't see the problem. All school history teaching is necessarily
incomplete and there is a validity in teaching something in a way that
may do more than instil knowledge (IMNSHO, of course!).
>Why this line of response? To show that there's an alternative explanation
>to the "struggle for identity" one, and thus that you introduce quite a
>bit of bias.
See above, but is the bias unhealthy for the child? If so, show me how.
You have also triggered a pattern of thought on an adolescent desire for
economic independence -- I'll be doing the French Revolution in a month
or so and I'll see if it feels right to include that aspect.
>
> > You'd then be pleased to know that I have had class six pupils borrow my
> > (and public library) copies of Homer and Livy
[snip]
>I'd expect some
>current senior teachers to worry whether real classics with their
>"adult themes" were age-appropriate. :-(
Oh, I haven't told them about Ovid yet :-)
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n086.8 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Parental choice, school diversity
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 03:21:08 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lee Story USG writes
>
>Stephen Tonkin writes:
> > Lee Story USG writes:
> > >We all seem to agree on this, but I find it odd that Stephen Tonkin replies:
> > >
> > > > I find it instructive that so few people try to do this -- many
> > > > more try to subvert something that already exists.
> > >
> > >Stephen, I'd like to know why you use the rather perjorative word
> > >"subvert",
> >
> > Because that is what I see happening -- if I see something and pretend
> > to agree with it in order to join it, then try to impose my own agenda
> > on it, I consider that to be an attempt at subversion.
>
>Stephen, don't you ignore the nature of the educational enterprise
>here? Even if we were talking about a football team or the
>Freemasons, I would not agree with you.
Then this is personal opinion where we disagree -- my personal opinion
is that deceit is unacceptable.
>
>I don't think we're very far apart on most of this discussion, but on
>the point of retaining some "fundamental" Waldorf character to Waldorf
>schools we're talking in circles. I propose a simple test: please
>describe for me, if you can, a modest number of tenets of Waldorf
>education (perhaps just one really important one?) that you feel
>_must_ be accepted and cannot be modified or adapted in the interest
>of superior education.
I'm not sure I am capable of doing this to your satisfaction, but on one
level it is an acceptance of an anthroposophical view of child
development. IMHO without this it may be an excellent education, but it
is not _Waldorf_ education.
On another level our Steiner Schools Fellowship (an equivalent of your
AWSNA) has a number of criteria (which I don't have to hand) which
include such things as teacher training -- ie the "nuts and bolts" of
what is necessary. Perhaps the AWSNA has something similar which is
applicable to North American society?
>
>Perhaps you really do think that it's unethical to question the
>"anthroposophical view of human development" from within: that this is
>a foundational element which simple must be accepted. I don't see
>why.
No, Lee, I don't -- I frequently question it myself -- I and many others
believe that blind acceptance is not a desirable trait. So far, every
time I have questioned it I have had my acceptance of it strengthened,
not weakened -- of course, that may one day change.
However, let us consider a practical possibility:
In 3 different schools, groups of people decide to overthrow
anthroposophy as the ground of Waldorf education -- each chooses a
different route -- one chooses a humanist/agnostic route; one is based
on wishy-washy new age ideas; one follows a path based on oriental
mysticism. Surely you can see that, very soon, just about the only
thing these schools will have in common is that they believe they are
doing the best thing possible for the children. So which is the Waldorf
School?
Lee, I have absolutely no objection to people founding schools based on
whatever philosophy they like -- they may be providing excellent
education, they may be providing something that I would find better than
Waldorf education, but they are not Waldorf schools without an
anthroposophical basis.
> and
>that his "occult science" is an interesting approach to meditation and
>introspection that may be useful to some people but is also an
>invitation to self-indulgence, intellectual error, and (as Dan likes
>to say) megalomania.
For some people, that is almost certainly true -- bu tis that not a
common trait of almost any philosophy of the spirit?
>So why should you fault those who
>would seek to transform Waldorf education, as long as they did so with
>good will toward the students and their families?
No Lee, you misrepresent my viewpoint -- I have never argued against
transformation, but there is transform and transform.
On one hand, there is "transform" along the lines of waking up to the
fact that computers are a fact of life in society and seeking a
discussion as to where they best fit in to our education, where the act
of using a computer will in itself enhance a child's development. We
are often not very good at this.
On the other hand there's the "transform" where a vociferous and
powerful group tries to impose its will in order to force the school to
follow the personal agendas of that group, loudly proclaiming that
unless we have computers from kindergarten upwards, we are damaging our
children.
> You'd have to
>explain this to me without using lots of words like "laziness or lack
>of commitment or underhandedness or insensitivity."
Why, if those things are present should they not be mentioned?
>
> > > Few people try to start new educational institutions (beyond
> > >home-schooling) because it's hugely expensive and takes enormous
> > >amounts of time that they's rather spend on something else. That
> > >seems obvious.
> >
> > I agree -- yet they expect those that found Waldorf schools to do this.
> > ie they would rather someone else put the time, expense and effort for
> > them. Funny old world, isn't it, where some people think this sort of
> > thing is perfectly in order?
>
>I may be wrong in my interpretation of your words, but I seem to
>detect a fallacy here. You say change is acceptable in general, yet
>act as if it were corrupt for an advocate of change to work within an
>existing educational institution.
You do misinterpret. Let's go back to what you said about why few
people start new educational institutions and personalise this to just
you and me for the sake of argument.
You want to spend your time and money on something else and do so. I
decide to spend mine founding a school. Deceiving me that you support
what I have done, you send your kids to the school. You don't like what
I am doing. You push me aside and take over the buildings, the sweated-
over resources, the name of the school. Are you surprised that I am
pissed off?
I understand that this sort of thing may be acceptable in some
philosophies -- it isn't in mine.
> Yet we're often so embedded in our
>institutions that it's virtually impossible to effect any kind of
>transformation from outside them.
Lee, I put it to you quite simply: If a group of parents and teachers
who want a Waldorf school can found one, why can't a group of parents
and teachers who want another kind of school?
In the absence of any other suggestion, I'm afraid I come back to some
of those four words/phrases you don't like me to use.
>
> > >Stephen:
> > > > That is a very important point -- it is also important to try to
> > > > understand how the child will experience the broken trust between
> > > > teacher and parent.
> > >
> > >My experience (especially with adolescents and pre-teens) indicates
> > >that the student is likely to consider unyielding dogmatism in parent
> > >or teacher the moral equivalent of the mark on the pavement produced
> > >by a horse's arse. That is, if they both have to always be "right",
> > >they're both "wrong." And the student is the one who's right!
> >
> > Careful reading of the above (and what I responded to Suzanne) will
> > indicate to you that I have never suggested thata parent and teacher
> > should not disagree, neither have I suggested that this disagreement
> > should never be communicated to the child.
> >
> > The passage to which you respond alludes to a breakdown of trust, yet
> > you make no comment directly to that point.
>
>I'll comment on that point. You offer no example of "broken trust"
>other than the implied one of thrashing out an honest disagreement (in
>the presence of the child).
I thought I had earlier done so -- my apologies if I hadn't.
OK, another "extreme" scenario. I don't like something my child's
teacher has done (or, more often, which I have been told she has done) -
- my child doesn't like it either. I can either say, "I'll go and talk
to X and see if we can sort something out," and do so in a quiet and
civilised way -- the child can see adults solving a difference in an
adult way. Or (NB: _not_ XOR) I can rant, "X is bloody useless! Don't
pay any attention to what she says because she talks a load of rubbish!"
and then go and have a stand-up row with X in front of the entire school
just before the morning bell.
I have been the subject of both approaches. I could probably handle the
latter better if, so far, it hadn't always been for a "sin" I hadn't
committed!
Surely you can see how the one approach builds trust, the other destroys
it? There are, of course, many "intermediate" approaches (and,
regrettably, more extreme ones)
> Then you seem to deny that this is an
>example.
Yuup -- now perhaps you see why.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n086.9 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Goethean Science
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 02:06:31 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lee Story USG writes
>Maybe he could have
>found his way back to Occam's razor,
Let's be very careful here -- the oft-misused Occam,s Razor is not a law
but a rule of ontological economy. The "Venerable Inceptor" himself
stated it something along the lines of 'not needlessly adding entities',
but there is no natural reason that teh simplest sugggestion must be the
true one.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n086.10 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 02:19:07 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lee Story USG writes
>What do we owe Steiner?
Obviously my opinion only, but one answer to that is "the best education
around at the moment." I did not reach that conclusion from a blind
acceptance of theory, but after over a decade of (healthy?) skepticism
during which I watched the effect of the education on pupils. I liked
what I saw although I found the underlying theory to be highly alien --
until I approached it with an open mind.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n086 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n087 --------------
001 - Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Goethean Science
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:05:55 -0400
Stephen Tonkin writes:
> Lee Story USG writes
> >Maybe he could have
> >found his way back to Occam's razor,
>
> Let's be very careful here -- the oft-misused Occam,s Razor is not a law
> but a rule of ontological economy. The "Venerable Inceptor" himself
> stated it something along the lines of 'not needlessly adding entities',
> but there is no natural reason that the simplest suggestion must be the
> true one.
I think there is, Stephen. It's called (empirical) experience in
conjunction with probability theory. If I throw a thousand sixes in a
row, it's a much more likely hypothesis that the dice are loaded than
that some archangel wants me to break the casino's bank... Of course
in the cases we're discussing, it's very hard to quantify: perhaps
angels _are_ the simplest explanation. Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n087.2 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 11:00:44 -0400
Stephen Tonkin writes:
> >Why this line of response? To show that there's an alternative explanation
> >to the "struggle for identity" one, and thus that you introduce quite a
> >bit of bias.
>
> See above, but is the bias unhealthy for the child? If so, show me how.
I wouldn't use the word "unhealthy", but if you accept that economics
is a major motivator (as you seemed to in discussing Zimbabwe), and
can be more significant than group identity, then it seems a bit
intellectually dishonest to emphasize identity just because one thinks
that the students will empathize more with that issue. It is of
course the interrelationship of these motivators that's really
fascinating.
Let me admit to strong bias the other way. I've found "racial" or
"ethnic" groupings, tribal faiths, et al, offensive for as long as I
can remember, and am likely to suppress consideration of their
influence in a world which, it seems, should have "outgrown" them.
(Reading non-technical material like the Communist Manifesto, it seems
that old Karl and Friedrich felt similarly.)
Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n087.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 1996 17:15:30 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lee Story USG writes
> >
> > See above, but is the bias unhealthy for the child? If so, show me how.
>
>I wouldn't use the word "unhealthy", but if you accept that economics
>is a major motivator (as you seemed to in discussing Zimbabwe), and
>can be more significant than group identity, then it seems a bit
>intellectually dishonest to emphasize identity just because one thinks
>that the students will empathize more with that issue.
Have you though that through, Lee?
In *any* subject there are things a teacher de-emphasises (or just plain
ignores!) because, for whatever reason, they are inappropriate. I also
believe that there are different truths at different ages -- eg, if your
2 -yr old asks "Why was I born?" do you launch into a diatribe on
oogenesis, spermatogenesis, mitosis, meosis, conception, etc, etc -- or
do you say "Because mummy and I wanted a child and you came to us"?
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n087.4 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Parental choice, school diversity
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 00:20:07 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
LEE STORY
>Falstaff: "What is honor?" Surely the parent does not really "turn
>the child over to" the school and teacher, or vice versa; they do
>their best, and the child should know that it's a human best, with
>error and vituperation and hopefully eventual resolution, improvement,
>and mutual satisfaction.
DAN DUGAN
Steiner seems to have been a pretty much fundamentalist Platonist, and I
understand (haven't read it) that in the Republic Plato plans to reform
society by taking the kids away and training them in the new philosophy. A
practice that is still attempted today, BTW; for example attempting to heal
a racially divided society by school integration.
"You will have to take over children for their education and instruction -
children who will have received already (as you must remember) the
education, or mis-education given them by their parents. Indeed our
intentions will only be fully accomplished when we, as humanity, will have
reached the stage where parents, too, will understand that special tasks
are set for mankind today."
[Steiner, 1919, SM p. 16]
A parent shared a story with me today (identification withheld). A
second-grader complained that his painting (specialist) teacher got mad at
him when he didn't copy a painting just right. He added a border, and this
was wrong, he was supposed to do just color washes. His mother thought he
was in the right and told him so. Second graders not being very good at
diplomacy, he then confronted the teacher the next painting lesson with the
challenge that his mother had said he didn't have to paint everything her
way. The child reported that the teacher said "when you're at this school
you do what we tell you, not what your parents tell you."
This response is inevitable in a showdown. I don't blame the teacher for
saying that. In an ultimately authoritarian system revolt must be put down
swiftly. The art of school diplomacy is in avoiding the showdowns. It would
have gone better if the parent had called the specialist or the class
teacher and argued it directly. The child had been with the class teacher
since first grade, so I guess that the parent/teacher relationship was not
good.
Perhaps, Lee Story, you could sketch how a situation of this type would be
handled in your democratic school scheme.
Separately from the school politics aspect, this story exemplifies the
ritual aspect of painting classes in Waldorf. They are not "art" as we know
it. They are the opposite of "creative." This is why I gag when
well-meaning people see the lovely artwork and call Waldorf education
"creative" or "artistic."
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n087.5 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 00:20:25 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Lee Story USG writes
>>What do we owe Steiner?
STEPHEN TONKIN
>Obviously my opinion only, but one answer to that is "the best education
>around at the moment." I did not reach that conclusion from a blind
>acceptance of theory, but after over a decade of (healthy?) skepticism
>during which I watched the effect of the education on pupils. I liked
>what I saw although I found the underlying theory to be highly alien --
>until I approached it with an open mind.
You *know* you're in a religious argument when A says B is a
fundamentalist, and B say he is more open minded than A is!
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n087.6 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 01:42:53 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Stephen, you said,
>In *any* subject there are things a teacher de-emphasises (or just plain
>ignores!) because, for whatever reason, they are inappropriate. I also
>believe that there are different truths at different ages -- eg, if your
>2 -yr old asks "Why was I born?" do you launch into a diatribe on
>oogenesis, spermatogenesis, mitosis, meosis, conception, etc, etc -- or
>do you say "Because mummy and I wanted a child and you came to us"?
World-view is communicated at all ages, isn't it. "Came to us" is, of
course, expressing the Anthroposophical view. You make a false dichotomy,
pretending that the only alternative to mysticism is an ultra-Ahrimanic
straw man you imagine. I would rather say "mummy and I made you grow inside
her belly till you were ready to come out."
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n087.7 ---------------
From: William Bean
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 12:35:51 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>> "Because mummy and I wanted a child and you came to us"?
>
>Dan: World-view is communicated at all ages, isn't it. "Came to us" is, of
>course, expressing the Anthroposophical view. You make a false dichotomy,
>pretending that the only alternative to mysticism is an ultra-Ahrimanic
>straw man you imagine. I would rather say "mummy and I made you grow inside
>her belly till you were ready to come out."
Personally, I like to tell our children that they are presents given
to us from Jesus. What's wrong, Dan, with people raising their children in
the religious beliefs that they, in conscience, sincerely hold?
Stefanie Bean
Beanw worldnet.att.net
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n087.8 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Parental choice, school diversity
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 09:19:36 -0400
Dan Dugan writes:
> Steiner seems to have been a pretty much fundamentalist Platonist, and I
> understand (haven't read it) that in the Republic Plato plans to reform
> society by taking the kids away and training them in the new philosophy. A
> practice that is still attempted today, BTW; for example attempting to heal
> a racially divided society by school integration.
This is an excellent example, but it can also be used the other way.
Teachers didn't stop having discussions with parents when the
integration decisions were handed down, not did parents cease sharing
in the education of their children. It was no "PLato's Republic".
The idea that the parents should have overriding authority over young
minds has always seemed as silly to me as that the teachers or
government or religious institutions should. People simply have to
try to cooperate, negotiate, argue, arbitrate,.... Many disagreements
must come to closure for the good of the children.
> "You will have to take over children for their education and instruction -
> children who will have received already (as you must remember) the
> education, or mis-education given them by their parents. Indeed our
> intentions will only be fully accomplished when we, as humanity, will have
> reached the stage where parents, too, will understand that special tasks
> are set for mankind today."
> [Steiner, 1919, SM p. 16]
This is a severe statement, but it does not say that education by (and of)
parents is to be ignored, rather it can be read that Steiner encourages
the teacher to build carefully on earlier parent-provided education. You
or I may not agree fully with the anthropop direction he promotes, but
that's quite another question.
> [...] The child reported that the teacher said "when you're at this school
> you do what we tell you, not what your parents tell you."
Using a small child as intermediary in an argument would seem a sure way
to polarize issues. I'm well aware of my children's tendency to describe
things as simply as possible---which usually means in blacks and whites.
> In an ultimately authoritarian system revolt must be put down
> swiftly. The art of school diplomacy is in avoiding the showdowns.
Sounds all-American to me. Did you pay any attention to the Republican
convention? :)
> Perhaps, Lee Story, you could sketch how a situation of this type would be
> handled in your democratic school scheme.
That's not really a tough one. Even within the context of Waldorf
(which seems hardly a democratic ideal), the parent should meet with
teacher and discuss the objectives, artistic and social, of the "art"
class. The teacher should have learned to listen and respond. The
parent should be willing to hear the teacher's argument for precise
rote copying in that particular instance. (Of course it isn't "really
art", but it can be a good technical exercise; students in good art
schools do an awful lot of it. Then again it could be mere
authoritarian hubris.) They should argue it out, look at
alternatives, try to reach a resolution which will benefit all the
children, and not merely respond to one parent's (or one teacher's)
preferences. Then the family must decide whether to raise the issue
to the class teacher of the senior teachers, I suppose. and ultimately
they must decide whether this class or this school is for them. This
is not easy, and there are a lot of hypothetical "shoulds" here, but
it's not the proverbial "rocket science" either. --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n087.9 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 09:21:35 -0400
Dan Dugan writes:
> You *know* you're in a religious argument when A says B is a
> fundamentalist, and B say he is more open minded than A is!
Nice aphorism, but I don't see that it has any bearing on my challenge
to compare Steiner's accomplishment and influence with Darwin's, not
Stephen's response. --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n087.10 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 09:38:43 -0400
Stefanie Bean writes:
> Personally, I like to tell our children that they are presents given
> to us from Jesus. What's wrong, Dan, with people raising their children in
> the religious beliefs that they, in conscience, sincerely hold?
This certainly takes us a long ways from discussion of Steiner or
Waldorf education, but that hasn't always stopped me before.... It
seems to me that parents have a reasonable right, and even a
responsibility, to evangelize for their beliefs to their children.
But their children are not their puppets, and it's not at all clear to
me that having performed an act of sexual union and borne a child
gives parents the right to censor opposing views, at least when they
meet minimum community consensus standards of "decency". It seems to
me that many of America's social problems (from incompetence in
reasoning to inter-ethnic intolerance) can be laid at the door of the
family. I realize that this is very much the opposite of current
conservative "family values" pseudo-wisdom. This is not a simple
dichotomy: the alternative is not simply to hand the children over to
"big brother". Cheers, --lee
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n087 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n088 --------------
001 - Lefty - Re: Parental choice, school diversity
002 - Lefty - Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
003 - Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Parental choice, school diversity
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:12:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dan Dugan writes
>
>Steiner seems to have been a pretty much fundamentalist Platonist, and I
>understand (haven't read it) that in the Republic Plato plans to reform
>society by taking the kids away and training them in the new philosophy.
I wanted to comment on this, the most astounding leap in something sort of
like reasoning I've seen in a good while. Dan asserts, without particular
evidence, that Steiner was a "fundamentalist Platonist", proceeds to a
statement about how Plato would presumably have educated children based on
a book he admittedly hasn't read, and seems to try to be landing squarely
on the imputation that Waldorf education must therefore have some sort of
similar goal.
Wow.
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa]
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n088.2 ---------------
From: Lefty
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 11:16:42 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Dan Dugan writes
>
>World-view is communicated at all ages, isn't it. "Came to us" is, of
>course, expressing the Anthroposophical view.
It expresses any number of conceivable world-views, Dan; Buddhist, Hindu,
Christian and Jewish, just for starts. Our daughter did in fact "come to
us": she was adopted.
>You make a false dichotomy,
>pretending that the only alternative to mysticism is an ultra-Ahrimanic
>straw man you imagine. I would rather say "mummy and I made you grow inside
>her belly till you were ready to come out."
Which explanation is, of course, as far from "the facts" as the alternative
you've rejected. You _made_ the child grow?
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa]
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n088.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 19:56:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>>Lee Story USG writes
>>>What do we owe Steiner?
>
>STEPHEN TONKIN
>>Obviously my opinion only, but one answer to that is "the best education
>>around at the moment." I did not reach that conclusion from a blind
>>acceptance of theory, but after over a decade of (healthy?) skepticism
>>during which I watched the effect of the education on pupils. I liked
>>what I saw although I found the underlying theory to be highly alien --
>>until I approached it with an open mind.
>
>You *know* you're in a religious argument when A says B is a
>fundamentalist, and B say he is more open minded than A is!
Assume I'm stupid, Dan, and spell it out to me. Who is it who has been
called a fundamentalist? Where is this fundamentalist claiming to be
more open-minded than the person who is calling him/her a
fundamentalist.
There's a smell of stale straw around here....
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n088.4 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 20:08:05 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lee Story USG writes
>But their children are not their puppets, and it's not at all clear to
>me that having performed an act of sexual union and borne a child
>gives parents the right to censor opposing views, at least when they
>meet minimum community consensus standards of "decency".
Tricky one this -- I believe that the parents _do_ have a right, even a
duty in some cases, to censor opposing views -- for a while. There is
time later for the opposing views. What I hope I give to my children
(and those I teach) is the ability to evaluate opposing views and to
make their own choices. I don't expect them to be able to do this at
age 4, but I do by age 18. What happens in the interim is what is
important, and I don't believe that exposing a young child to opposing
views is the answer.
(And, for those who make a religion of misrepresenting, I am *NOT*
suggesting that all of a sudden at midnight before the 18th birthday,
this magical change comes about!)
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n088.5 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Steiner's evolution to be taught
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 19:57:41 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lee Story USG writes
>
>Dan Dugan writes:
> > You *know* you're in a religious argument when A says B is a
> > fundamentalist, and B say he is more open minded than A is!
>
>Nice aphorism, but I don't see that it has any bearing on my challenge
>to compare Steiner's accomplishment and influence with Darwin's, not
>Stephen's response.
It's a complete non-sequitur, Lee! I won't bore the readership by
reiterating what that is a characteristic of :-)
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n088.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Parental choice, school diversity
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 19:52:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>A parent shared a story with me today (identification withheld). A
>second-grader complained that his painting (specialist) teacher got mad at
>him when he didn't copy a painting just right. He added a border, and this
>was wrong, he was supposed to do just color washes. His mother thought he
>was in the right and told him so. Second graders not being very good at
>diplomacy, he then confronted the teacher the next painting lesson with the
>challenge that his mother had said he didn't have to paint everything her
>way. The child reported that the teacher said "when you're at this school
>you do what we tell you, not what your parents tell you."
>
>This response is inevitable in a showdown. I don't blame the teacher for
>saying that. In an ultimately authoritarian system revolt must be put down
>swiftly.
Have you considered the reality of a school where every child refuses to
do what the teacher requires? Would *you* teach in such a school? With
the exception of the so-called "Free Schools" (I use the term in its
English, not European, context -- eg Summerhill), autority is a
necessity. The way it is exercised may be debatable.
>
>Separately from the school politics aspect, this story exemplifies the
>ritual aspect of painting classes in Waldorf. They are not "art" as we know
>it. They are the opposite of "creative." This is why I gag when
>well-meaning people see the lovely artwork and call Waldorf education
>"creative" or "artistic."
Perhaps one is _teaching_ techniques, not just permitting the child to
maybe stumble across them. The same way, in a music lesson not
everybody plays their own tune in their own time. Also, in a painting
lesson in a Waldorf school, particularly in the early years, it is the
_process_ that is emphasised much more than the result. We can argue
the toss all day about whether or not this is "art" or "creative" -- or
we can look at the results: the outstanding results obtained by Waldorf
pupils in public exams in Art (at least, in this country), the
outstanding art produced by pupils in Classes 11 and 12.
Like in everything else, we don't try to give an entire lifetime's art
education in a single lesson -- we aim to do it over 12+ years. If
we're going to argue about the way we teach painting, let's do it in the
context of what is produced at the top end of the upper school, not a
single lesson in class 2...
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n088.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 19:38:50 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>Stephen, you said,
>>In *any* subject there are things a teacher de-emphasises (or just plain
>>ignores!) because, for whatever reason, they are inappropriate. I also
>>believe that there are different truths at different ages -- eg, if your
>>2 -yr old asks "Why was I born?" do you launch into a diatribe on
>>oogenesis, spermatogenesis, mitosis, meosis, conception, etc, etc -- or
>>do you say "Because mummy and I wanted a child and you came to us"?
>
>World-view is communicated at all ages, isn't it. "Came to us" is, of
>course, expressing the Anthroposophical view.
Yes, and many other views, as you well know.
> You make a false dichotomy,
>pretending that the only alternative to mysticism is an ultra-Ahrimanic
>straw man you imagine.
I don't know if you're just trying to wind me up, Dan? -- I am sure
that you have the wit to realise that, just because someone gives two
examples from different ends of a spectrum, that they are not
necessarily implying that those are the only two possibilities. Who is
setting up the straw man? -- *YOU* are!
> I would rather say "mummy and I made you grow inside
>her belly till you were ready to come out."
Now, I have the wit to realise that you do not think that this is the
only possible answer, despite the fact that you mentioned no other.
What are you here for, Dan? To debate issues or to take every possible
opportunity to distort the words of those you deem to be the opponents
of your vendetta?
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n088.8 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 17:39:53 -0400
I wrote:
> >But their children are not their puppets, and it's not at all clear to
> >me that having performed an act of sexual union and borne a child
> >gives parents the right to censor opposing views, at least when they
> >meet minimum community consensus standards of "decency".
Stephen Tonkin writes:
> Tricky one this -- I believe that the parents _do_ have a right, even a
> duty in some cases, to censor opposing views -- for a while. There is
> time later for the opposing views. What I hope I give to my children
> (and those I teach) is the ability to evaluate opposing views and to
> make their own choices. I don't expect them to be able to do this at
> age 4, but I do by age 18. What happens in the interim is what is
> important, and I don't believe that exposing a young child to opposing
> views is the answer.
Tricky indeed, Stephen. First, I would seriously consider the idea
that the parent should be an information-organizer (and thus
-simplifier), more than an opinion-presenter or censor. Personally,
I'd like children to appreciate me for what I can help them to find,
and not expect some (ultimately unmaintainable) fount of "received
wisdom." That applies to my relationship with the child who can
reason just-a-little-bit (say: a kindergartener), just as much as to
the university student.
Secondly, my comment was based on your signature line, which seemed to
indicate that you teach an the American "8th grade" equivalent. As I
said in the rest of my post, the 8th graders I've met recently (and
they were Waldorf school students!) seemed sufficiently mature to form
(and discard and re-form) opinions with only occasional guidance.
It's very hard for me to believe that they'll be able to do that at 17
if they aren't encouraged to start at 14...and by 17 they may have to
decide whether to follow some idiotic government into war, or whether
to take over a parent's business, or whether to make a commitment to
enter preparation for a life's-work. I don't want to launch into the
spiel of "my dad left home to seek work at age 14 and did very well,
thank you,"....but he did!
On the other hand, you undoubtedly know your students very well, and
may have very good reasons, on an individual-by-individual basis, not
to present some of them with this challenge of interpretation and
decision.
I am surprised that you don't think Burke, Marx, etc. are good
collateral reading for 8th-graders, but that the "Sam Beer comparative
world-views" approach that I outlined in personal correspondence might
be good for "upper school" (which I presume begins at the 9th). That
indeed makes me suspect that you don't think you can challenge the
students until a "magic age" of intellectual maturation has been
reached. (Elaborating on what I said above, it seems to me that my
twelve-year-old son is quite ready to offer intelligent---though
somewhat naive---responses to selections from such texts.) Certainly
I wouldn't assign the entirety of _Reflections on the R. in France_ or
_Das Kapital_ over vacation (!), but selections from original authors
(rather than homogenized texts) would seem at least much akin to the
Waldorf approach, and my suggestion, was serious.
Regards, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n088.9 ---------------
From: William Bean
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 23:42:10 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At 01:38 PM 8/28/96 +0000, you wrote:
>
>Stefanie Bean writes:
> > Personally, I like to tell our children that they are presents given
> > to us from Jesus. What's wrong, Dan, with people raising their children in
> > the religious beliefs that they, in conscience, sincerely hold?
>
>Lee: This certainly takes us a long ways from discussion of Steiner or
>Waldorf education, but that hasn't always stopped me before....
Lee, I wasn't trying to deliberately go off topic. After having
read this list for awhile, it seems to me that one of the problems here is
between differing religious world views. Now I know from reading Dan's
writings that there is a lot of claiming & counter-claiming going on about
whether Steiner-ism is a "religious" movement or not, and especially as to
how that relates to public funding of Waldorf schools (either through
vouchers or through the charter school movement.)
The point I made was an attempt to "cut to the chase," so to speak,
and ask a question that I think is pretty fundamental - does religious
tolerance extend to those who share Steiner's philosophy as well as those
who are atheists, deists, naturalists, and just about everything else?
Stefanie Bean
Beanw worldnet.att.net
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n088.10 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 05:14:17 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lee Story USG writes
>
>I wrote:
> > >But their children are not their puppets, and it's not at all clear to
> > >me that having performed an act of sexual union and borne a child
> > >gives parents the right to censor opposing views, at least when they
> > >meet minimum community consensus standards of "decency".
>
>Stephen Tonkin writes:
> > Tricky one this -- I believe that the parents _do_ have a right, even a
> > duty in some cases, to censor opposing views -- for a while. There is
> > time later for the opposing views. What I hope I give to my children
> > (and those I teach) is the ability to evaluate opposing views and to
> > make their own choices. I don't expect them to be able to do this at
> > age 4, but I do by age 18. What happens in the interim is what is
> > important, and I don't believe that exposing a young child to opposing
> > views is the answer.
>
>Tricky indeed, Stephen. First, I would seriously consider the idea
>that the parent should be an information-organizer (and thus
>-simplifier), more than an opinion-presenter or censor.
I think, then, that the difference in our opinions is one of nuance.
> Personally,
>I'd like children to appreciate me for what I can help them to find,
>and not expect some (ultimately unmaintainable) fount of "received
>wisdom." That applies to my relationship with the child who can
>reason just-a-little-bit (say: a kindergartener), just as much as to
>the university student.
I agree -- but to take a single example, can you see no limits to what
you would help a kindergarten child to find? Would you, for example,
encourage her to find out how to apply Bernoulli's equation or how to
get drunk?
>
>Secondly, my comment was based on your signature line, which seemed to
>indicate that you teach an the American "8th grade" equivalent.
OK, fair enough. Perhaps I ought to make it plain that in general I am
attempting to speak from a context of the _whole_ range of Waldorf
education (although my experience of KG and classes 1, 2, 11 & 12 is
almost exclusively 2nd hand, via my children and via teachers and pupils
of these classes).
>As I
>said in the rest of my post, the 8th graders I've met recently (and
>they were Waldorf school students!) seemed sufficiently mature to form
>(and discard and re-form) opinions with only occasional guidance.
My experience also -- one telling example for me was last year, when I
took as a theme MLK's "I have a Dream" speech. The children "rewrote"
the speech to express their own dreams for this world and what emerged
was far more mature, profound and wise than anything I could possibly
have taught them. Still btings tears to my eyes to recall it...
>It's very hard for me to believe that they'll be able to do that at 17
>if they aren't encouraged to start at 14.
Even before 14...but generally, more guidance is needed the younger
children are. As I said before:
What happens in the interim is what is important
>
> On the other hand, you undoubtedly know your students very well, and
>may have very good reasons, on an individual-by-individual basis, not
>to present some of them with this challenge of interpretation and
>decision.
Oh, I do -- but not in the way you describe.
>
>I am surprised that you don't think Burke, Marx, etc. are good
>collateral reading for 8th-graders,
I thought you implied either complete books or very lengthy passages --
snippets, sure -- like in many things, one can present snippets to the
class and some pupils may be sufficiently interested to want to read
more (last year I had one pupil who wanted to read Napier's "Peninsular
War", but there is no way I would have suggested it as whole-class
reading, even if we had sufficient copies instead of none at all,
although I had the set at home)
>but that the "Sam Beer comparative
>world-views" approach that I outlined in personal correspondence might
>be good for "upper school" (which I presume begins at the 9th).
Why does that surprise you?
> That
>indeed makes me suspect that you don't think you can challenge the
>students until a "magic age" of intellectual maturation has been
>reached. (Elaborating on what I said above, it seems to me that my
>twelve-year-old son is quite ready to offer intelligent---though
>somewhat naive---responses to selections from such texts.)
You suspect wrong -- I do challenge them (although this year I will do
so less than with last year's class 8 -- this one is less mature). I
also think it is necessary to realise that just because a child is
_capable_ of doing something, it is not necessarily _right_ that they do
so. Parental or teacher judgement/guidance/censorship is, I contend,
important.
> Certainly
>I wouldn't assign the entirety of _Reflections on the R. in France_ or
>_Das Kapital_ over vacation (!), but selections from original authors
>(rather than homogenized texts) would seem at least much akin to the
>Waldorf approach, and my suggestion, was serious.
There we agree. This is one thing for which I find the Web useful -- I
have a certain amount of stuff available at home, but the Web opens up a
lot more. As an example, I found an account of Valley Forge from a
surgeon who was there -- that was wonderful when we "did" the revolting
colonials :-)
Term starts today and the pressure of work and time starts -- I'm going
to withdraw from discussion for a while...
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n088 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n089 --------------
001 - slainson rmii.com (Suzann - Re: Parental choice, school diversity
002 - Lee Story USG )
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n089.1 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: Parental choice, school diversity
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 09:11:31 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>Perhaps one is _teaching_ techniques, not just permitting the child to
>maybe stumble across them. The same way, in a music lesson not
>everybody plays their own tune in their own time. Also, in a painting
>lesson in a Waldorf school, particularly in the early years, it is the
>_process_ that is emphasised much more than the result. We can argue
>the toss all day about whether or not this is "art" or "creative" -- or
>we can look at the results: the outstanding results obtained by Waldorf
>pupils in public exams in Art (at least, in this country), the
>outstanding art produced by pupils in Classes 11 and 12.
I've never cared for the way both art and creative writing are taught in
schools. The teacher has a preconceived idea of the result and judges
quality based on how closely the result matches his or her expectation.
While this method may work for subject such as science and history, I find
it very discouraging to artistic students.
Having endured such education myself and having seen what it did to my
daughter, I began to tell her never to take a writing or art class from a
teacher in a classroom setting. I think a too rigid approach stifles a
child's creativity and tends to suggest to talented students that because
they want to deviate from the norm, they are not talented.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n089.2 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 11:06:15 -0400
Stephen Tonkin writes:
> I agree -- but to take a single example, can you see no limits to what
> you would help a kindergarten child to find? Would you, for example,
> encourage her to find out how to apply Bernoulli's equation or how to
> get drunk?
The latter is, of course, merely a rhetorical flourish, but to the
former, yes, of course. If she seemed to be really interested in
fluid flow, I'd do my best to pursue it as far as her current
intellectual development would allow. In the case of a kindergartener
that would almost certainly not be to a fully-quantified level, but
you never can tell. I guess that's most of what I've been saying: for
all the high-flown developmental theories, Steiner's or anyone else's,
you never can tell what one individual student may be capable of, and
may even profit greatly from. The theories are hypothesis-bundles which
often take on force as suggestions and recommendations, but I worry that
the individual student is being overlooked or cheated if theory becomes
_policy_. That's all.
In this context I'm reminded of Sylvia Ashton-Warner's very sensible
"key vocabulary" concept for basic reading, which comes to little more
than letting the child's own deepest interests determine which words
and sentences are read and written _first_. She says that it took her
real effort to determine what the key words were for many children in
her charge.
> I thought you implied either complete books or very lengthy passages --
> snippets, sure -- like in many things, one can present snippets to the
> class and some pupils may be sufficiently interested to want to read
> more [....]
Surely one would hope that 8th-grade students are ready to read
lengthy passages---even though they are not very well taught or
motivated to do so in many state schools. "Snippets" suggests to me a
paragraph here, a paragraph there, probably only what's necessary to
reinforce the speaker's points. There's enough of that on television.
My notion was that students should delve into the material
sufficiently to generate questions about any one interpretation of
events (historical, in the case we were discussing), including the
teacher's interpretation. Isn't that where the children really start
to enjoy reading such material?
> This is one thing for which I find the Web useful -- I
> have a certain amount of stuff available at home, but the Web opens up a
> lot more. As an example, I found an account of Valley Forge from a
> surgeon who was there -- that was wonderful when we "did" the revolting
> colonials :-)
One of my favorite "educational" pages on the Web is "MendelWeb" (an
American source is http://www.netspace.org/MendelWeb/MWpaptoc.html,
but there are European ones too. Take a look.
Have a productive and enjoyable school term! --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n089.3 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Parental choice, school diversity
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 11:57:40 -0400
Suzanne Lainson writes:
> Having endured such education myself and having seen what it did to my
> daughter, I began to tell her never to take a writing or art class from a
> teacher in a classroom setting. I think a too rigid approach stifles a
> child's creativity and tends to suggest to talented students that because
> they want to deviate from the norm, they are not talented.
I'm reminded of the article of Evgeny Kissim in the latest New Yorker.
His long-time teacher/coach talks about both sides: her reluctance to
initiate technical piano training (at age six) for fear of crushing
his interest, and the necessity for such training. It seems a hugely
difficult problem, which is nominally "solved" in those cases (like
Kissim's) where there is a cautious and understanding mentor, and
where it's unlikely that anything could keep the pupil away from the
piano anyways. Likewise there are children who will draw and paint
and model incessantly, and who look on technical exercises as a
pleasant opportunity; those who declare them a "bore" are probably not
ready at the present stage of their lives to maintain an interest in
art. Thus is seems better to me that the arts always be available
(and much more highly recommended and supported than they usually are
in U.S. schools), but remain wholly elective. There are even schools
(e.g., Sudbury Valley School) where _all_ subjects are elective, in
the sense that the children approach them when they are interested;
that seems to work fairly well as long as the society (family, etc.)
supports and encourages learning.
But I've arrived somewhere the opposite pole to Waldorf in the preceding
paragraph, haven't I? Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n089.4 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly"
Subject: RE: art (was parental choice, school diversity )
Date: 29 Aug 1996 12:13:36 -0400
dan d writes: (after the story of the second grade art class story)
>Separately from the school politics aspect, this story exemplifies the
>ritual aspect of painting classes in Waldorf. They are not "art" as we know
>it. They are the opposite of "creative." This is why I gag when
>well-meaning people see the lovely artwork and call Waldorf education
>"creative" or "artistic."
this comment suggests that you think that an art class should be some sort of
free play or unstructured dooodle time, ignoring the fact that art is a
discipline just the same as math or carpentry. If the same child was drawing
borders on the edge of their math pages (instead of doing the math work) or
tearing it up in order to make some paper doll string, i would imagine you
would have a problem with that. Why should there be a difference? Going back
to the story itself, WE DON'T KNOW if what the child was doing was a
distraction from completing the lesson at hand or whether it was fundamentally
destroying the lesson itself. This of course assumes that one thinks there is
something to learn about art in art class.(and not considered free play time)
Personally, I drew pages of parallel lines and grey scales and painted
color scales and color wheels and shaded and shadowed axonometric drawings of
boxes and built half-lap joints as a fundamental part of the curriculum in my
college fine arts and architecture classes. Are you trying to suggest that
these types of foundation studies (which build coordination and strengthen
muscle memory and visual acuity and provide focused at hand experience of the
manipulation of a medium) in either the second grade or in college are not
valid means to explore some qualities of color and medium and technique? You
may not agree with a 'master/appprentice' programs of study or 'foundations
studies' of the Bauhaus type, but don't claim because some child didn't want
to complete the assignment requested, concentrating on the requested task in
order to learn something about color or shape or wet on wet blending, that
this is an example of how a school class in art(not free play) is 'opposite of
art' or 'opposite of creative'. It seems to suggest to me that in this school
there is apppreciation that art is considered to be more than 'the stuff you
do to pass time between the real classes'.
I would suggest a revision to your statement
>...this story exemplifies the ritual aspect of painting classes in Waldorf.
to say:
...this story exemplifies the respect aspect of painting classes in Waldorf.
How you were ever able to pull ritual out of the story is beyond me, and i
think suggests your one-sided motivation and willingness to fabricate
situations and use whatever negative terminology you feel appropriate to slyly
set a mood of discourse. (talk about deceptive, you must have read Newt's book
on how to fight your opponent by repetitively only ever referring to them in
negative terms.) "Sling it enough times and maybe it will stick" eh Dan. All
I have to say is keep it up because it is all on record and it will come back
to bite you some day.
respectfully
luke schelly
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n089.5 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: typo
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 12:29:31 -0400
I wrote:
> I'm reminded of the article of Evgeny Kissim in the latest New Yorker.
^^
um...please read that as "on". I _do_ need stronger glasses or weaker
drink...:) --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n089.6 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Waldorf Critics List (long)
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 13:14:06 -0400
> The point I made was an attempt to "cut to the chase," so to speak,
> and ask a question that I think is pretty fundamental - does religious
> tolerance extend to those who share Steiner's philosophy as well as those
> who are atheists, deists, naturalists, and just about everything else?
If tolerance means letting people go their varying ways without
criticism, then I'm against it. If tolerance means letting parents
indoctrinate their children as they see fit while shielding them from
alternatives, then I'm against it. But I'd call the first
indifference and the second fundamentalism. Tolerance is closer
to _willingness_ to hear criticism, and _willingness_ to contemplate
alternatives.
Sure, Steiner had as much right to his opinions, and right to try to
convince others of them, as anyone else. I don't see that he's
conspired against on "waldorf_critics." Although there are certainly
some specious arguments advanced against him, there are some advanced
for him too. What in the world does that have to do with whether a
biological parent has strong rights to instill a particular dogma
(along with the concomitant parental responsibilities)? Or whether a
parent may/should be disputed about biology? Or whether a
religiously-inspired euphemism should go unchallenged? I just don't
see it....Cheers, --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n089.7 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Re: Parental choice, school diversity
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 12:16:47 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>It seems a hugely
>difficult problem, which is nominally "solved" in those cases (like
>Kissim's) where there is a cautious and understanding mentor, and
>where it's unlikely that anything could keep the pupil away from the
>piano anyways. Likewise there are children who will draw and paint
>and model incessantly, and who look on technical exercises as a
>pleasant opportunity; those who declare them a "bore" are probably not
>ready at the present stage of their lives to maintain an interest in
>art.
I've seen two types of art classes at the college level. In one, everyone
was to duplicate a certain style and technique and everything that was
produced mirrored the teacher's particular art interest. In the other,
students were taught some very basic techniques and the subject matter was
left up to them--the results would include abstract, representational,
primative, and so on, depending on the students' interests. The second
program produced many working artists, while the first one was used to weed
out all students who didn't have the patience and complicity to stick with
the program.
I guess I tend to evaluate the effectiveness of an art or writing program
by the variety of the results. If I see lots of variety, then I feel the
program has been a success. But if all the results look the same (even if
they are all of good quality), then I am not impressed because I see that
only technique, but not inspiration, has been taught.
I think that even at young levels you can encourage both quality and
creativity in the arts.
Also, I have noticed that far more self-taught musicians are still playing
music into adulthood than those who took music lessons as children. My
ex-husband couldn't read music, but he was a played in a band, played music
daily, and wrote his own songs. I look the violin for five years,
diligently played scales, but have no sense of music beyond what I learned.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n089.8 ---------------
From: slainson rmii.com (Suzanne Lainson)
Subject: Teaching Writing
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 12:26:46 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
I came up with what I considered an effective technique for teaching
writing. I realized that very little of what I learned in school taught me
how to write and organize my thoughts.
I learned how to do that by reading Strunk and White's Elements of Style
and by copying the writing I liked (such as E. B. White and some of the
other great New Yorker essayists).
So whenever I teach people how to write, I tell them three things:
1. If you can talk, you can write. To loosen yourself up, imagine you are
writing a letter to a friend.
2. Don't try to write from beginning to end. Just make a bunch of notes and
then organize them once you see what you have.
3. Get out your favorite writers and figure out what you like about their
writing styles. I figure this will help young writers learn some technique
without boxing them into a particular style. I, for example, like terse
writers, but some others might prefer something more flowery and do well
with it.
Suzanne
Suzanne Lainson SportsTrust Integrated Marketing
slainson rmii.com P.O. Box 2071 Sports and Event Marketing
303 473-9884 Boulder, CO 80306 Online Marketing
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n089.9 ---------------
From: Lee Story USG
Subject: Re: Parental choice, school diversity
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 1996 15:04:23 -0400
Suzanne Lainson writes:
> Also, I have noticed that far more self-taught musicians are still playing
> music into adulthood than those who took music lessons as children. My
> ex-husband couldn't read music, but he was a played in a band, played music
> daily, and wrote his own songs. I [t]ook the violin for five years,
> diligently played scales, but have no sense of music beyond what I learned.
You make it sound like lessons actually deter a musician! _Some_
lessons surely do; I really can't support the parental-authority trip
of Suzuki, no matter how well it meshes with Japanese culture. But my
experience with piano and violin echoes Samuel Johnson's famous
comment that he was glad he didn't fiddle, because then he'd have done
nothing else. After 45 years of piano and barely over one of violin
(current--and so happy to get to Kreuzer #2, the "Jack Benny" etude),
I notice gains from instruction and technical work on either. I'd
suggest that you just didn't happen to fall within my criterion of
"couldn't keep her away from the fiddle", maybe have more of a bent
toward visual arts. That's fine.
Teachers' approaches certainly do differ, as you indicated in your
examples of art instruction. The variety seems fortunate. The real
problems I see with an extremely technical, exercise-oriented,
copybook approach in schools are [1] that it may be applied too early
or to the wrong child, perhaps squelching initiative, and [2] that the
school may not have (be able to afford, or their pedagogical
philosophy may reject) an alternative for those people who don't learn
well in that particular way. --lee
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n089.10 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Re: Tarra, folks! (obviously not yet! )
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 1996 02:07:03 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Dan Dugan writes
>>Stephen, thank you very much for Dr. Coker's list of common
>>pseudoscientific arguments. It's by far the most comprehensive I've ever
>>seen. Shall I fill in some examples of quotes from Steiner?
STEPHEN TONKIN
>Let me save you the trouble, Dan. A quote from Steiner himself (_Occult
>Science - an outline_, Pharos Books, 1979, p26): "Needless to say, for
>anyone who will admit as science only what is manifest to the senses and
>to the intellect that serves them, what is here termed 'Occult Science'
>can be no science."
>
>Satisfied?
DAN DUGAN
Completely. You may not have understood that I have always tried to
separate pseudoscience and religion. There are cases where religious belief
slips outside of its ineffable spiritual sphere into the physical, and
thereby gets in trouble. "Creation science" is one example, and some faith
healing scams. Anthroposophy is another. This happens in Waldorf schools
when Steiner's weird science is quoted, like "the heart is not a pump."
STEPHEN TONKIN
>(I suggest that it is unreasonable to expect him to refer to
>'pseudoscience', since the term was only coined a couple of decades
>after he wrote the quote above. It is similarly unreasonable to expect
>Steiner to have used the criteria for distinction between science and
>pseudoscience which were subsequently developed by Popper and his
>followers.)
Of course not, but actually he talked a lot about what he considered to be
"pseudoscience." e.g.
STEINER
"Observe closely how the doctrines of Karl Marx have been spread among the
proletariat...You will find all the methods of our present-day science used
in the books; everything is strictly proved... [P]resent human thinking,
the present intellect, lies in a stratum of being where it does not reach
down to realities. One can therefore prove something quite strictly, and
also prove its opposite. ... Ahriman makes use of this confusion in order
to prepare the triumph of his incarnation and to drive men with increasing
force into what they find so difficult to realize-namely, that by
intellectual or modern scientific reasoning today, one can prove anything
and equally well prove its opposite."
[Steiner, Rudolf. The Ahrimanic Deception. (1919) Trans. M.
Cottrell, revised by William Riggens. Spring Valley: Anthroposophic
Press, 1985, pp. 12-14]
STEPHEN TONKIN
>It doesn't require a great intellect to demonstrate, as many have
>previously done, that spiritual matters lie outside the remit of a
>modern definition of science and, as I am sure someone of your wisdom
>knows, it is a trivial matter to find examples of pseudoscientific
>argument from almost anyone of significance who pre-dated Popper's
>distinction between science and pseudoscience (1934). However, there is
>evidence (eg the preface to the 1920 edition of _Occult Science - an
>outline_) that Steiner was aware of the objections of those who accepted
>a narrowing definition of science.
>
>(As an aside, it is interesting to follow how "science" has narrowed its
>definition from what was once broadly a quest for knowledge and truth --
>(Latin: scire = to know)-- to the Popperian view)
"narrowing definition of science"? The field of science is broader than a
human mind can encompass, and full of mysteries. If science isn't "a quest
for knowledge and truth" I don't know what is. You seem to be echoing
Steiner's anti-intellectual attitude. Rigorous testing never hurt a good
theory; rather it makes one.
>Anyway, I thought this list was meant to be a critique of Waldorf
>education? Surely your zeal would be better directed to what is
>actually happening here and now, rather than the translated writings of
>a man who died over 70 years ago? Would you consider it valid if I
>criticised the present United States on the grounds that some (all?) of
>the authors of your Declaration of Independence thought that slavery was
>acceptable and demonstrated this by employing slaves?
>
>Dan, if you want to, you can fall back on the "Steiner said..." crutch,
>much like the pro- and anti- fanatics in Communism or religion use the
>crutches "Marx said...", "The Bible says..." etc. (And, at the risk of
>descending into a circular paradox, it was Steiner's intention that we
>do not blindly follow what he says but that we apply those things we
>ourselves discover to be valid).
Jeez, Stephen, now you're going to pretend that what Steiner said has
nothing to do with what goes on in Waldorf schools? No way. Go to the PLANS
web page and look at the first-year teacher training reading list. Steiner,
Steiner, Steiner...
"apply those things we ourselves discover to be valid" is a guru trick.
Steiner's instructions for validating his teachings is to do what he says
without question, and then see how it *feels*. If it *feels* right, it must
be true. A defective epistemology, IMHO.
>Again, what may be more instructive as you pursue your vendetta, is to
>discuss (without taking them out of context) the arguments of those who
>are _today_ supporting Waldorf education; to debate with those people
>the things _they_ have said.
>
>After all, I am sure you wouldn't want to open yourself to the charge
>that you are only able to successfully debate the words of those who are
>unable to respond.
Haven't you noticed the recent dates on many of my quotations? I subscribe
to half a dozen Anthroposophical periodicals.
Call our work a "vendetta" if you will. I prefer to call it a
public-service campaign. We want prospective Waldorf parents to know what
they're getting into. we want the Waldorf movement to stop proselytizing in
public education, because of its incorribigle shortcomings and violations
of separation of church and state law.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n089 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n090 --------------
001 - Stephen Tonkin )
002 - dan dandugan.com (Dan Dug - Clinton Chicago education
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n090.1 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin
Subject: Re: Tarra, folks! (obviously not yet! )
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 05:49:45 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Dan Dugan writes
>
>
>STEPHEN TONKIN
>>(I suggest that it is unreasonable to expect him to refer to
>>'pseudoscience', since the term was only coined a couple of decades
>>after he wrote the quote above. It is similarly unreasonable to expect
>>Steiner to have used the criteria for distinction between science and
>>pseudoscience which were subsequently developed by Popper and his
>>followers.)
>
>Of course not,
You say that it is not unreasonable, then you say:
>but actually he talked a lot about what he considered to be
>"pseudoscience."
but your quote:
>"Observe closely how the doctrines of Karl Marx have been spread among the
>proletariat...You will find all the methods of our present-day science used
>in the books; everything is strictly proved... [P]resent human thinking,
>the present intellect, lies in a stratum of being where it does not reach
>down to realities. One can therefore prove something quite strictly, and
>also prove its opposite. ... Ahriman makes use of this confusion in order
>to prepare the triumph of his incarnation and to drive men with increasing
>force into what they find so difficult to realize-namely, that by
>intellectual or modern scientific reasoning today, one can prove anything
>and equally well prove its opposite."
does nothing to support your view -- nowhere in it does he use the term
"pseudoscience".
>
>>
>>(As an aside, it is interesting to follow how "science" has narrowed its
>>definition from what was once broadly a quest for knowledge and truth --
>>(Latin: scire = to know)-- to the Popperian view)
>
>"narrowing definition of science"?
Yes -- science now only admits (or claims only to admit) that which is
measurable.
>The field of science is broader than a
>human mind can encompass, and full of mysteries.
The mind is broader than science can encompass and full of mysteries.
What is thought? Explain to me the process by which a thought arises
and do so in a measurable, testable manner.
How do ideas arise?
In the same vein, explain the phenomena of magnetism; gravity. (NB I
said 'explain', not 'describe') Please do so with no circular
arguments, neither should there be assumptions which cannot be verified
nor models which are incomplete. (eg, let's not have talk of gravitons
or magnetic domains)
In a similar vein (yes , I have moved it from the context in which you
made this aside, but it is something with which you seem have a
particular problem understanding):
>Steiner's weird science is quoted, like "the heart is not a pump."
In the same sense here is some more "weird science" for you:
The brain is not a computer
The kidney is not a filter paper
The liver is not a factory
The human being is not a naked ape
The atom does not look like the Bohr model which so frequently
represents it (even Niels Bohr ageeed!)
In each of the above, each pair may share some characteristics, but that
does not mean that the one *IS* the other. Yet even in that sense, the
heart/pump analogy could be flawed. I recall a physiology lecture at
university in which the lecturer said that if we must take a mechanical
model for the heart, the hydram may be more appropriate than the pump
since the rhythm of the hydram responds to the rate of fluid flow
through it -- you can send a hydram into "shock" by reducing fluid flow.
I'm sure that you are capable of completing the analogy in this model.
>If science isn't "a quest
>for knowledge and truth" I don't know what is.
Philosophy?
> You seem to be echoing
>Steiner's anti-intellectual attitude.
In your imagination, perhaps.
>
>
Now that is a cheap comment (and yes, I do realise that saying that is
dangerously close to being an ad hominem, even though it is an ad
argumentum). Your snip follows: kindly point out the ad hominem and
name the 'homo' at whom it is aimed.
"What is far more instructive is to observe how some _later_ writers,
who
claim (or imply) that their approach is scientific; who are (or ought to
be) aware of the distinction between science and pseudoscience; who
accept (or imply that they accept) the validity of scientific method,
_still_ manage to produce arguments infested with pseudoscience. I
mention no names..."
I accept that you may believe that the description above that fits your
style of argument, taken it personally and, hence, taken offence -- but
it is still not an ad hominem.
Do you actually know what an ad hominem is? I ask because this is the
second time within a few weeks that you have confused an ad argumentum
with an ad hominem. I am beginning to believe that, when you find that
your style of argument is shown to be invalid, you try to escape the
criticism by calling it an ad hominem.
>
>Jeez, Stephen, now you're going to pretend that what Steiner said has
>nothing to do with what goes on in Waldorf schools?
No, I didn't say that. Straw Man. I suggested debating with people who
are working *NOW* in that realm.
>
>"apply those things we ourselves discover to be valid" is a guru trick.
That is *your* religious belief, to which you are, of course, entitled.
>
>Call our work a "vendetta" if you will.
I do.
>I prefer to call it a
>public-service campaign.
I wonder how many vendettas (or whatever the correct plural is) have
been justified with those, or similar, words. The interested reader
can, I am sure, think of examples.
--
Stephen Tonkin Class 8 Teacher, Ringwood WS, UK
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n090.2 ---------------
From: dan dandugan.com (Dan Dugan)
Subject: Clinton Chicago education
Date: Sat, 31 Aug 1996 01:18:16 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
[Excerpt from speech copied from MSNBC transcript -dD-]
Now, one thing so many of our fellow
Americans are learning is that education no
longer stops on graduation day. I have
proposed a new GI Bill for American workers,
a $2,600 grant for unemployed and
underemployed Americans, so that they can get
the training and the skills they need to go
back to work at better-paying jobs-good,
high-skill jobs for a good future.
But we must demand excellence at
every level of education. We must insist that
our students learn the old basics we learned
and the new basics they have to know for the
next century.
Tonight let us set a clear national
goal: All children should be able to read on
their own by the third grade. When 40 percent
of our 8-year-olds cannot read as well as
they should, we have to do something. I want
to send 30,000 reading specialists and
National Service Corps members to mobilize a
volunteer army of 1 million reading tutors
for third-graders all across America. They
will teach our young children to read.
Let me say to our parents, you have
to lead the way. Every tired night you spend
reading a book to your child will be worth it
many times over. I know that Hillary and I
still talk about the books we read to Chelsea
when we were so tired we could hardly stay
awake. We still remember them, and, more
important, so does she.
But we're going to help the parents
of this country make every child able to read
for himself or herself by the age of eight,
by the third grade.
Do you believe we can do that?
Will you help us do that?
We must give parents, all parents,
the right to choose which public school their
children will attend, and to let teachers
form new charter schools with a charter they
can keep only if they do a good job. We must
keep our schools open late so that young
people have some place to go, and something
to say "yes" to, and stay off the street.
We must require that our students
pass tough tests to keep moving up in school.
A diploma has to mean something when they get
out. We should reward teachers that are doing
a good job, remove those who don't measure
up. But in every case, never forget that none
of us would be here tonight if it weren't for
our teachers. I know I wouldn't. We ought to
lift them up, not tear them down. Thank you.
We need schools that will take our
children into the next century. We need
schools that are rebuilt and modernized with
an unprecedented commitment from the national
government to increase school construction
and with every single library and classroom
in America connected to the Information
Superhighway by the year 2000.
Now, folks, if we do these things,
every eight-year-old will be able to read,
every 12-year-old will be able to log in on
the Internet, every 18-year-old will be able
to go to college, and all Americans will have
the knowledge they need to cross that bridge
to the 21st century.
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n090 ---------------