return to WCA Archive Index
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n811 --------------
001 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Buddha to Mars (was: Occult chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)
002 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult chemis
003 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult
c
004 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Proliferation of crud
005 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Debate on anti-Semitism
006 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Debate on anti-Semitism
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n811.1 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 20:25:02 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199806292136.OAA10227 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199806292233.PAA17573 lists1.best.com)
At 23:31 29-6-1998 +0100, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
)_Kindred Spirit_ is not a "medical quarterly", alternate or otherwise --
(By the way, the adjective "medical" for _Kindred Spirit_ is June Noble's;
not mine, as Mr Tonkin might have seen)
)it is new age publication which is heavily laden with new-age
)pseudoscience. The last issue I saw, some years ago, was infested with
)crud on "cereology" (crop circles)
So, we can all safely presume, that to Stephen Tonkin, the idea that in the
seventeenth century, the Buddha went to planet Mars "at the request of
Christian Rosencreutz" on a peace mission is also crud? So is claiming the
existence of airplanes "in ancient Atlantis"? And so is the idea that white
pregnant women should not read "negro novels" as their babies might then
turn out "mulatto"?
)and possibly the worst-informed
)article on non-Euclidean geometry I have ever had the misfortune to read
)-- nothing even remotely medical there.
)If I read in _Kindred Spirit_ that grass was green, my first instinct
)would be to go outside and indulge in a bit of independent verification.
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n811.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)}
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 04:42:19 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199806301841.LAA24227 lists1.best.com)
Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl) wrote:
)
)So, we can all safely presume, that to Stephen Tonkin, the idea that in the
)seventeenth century, the Buddha went to planet Mars "at the request of
)Christian Rosencreutz" on a peace mission is also crud? So is claiming the
)existence of airplanes "in ancient Atlantis"? And so is the idea that white
)pregnant women should not read "negro novels" as their babies might then
)turn out "mulatto"?
Indeed, Dr de Tollenaere, you can safely presume that I believe that
there is no scientific evidence for any of the above. You can also
safely presume that I consider the following to be crud:
# The allegation that South African Waldorf schools teach only European
fairy tales.
# The implication that schools and individuals which actively opposed
apartheid (and stood up to it) are racist.
# The implication that people who actively worked for Indian
independence (and who were recognised by the likes of Mohandas Gandhi
as having done so) were racist.
# The implication that Waldorf schools are inherently racist.
--
Stephen Tonkin
(N50.9105 W1.829)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UK Amateur Telescope Making - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/atm.htm)
ATM and Astronomy Books - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/books/books.htm)
The Astronomical Unit - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/astunit.htm)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n811.3 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult
chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)}
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 19:10:41 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199806301841.LAA24227 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807010400.VAA00665 lists1.best.com)
Stephen Tonkin replies to some leading questions ... with the usual
slipperiness:
)Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl) wrote:
))
))So, we can all safely presume, that to Stephen Tonkin, the idea that in the
))seventeenth century, the Buddha went to planet Mars "at the request of
))Christian Rosencreutz" on a peace mission is also crud? So is claiming the
))existence of airplanes "in ancient Atlantis"? And so is the idea that white
))pregnant women should not read "negro novels" as their babies might then
))turn out "mulatto"?
)
)Indeed, Dr de Tollenaere, you can safely presume that I believe that
)there is no scientific evidence for any of the above.
[rest of Tonkin's diatribe against De Tollenarre's views on racism snipped]
KOPP says:
So, Stephen, now that you've been giving the Anthroposophical gullibles on
the A. Science list lessons in just what real science is all about, and you
have told us there is no "scientific evidence" of mumbo-jumbo, can you do
one of the following:
Admit that there is no *evidence* of any kind, scientific or otherwise, for
the mumbo jumbo; or
Tell us what the other evidence is, so that we may become enlightened with
the wisdom of ... whatever it is ...
And, while you're at it, perhaps you'd like to go all the way, and abjure
Anthroposphy and its weirdness wholly and finally?
(Hint: I'm not holding my breath... But then, I'm told that pigs can fly ...)
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n811.4 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 09:59:36 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Michael Kopp:
)So, Stephen, now that you've been giving the Anthroposophical gullibles on
)the A. Science list lessons in just what real science is all about, and
you
)have told us there is no "scientific evidence" of mumbo-jumbo, can you do
)one of the following:
)
)Admit that there is no *evidence* of any kind, scientific or otherwise,
for
)the mumbo jumbo; or
I think I can answer this one. The approach I take is similar to the one
Steiner recommends. I begin with his epistemological works, primarily
"Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path, A Philosophy of Freedom". While
this book demands much of the reader, in one sense it is one of Steiner's
most accessible works in that almost the entire book can be understood
without having to make a leap of faith. Then the exercises and meditations
he describes in several of his other writings are useful for bringing
greater consciousness or attentiveness to the individual.
For me, this is the basis of anthroposophy. It provides a philosophical
foundation for how we know, along with techniques for extending our
capacities to know.
As Steiner admits, all human observations are subject to error, including
his own. On the one hand, I think Steiner did his best to honestly relate
his spiritual observations. I do not think he would lie. However, one
cannot take them too literally either. Steiner spoke of the difficulty of
relating spiritual knowledge in common language. I have the same
difficulty in trying to describe beauty in the arts. Furthermore, one gets
into trouble if one applies knowledge valid in the spiritual realm to the
physical realm and similarly knowledge of the physical realm to the
spiritual. Steiner is very clear about this in his "Theory of Knowledge"
(recently translated as "Science of Knowing").
Let us look at some specific examples. From his spiritual observations,
Steiner states that the human form was more malleable in past epochs.
Perhaps this does not mean that our bones were physically softer, rather we
might have been more easily transformed in an evolutionary sense. Honestly
I do not know what it implies physically. Conversely, the spirit nature of
art cannot be grasped with the scientific method. I don't think anyone can
argue that science can tell us which are the greatest paintings and musical
compositions. Similarly we do not use poetry or other spiritual truths to
predict the positions of the planets.
This is not to say that there are spiritual realities we cannot perceive
within our normal state of consciousness. That humans have a physical
body, life forces, consciousness, and self-consciousness is quite clear.
Whether these are 'spiritual' realities is subject to debate and definition
(what is spirit and spiritual?); however, I think Steiner's fourfold view
of the human being is easily understood by any reasonable person.
)Tell us what the other evidence is, so that we may become enlightened with
)the wisdom of ... whatever it is ...
)
Michael, not so long ago I thought in a way similar to the way you do, so I
understand your frustration. Unfortunately (or fortunately), there is no
scientific evidence for truths that lay outside the limits of science. We
all see the truth that it is right to be kind to your neighbor. Some have
tried to rationalize that for the self-interest of the benefits of social
cohesion, people are kind to their neighbors. There may be some truth to
this, but it does not fully explain our behavior. When a neighbor needs a
hand, any healthy human being simply knows it right to help. The thought
of social stability does not enter our mind. I do not think there is a
scientific explanation for this truth.
Perhaps the critics will be pleased to know that there are indeed limits to
knowledge gained from the spiritual perspective. The fact that no one
particular view can give us universal knowledge is what makes life so
interesting. Steiner talks of a universal view that encompasses all the
individual perspectives from which a greater universal understanding can be
achieved. The poet describes a beautiful setting of the sun; the scientist
says, "No, it is the turning of the earth." It is not so difficult to see
they are both correct, though they may never find agreement within their
limited views. One of the great strengths of Walforf Education is its
encouragement of its students to approach a subject from multiple views.
I believe much of the confusion of Steiner's work of both the critics and
people within anthroposophy stems from the failure to understand his
fundamental epistemology. People get hung up on Atlantean hover vehicles
and the various spiritual hierarchies when most of us are not able to
experience these things. As Steiner would recommend, the place to begin is
within the realm of our direct experience.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n811.5 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Debate on anti-Semitism
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 17:57:41 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
At
http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/diet-1.html
is a reaction (in German) by (Anthroposophists) Jens Heisterkamp and Judith
Krischik Amnon Reuveni to an anti-Semitic article in the central
Anthroposophical magazine Das Goetheanum
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n811.6 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Debate on anti-Semitism
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 11:11:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807011616.JAA27895 lists1.best.com)
Herman, you wrote,
)At
)
)http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/diet-1.html
)
)is a reaction (in German) by (Anthroposophists) Jens Heisterkamp and Judith
)Krischik Amnon Reuveni to an anti-Semitic article in the central
)Anthroposophical magazine Das Goetheanum
Could you summarize the controversy for those of us who can't read German?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n811 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n812 --------------
001 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to
002 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: Debate on anti-Semitism
003 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult ch
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Proliferation of crud
005 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult
c
006 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to
007 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult ch
008 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddh
009 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult
c
010 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Proliferation of crud
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.1 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to
Mars)
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 20:01:31 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199806301841.LAA24227 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807010400.VAA00665 lists1.best.com)
At 04:42 1-7-1998 +0100, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
)Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl) wrote:
))
))So, we can all safely presume, that to Stephen Tonkin, the idea that in the
))seventeenth century, the Buddha went to planet Mars "at the request of
))Christian Rosencreutz" on a peace mission is also crud? So is claiming the
))existence of airplanes "in ancient Atlantis"? And so is the idea that white
))pregnant women should not read "negro novels" as their babies might then
))turn out "mulatto"?
)
)Indeed, Dr de Tollenaere, you can safely presume that I believe that
)there is no scientific evidence for any of the above.
As Stephen Tonkin is probably aware, all three of the examples above can be
found in Dr Rudolf Steiner's works. How about "spiritual scientific"
evidence (as Michael Kopp also asked)?
)You can also safely presume that I consider the following to be crud:
)
)# The allegation that South African Waldorf schools teach only European
fairy tales.
This "allegation" was what an eminent South African scholar found where she
was (not necessarily valid for *all the* South African Waldorf schools).
)# The implication
by whom, please?
)that schools and individuals which actively opposed
)apartheid (and stood up to it) are racist.
Is it "crud" to consider South African Anthroposophist authors Picard and
Downer, whose work is [I do hope: *was*; but I certainly am not sure; I
have just hope, no evidence] used at Waldorf schools, racist? *Their* book
was published by the South African Anthroposophical publishers Novalis.
Probably, other South African Anthroposophists opposed Picard and Downer's
views. However, *their* views were *not* published.
)# The implication that people who actively worked for Indian
)independence (and who were recognised by the likes of Mohandas Gandhi
)as having done so)
Whom does Stephen Tonkin mean? Alice Bailey? Annie Besant? Then, probably,
he did not read Besant's [and Bailey's] writings, explicitly against Indian
[and Irish] independence, as India and Britain, both "Aryan" [Besant's
word] should be in the same "Aryan empire". And please, show me where in
Gandhi's works I might find a statement that Mrs Besant "worked for Indian
independence". And what "likes" are meant, please?
)were racist.
I do think it is possible to be for Indian Home Rule within the British
empire [as Besant was; so, not for independence], and be racist as well. I
also think it is possible to be for complete Indian independence and Indian
nuclear bombs [as the present governing party, the BJP, is], and be racist
as well. I also think it was possible (for some individuals, like E.V.
Ramaswami Naicker Periyar at some points in his career) to be against
Indian independence from non-racist motives.
)# The implication
by whom, please?
)that Waldorf schools are inherently racist.
No one said "inherently". However, a committee set up recently by the
executive of the Dutch Anthroposophical Society concluded that "Racial
Ethnography" courses at Waldorf schools were racist.
)
)--
) Stephen Tonkin
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.2 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: Debate on anti-Semitism
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 22:24:36 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: (199807011616.JAA27895 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807011812.LAA20179 lists1.best.com)
At 11:11 1-7-1998 -0700, Dan Dugan wrote:
)Herman, you wrote,
)
))At
))
))http://www.pinenet.com/~rooster/diet-1.html
))
))is a reaction (in German) by (Anthroposophists) Jens Heisterkamp and=
Judith
))Krischik Amnon Reuveni to an anti-Semitic article in the central
))Anthroposophical magazine Das Goetheanum
)
)Could you summarize the controversy for those of us who can't read German?
Jens Heisterkamp and Judith Krischik Amnon Reuveni react to Irene Diet:
=BBAuf den Spuren der Opfer. Anmerkungen zu Barbro Karlen und Yonassan
Gershom=AB, in Das Goetheanum, Nr.20, of 17 May 1998. According to Rabbi
Yonassam Gershom, Diet's article is anti-Semitic.
According to Diet, Steiner said repeatedly that the ancient Hebrew people
were =BBdas Volk per excellence [THE people]=AB, =BBby whom the group soul
qualities revealed themselves within humanity [durch das sich das
Gruppenseelenhafte innerhalb der Menschheit offenbarte.=AB To Anthroposophy,
"group soul qualities" are bad and should be overcome. Diet accuses Gershom
(wrongly, say Jens Heisterkamp and Judith Krischik Amnon Reuveni) of
narrow-minded Jewish fanaticism.=20
Diet concludes that Yonassan Gershom [and Swedish author Barbro Karlen,
claiming to be Anne Frank reincarnate; in itself a claim about which I am
"a bit" skeptical, speaking as an Anne Frank Foundation local
correspondent] are "tools of black magic forces". The aim of those forces
is, Diet claims, to divert the attention of humanity away from the
re-appearing Christ, to "Ahasverus" [the "wandering Jew" in anti-Jewish
mythology].=20
According to Jens Heisterkamp and Judith Krischik Amnon Reuveni, Diet's
article is "full of anti-Jewish cliches"; a "bad setback" for dialogue
between Anthroposophists and Judaism, especially Rabbi Yonassam Gershom
[Gershom differs from most Jews, by the way, in accepting a [Hasidic] kind
of reincarnation theory]. They criticize the editors of Das Goetheanum for
publishing Diet's article. They remind readers of Gennadi Bondarew, Russian
Anthroposophist leader (according to Heisterkamp and Judith Krischik Amnon
Reuveni, recently "excluded" by the Anthroposophical Society leadership):
Bondarew claimed the Shoah by the Nazis was "a Jewish invention". [An
invitation to Bondarew as a speaker at a conference in The Netherlands
caused a big row among Dutch Anthroposophists, as I wrote earlier].=20
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)}
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998 16:30:53 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807010712.AAA24724 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
)Stephen Tonkin replies to some leading questions ... with the usual
)slipperiness:
Nice to see you back, Michael :-)
What shall we use this time? Eurythmy rods at 20 lift-carry-places?
)[rest of Tonkin's diatribe against De Tollenarre's views on racism snipped]
Diatribe? Me?
[snip examples cited by the good Dr de T]
)Admit that there is no *evidence* of any kind, scientific or otherwise, for
)the mumbo jumbo; or
Sorry, I can't. I can admit that I've never found any, but I am sure
that there are things that exist independently of my encountering them.
Others say that they do have evidence of a spiritual nature -- I'm
afraid I'm a tad underdeveloped in this realm.
John Calkins' reply is probably a lot more helpful than mine...
)
)Tell us what the other evidence is, so that we may become enlightened with
)the wisdom of ... whatever it is ...
Sorry, I can't (see reasons above), but perhaps you may like to consider
whether "absence of evidence" can be equated with "evidence of absence".
)And, while you're at it, perhaps you'd like to go all the way, and abjure
)Anthroposphy and its weirdness wholly and finally?
Errmmm -- No, thank you, but I appreciate your concern for my spiritual
develpment.
)(Hint: I'm not holding my breath... But then, I'm told that pigs can fly ...)
Only inflatable ones, once moored at Battersea Power Station.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:10:32 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807011402.HAA20782 lists1.best.com)
)From: John Calkins
)
)Michael Kopp:
))So, Stephen, now that you've been giving the Anthroposophical gullibles on
))the A. Science list lessons in just what real science is all about, and
)you
))have told us there is no "scientific evidence" of mumbo-jumbo, can you do
))one of the following:
))
))Admit that there is no *evidence* of any kind, scientific or otherwise,
)for
))the mumbo jumbo; or
)
)I think I can answer this one. The approach I take is similar to the one
)Steiner recommends. I begin with his epistemological works, primarily
)"Intuitive Thinking as a Spiritual Path, A Philosophy of Freedom". While
)this book demands much of the reader, in one sense it is one of Steiner's
)most accessible works in that almost the entire book can be understood
)without having to make a leap of faith. Then the exercises and meditations
)he describes in several of his other writings are useful for bringing
)greater consciousness or attentiveness to the individual.
)
)For me, this is the basis of anthroposophy. It provides a philosophical
)foundation for how we know, along with techniques for extending our
)capacities to know.
KOPP says:
Clairvoyance as epistemology. Wow. I'm not impressed.
)As Steiner admits, all human observations are subject to error, including
)his own.
KOPP says:
What other kind of observations are there? As far as I know -- because it
hasn't been demonstrated otherwise to me with tangible evidence -- we
humans are the only ones around this planet to think about our
"observations".
)On the one hand, I think Steiner did his best to honestly relate
)his spiritual observations. I do not think he would lie. However, one
)cannot take them too literally either. Steiner spoke of the difficulty of
)relating spiritual knowledge in common language. I have the same
)difficulty in trying to describe beauty in the arts.
KOPP says:
Your implication is that arts are spiritual, similar to Steiner's philosophy.
But lots of people don't have that difficulty, and use words quite
eloquently to describe beauty in art: try Robert Adams, "Beauty in
Photography; Essays in Defense of Traditional Values". This difficulty of
yours (and mine and Steiner's) has less to do with there being something
esoteric, occult, spiritually foreign and "higher", than with our own
inadequacies of language or thought.
I read Steiner as a poet, not a scientist of any kind at all, trying to
grapple with the weirdness of his own mind.
That he founded a religion based on this weirdness is fine with me; anyone
is welcome to believe anything they want. (John Calkins certainly seems
much more imbued with belief now, after a year of Anthroposophical
indoctrination, than he did previously.)
But not for me, not for my kids, not in a state or state-funded school, and
not by the stealth by which it is inculcated in kids through a
spiritually-loaded curriculum that parents don't understand and are duped
about by false advertising and incomplete information upon enrolment.
(Whew.)
)Furthermore, one gets
)into trouble if one applies knowledge valid in the spiritual realm to the
)physical realm and similarly knowledge of the physical realm to the
)spiritual. Steiner is very clear about this in his "Theory of Knowledge"
)(recently translated as "Science of Knowing").
)
)Let us look at some specific examples. From his spiritual observations,
)Steiner states that the human form was more malleable in past epochs.
)Perhaps this does not mean that our bones were physically softer, rather we
)might have been more easily transformed in an evolutionary sense. Honestly
)I do not know what it implies physically. Conversely, the spirit nature of
)art cannot be grasped with the scientific method. I don't think anyone can
)argue that science can tell us which are the greatest paintings and musical
)compositions. Similarly we do not use poetry or other spiritual truths to
)predict the positions of the planets.
KOPP says:
Of course we do, as we did in our early days, and it's washing over us
again as a tide of uncritical acceptance of mumbo jumbo born of child-like
credulousness, in people whose lives are dimmed by the seductive allure of
fairy-tales (especially modern, mass-media pseudo-life).
)This is not to say that there are spiritual realities we cannot perceive
)within our normal state of consciousness. That humans have a physical
)body, life forces, consciousness, and self-consciousness is quite clear.
)Whether these are 'spiritual' realities is subject to debate and definition
)(what is spirit and spiritual?); however, I think Steiner's fourfold view
)of the human being is easily understood by any reasonable person.
)
))Tell us what the other evidence is, so that we may become enlightened with
))the wisdom of ... whatever it is ...
))
)
)Michael, not so long ago I thought in a way similar to the way you do, so I
)understand your frustration. Unfortunately (or fortunately), there is no
)scientific evidence for truths that lay outside the limits of science. We
)all see the truth that it is right to be kind to your neighbor. Some have
)tried to rationalize that for the self-interest of the benefits of social
)cohesion, people are kind to their neighbors. There may be some truth to
)this, but it does not fully explain our behavior. When a neighbor needs a
)hand, any healthy human being simply knows it right to help. The thought
)of social stability does not enter our mind. I do not think there is a
)scientific explanation for this truth.
KOPP says:
My frustration is not that I don't understand Steiner or Anthroposophy.
It's possible, if one wants to devote enough time, to comprehend it
intellectually. I think it's mumbo jumbo, and I'm not going to waste my
time on it, nor have my kids exposed to it any longer. My displeasure is
that it is becoming accepted as a valid alternative way of education _in
the public school system_ of New Zealand.
Altruism is explainable both scientifically and morally without need to
have reference to spirituality. Moral codes develop not for goodness but
social control. Altruism is a form of selfishness in animal terms. The
ethical culture of humanists is explainable by our tendency to organise and
codify behaviour and our desire to make life comfortable and progressive
without the need for oppressive moral or spiritual dimensions that we
cannot truly know. I do not think that children raised without social codes
would help their neighbours: that's one of the problems of modern societies
-- the breakdown of the education of our children in, or wholesale
overturning of, the social codes that took us 10 millenia to develop.
)Perhaps the critics will be pleased to know that there are indeed limits to
)knowledge gained from the spiritual perspective. The fact that no one
)particular view can give us universal knowledge is what makes life so
)interesting. Steiner talks of a universal view that encompasses all the
)individual perspectives from which a greater universal understanding can be
)achieved. The poet describes a beautiful setting of the sun; the scientist
)says, "No, it is the turning of the earth."
KOPP says:
John Calkins is raising a false dichotomy. What reason would the scientist
have to say "NO"? Scientists appreciate poetry. Poets often don't
understand science, but that's okay, because they add wonderful views of
life. It's not a question of whether one or the other is RIGHT, or CORRECT!
Description of what we see is rarely accurate in terms of the causation or
mechanism involved. Poets rarely try to actually explain phenomena; in
fact, poetry may be said to be the opposite: mystification. Wonderful, but
not real. Illuminating, but not explanatory.
)It is not so difficult to see
)they are both correct, though they may never find agreement within their
)limited views.
KOPP says:
Better to say they are both useful, for different purposes. Poetry cannot
help me understand the movements of the Universe. Science cannot tell me
why I am so awed at it. We need poetry and science for a balanced life. We
do not need mumbo jumbo to run our lives, which is what Anthroposophy
provides, rather than poetry.
)One of the great strengths of Walforf Education is its
)encouragement of its students to approach a subject from multiple views.
KOPP says:
That is also one of its principle failings. My children foundered in this
miasma.
One of Waldorf Education's (Anthroposophy's) great weakenesses is that it
denigrates and disparages one of those views -- science and materialistic,
critical thinking -- in favour of the mantra that all things are possible
of truth. The fact that science can show evidence for its truths is
submerged, drowned in the overwhelming wash of sentimental, spiritualistic,
pap that passes for knowledge.
(I've cited so many of these, without any rebuttal, I grow weary, but, just
for any newcomers to the list, here's my favourite: My children's English
teacher (English teacher, for god's sake!) told their classes that Greek
epic poetry developed dactylic hexameter because of a relationship between
the ratio of human heartbeat to respiration, and the number of human
breaths in a lifetime and the number of years in the "Platonic Year" [known
to science as the precession of the equinoxes, but _unknown_ to the Greeks
at the time of the development of Homeric poetry, and, indeed, unknown for
at least another 400 years].
This numeralogical mumbo jumbo is still going the rounds over on the
Anthroposophical Science (A-S) mailing list. I'm still waiting for an
answer from my children's former school as to some evidence for this
astounding assertion about a simple coincidence and artifact of the solar
system. Steiner makes much of the Platonic Year, too. But no appeal to
astrological influences succeeds, because there can be no constancy in the
stars: everything is always changing, everything is in motion, five or six
different kinds of motion, and the stars that would have influenced
STeiner's ancients are no longer where they were then, nor is any
astronomical periodic phenomenon the same today as then.)
If we're going to have multiple views, and the proponents of those views
wish them to be taken seriously, as do the proponents of Anthroposophy,
then we have to have multiple proofs, and the scientific method is the best
for that. Except that, as John Calkins admits above, science cannot "prove"
anything about intangibles (it never tries), and everything Steiner talks
about is intangible. So much of the education in Waldorf schools is about
intangibles, and scientific proof is never mentioned, taught or desired,
even in the teaching of what passes for normal science!
)I believe much of the confusion of Steiner's work of both the critics and
)people within anthroposophy stems from the failure to understand his
)fundamental epistemology. People get hung up on Atlantean hover vehicles
)and the various spiritual hierarchies when most of us are not able to
)experience these things. As Steiner would recommend, the place to begin is
)within the realm of our direct experience.
)
)John Calkins
KOPP says:
And the major flaw with his "epistemology" is that Steiner claimed "direct
experience" of things that NO ONE SINCE has been able to duplicate; that
neither he nor anyone else has ever been able to _demonstrate_ outside
their own fevered brains; that do not even admit of an acceptable lingua
franca for both the experiencer and the outsider; but that Steiner proceded
to proselytise in such a huge body of mumbo jumbo that it's almost
impenetrable.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.5 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult
chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)}
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 13:38:55 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807010712.AAA24724 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807012108.OAA04045 lists1.best.com)
Stephen Tonkin gets curiouser and curiouser:
)Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
))Stephen Tonkin replies to some leading questions ... with the usual
))slipperiness:
)
)Nice to see you back, Michael :-)
)
)What shall we use this time? Eurythmy rods at 20 lift-carry-places?
Let's try sticking to something we both know and appreciate: empiricism and
evidence. I doubt that I could lift a Eurythmy rod. What do you do with
them -- a kind of dowsing for spiritual water?
))Admit that there is no *evidence* of any kind, scientific or otherwise, for
))the mumbo jumbo; or
)
)Sorry, I can't. I can admit that I've never found any, but I am sure
)that there are things that exist independently of my encountering them.
What say? How can you be *sure*?
)Others say that they do have evidence of a spiritual nature -- I'm
)afraid I'm a tad underdeveloped in this realm.
So are they: they can't produce any evidence -- for you, who *want* to
believe, apparently, in nature and supernature at the same time, or for me,
who is satisfied with what IS, and doesn't need to seek what can't, by your
own admission, be "encountered".
)John Calkins' reply is probably a lot more helpful than mine...
Probably not, I'm afraid, as I've said elsewhere.
))Tell us what the other evidence is, so that we may become enlightened with
))the wisdom of ... whatever it is ...
)
)Sorry, I can't (see reasons above), but perhaps you may like to consider
)whether "absence of evidence" can be equated with "evidence of absence".
No, I just want you or any other spiritualist to SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE of
what you say exists. And don't put words in my mouth, Stephen, it's a
return to your old style. I have never, ever said that I do not believe
there can be anything supernatural or "supersensible". All I've said is,
show me. Like you, I'm perfectly prepared to admit the possibility that
there is something more to the Universe than I now know. But you want to
believe there is; I don't need to. I'm a patient fellow; I can wait a few
more reincarnation cycles.
))And, while you're at it, perhaps you'd like to go all the way, and abjure
))Anthroposphy and its weirdness wholly and finally?
)
)Errmmm -- No, thank you, but I appreciate your concern for my spiritual
)develpment.
No, your spiritual development is no concern of mine. Your belief in mumbo
jumbo and defence of its use in schools and your own belief in science as
well ARE concerns of mine, because we share a few traits, among them an
enquiring nature and some (in your case) and much (in my case) skepticism
about pseudo-science.
I'm simply trying to get you to live in one world or the other, OR provide
me with evidence that it is possible to live in BOTH worlds at the same
time, without having to go through the looking glass.
Cheers from Godzone (where pigs fly regularly, especially in Parliament),
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 05:23:12 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807011918.MAA05590 lists1.best.com)
Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl) wrote:
)At 04:42 1-7-1998 +0100, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
))Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl) wrote:
)))
)))So, we can all safely presume, that to Stephen Tonkin, the idea that in the
)))seventeenth century, the Buddha went to planet Mars "at the request of
)))Christian Rosencreutz" on a peace mission is also crud? So is claiming the
)))existence of airplanes "in ancient Atlantis"? And so is the idea that white
)))pregnant women should not read "negro novels" as their babies might then
)))turn out "mulatto"?
))
))Indeed, Dr de Tollenaere, you can safely presume that I believe that
))there is no scientific evidence for any of the above.
)
)As Stephen Tonkin is probably aware, all three of the examples above can be
)found in Dr Rudolf Steiner's works.
Yes, I am aware of that.
)How about "spiritual scientific"
)evidence (as Michael Kopp also asked)?
See response to Michael.
))You can also safely presume that I consider the following to be crud:
))
))# The allegation that South African Waldorf schools teach only European
)fairy tales.
)
)This "allegation" was what an eminent South African scholar found where she
)was (not necessarily valid for *all the* South African Waldorf schools).
But that's not precisely what you posted to this list, is it?
)
))# The implication
)
)by whom, please?
See archives if you really want to know.
)
))that schools and individuals which actively opposed
))apartheid (and stood up to it) are racist.
)
)Is it "crud" to consider South African Anthroposophist authors Picard and
)Downer, whose work is [I do hope: *was*; but I certainly am not sure; I
)have just hope, no evidence] used at Waldorf schools, racist? *Their* book
)was published by the South African Anthroposophical publishers Novalis.
)Probably, other South African Anthroposophists opposed Picard and Downer's
)views. However, *their* views were *not* published.
I'm actually much more interested in what people *do* rather than what
they *say* or *write*. The converse of what you cite are the cohorts of
woolly liberals who say and write a lot but are nowhere to be found when
there is a need to actually stand up to evil. The South African Waldorf
schools stood up to apartheid; European liberals spoke and wrote about
it from the comfort of their ivory towers.
)
))# The implication that people who actively worked for Indian
))independence (and who were recognised by the likes of Mohandas Gandhi
))as having done so)
)
)Whom does Stephen Tonkin mean? Alice Bailey? Annie Besant?
The latter.
)Then, probably,
)he did not read Besant's [and Bailey's] writings, explicitly against Indian
)[and Irish] independence, as India and Britain, both "Aryan" [Besant's
)word] should be in the same "Aryan empire".
Again, I'm more interested in what she did (eg as President of the
Indian National Congress) than what she said. If there appears to be a
conflict, I tend to believe the action rather than the word.
) And please, show me where in
)Gandhi's works I might find a statement that Mrs Besant "worked for Indian
)independence".
Sorry, can't cite - heard/saw it on TV years (decades?) ago.
)I do think it is possible to be for Indian Home Rule within the British
)empire [as Besant was; so, not for independence],
Empire or Commonwealth, Herman?
))# The implication
)
)by whom, please?
See archives (& possibly PLANS web site -- it's ages since I've looked
there) if you really want to know.
)
))that Waldorf schools are inherently racist.
)
)No one said "inherently".
I seem to recall that I used he word "implication", not "statement".
Please don't set up straw men -- I stopped falling for that before I
started shaving.
) However, a committee set up recently by the
)executive of the Dutch Anthroposophical Society concluded that "Racial
)Ethnography" courses at Waldorf schools were racist.
Well, Herman, racial ethnography courses may have been taught in
Holland; I don't know of them being taught in the UK (of course, it is
always possible that I am woefully ignorant of what is going on under my
nose) or US.
And has it perhaps occurred to you that if the AS concludes that
something is racist it might just indicate that anthroposophists
*oppose* racism? It is a trivial matter to find words written more than
a few decades ago which, whilst perfectly acceptable at the time, are
considered racist by today's mores. As an example, look at the words and
deeds of those who held it to be "self evident" that "all men are
created equal". It's what people actually *do* -- *now* -- that is
important.
--
Stephen Tonkin
(N50.9105 W1.829)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UK Amateur Telescope Making - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/atm.htm)
ATM and Astronomy Books - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/books/books.htm)
The Astronomical Unit - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/astunit.htm)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)}
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 05:47:33 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807020140.SAA27599 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
)))Admit that there is no *evidence* of any kind, scientific or otherwise, for
)))the mumbo jumbo; or
))
))Sorry, I can't. I can admit that I've never found any, but I am sure
))that there are things that exist independently of my encountering them.
)
)What say? How can you be *sure*?
OK, I *believe* ...
)))Tell us what the other evidence is, so that we may become enlightened with
)))the wisdom of ... whatever it is ...
))
))Sorry, I can't (see reasons above), but perhaps you may like to consider
))whether "absence of evidence" can be equated with "evidence of absence".
)
)No, I just want you or any other spiritualist to SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE of
)what you say exists.
I can't.
) And don't put words in my mouth, Stephen, it's a
)return to your old style.
I didn't (and don't) think I had I was asking you to consider something
which, as what you wrote below suggests, you already have.
) I have never, ever said that I do not believe
)there can be anything supernatural or "supersensible". All I've said is,
)show me. Like you, I'm perfectly prepared to admit the possibility that
)there is something more to the Universe than I now know. But you want to
)believe there is; I don't need to. I'm a patient fellow; I can wait a few
)more reincarnation cycles.
[...]
)Your belief in mumbo
)jumbo and defence of its use in schools
DO I defend it's use in schools? I guess it depends what you mean by
"use" -- if you mean I defend the validity of an education based on
anthroposophy, you are absolutely correct. If you mean I defend the
teaching of anthroposophy or it's beliefs, you are wrong.
)I'm simply trying to get you to live in one world or the other, OR provide
)me with evidence that it is possible to live in BOTH worlds at the same
)time, without having to go through the looking glass.
I find this particular fence to make a reasonably comfortable seat, from
which the view is quite interesting.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.8 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha
to Mars)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:01:40 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807011918.MAA05590 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807020428.VAA27920 lists1.best.com)
Stephen Tonkin says:
)And has it perhaps occurred to you that if the AS concludes that
)something is racist it might just indicate that anthroposophists
)*oppose* racism? It is a trivial matter to find words written more than
)a few decades ago which, whilst perfectly acceptable at the time, are
)considered racist by today's mores. As an example, look at the words and
)deeds of those who held it to be "self evident" that "all men are
)created equal". It's what people actually *do* -- *now* -- that is
)important.
)
)--
) Stephen Tonkin
)(N50.9105 W1.829)
KOPP says:
Are you trolling, Stephen? What is the possible meaning of your American
founding fathers example in relation to the what Anthroposophists say/do?
If you're saying that the FF were mouthing plattitudes while holding
slaves, there's enough historical scholarship to blow you out of the water
on that error of false damning.
If you're saying that Anthroposophy is "cleaner" than the American
democratic experience, you're wrong again.
And you're wrong about actions speaking louder than words. What people
write and think and say, unfortunately, has as much import to our affairs
as what they actually do. Especially if their dogma, cant, religion, cult,
etc., uses proselytising -- including covert proselytising to unsuspecting
children.
In Texas, U.S.A. at the moment, the Ku Klux Klan, America's answer to the
Broderbund, or worse, is claiming the high moral ground, while their
filthy, despicable, racist propaganda goes on openly proselytising against
blacks.
The case involves a black man lynched by three white men with KKK
connections in a particularly nasty murder during which the black man was
beaten and dragged behind a truck down a country road till he was
dismembered.
The KKK in the town, after the arrest of the three white men, disowned
them, and marched through the town to protest the murder of a black in such
a fashion and proclaim their innocence of culpability. The KKK does not
stand for lynching any more, they say. But their literature is as
bloodthirsty as ever, they still wear white sheets and hoods, and they
still strike fear into the hearts of all decent people everywhere. And
cross burnings are on the rise again, as are, now, lynchings.
Of course there is no parallel between the KKK and Anthroposophy. Or is
there? If the founder of Anthroposophy, unrepudiated, believed in racist
ideas, what is the difference whether they were "accepted" in his time?
Lynching of black men all over the Southern U.S. was "accepted" in the
heydey of the KKK (depite the founding fathers and Abraham Lincoln and
Lyndon Johnson -- yes, Lyndon Johnson, who passed more civil rights
legislation than Lincoln).
The KKK has not repudiated racism. Anthroposophy has not repudiated Steiner
-- at least not officially, from the official centre. (And don't let's
argue any more about whether A. is monolithically led from Dornach. It is
the main influence, if not the leadership.)
Is Anthroposophy's racism as dangerous as the KKK's? Probably not -- there
are too many good people like Stephen Tonkin whose morals cannot be
corrupted, and who will act on them, not Anthroposophy's agenda.
But the subtle and insidious teachings of Steiner, shot through the
curriculum of Waldorf schools, lives on. Maybe not in egregious "racial
ethnography", but in many small ways; in the teaching of history through
religious mythology -- which is itself racist -- as truth, to give just one
example.
Who can say what this does to the minds, hearts -- spirits, if you wish to
believe in them -- of our children.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
S41.17, E174.47
(About as antipodean as possible [on inhabited land] to Stephen Tonkin, in
many -- but not all -- ways. Only the Antipodes Islands are closer, and
they're barren, like Anthroposophy's racial morality.)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.9 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars (was: Occult
chemistry, Leadbeater and Steiner)}
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 19:24:31 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807020140.SAA27599 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807020516.WAA24658 lists1.best.com)
Tonkin:
)I find this particular fence to make a reasonably comfortable seat, from
)which the view is quite interesting.
Kopp:
I hope you're riding side-saddle.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n812.10 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Proliferation of crud
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 12:39:27 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Michael Kopp, if you choose to live your life dwelling solely in the
material realm, you are certainly free to do so. But when you ask for
external evidence for something that can only be experienced internally
within the human being, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
You are demanding evidence for something that can not be adequately
expressed in the way you want it. I can say that for me, D. Shostakovich
is the greatest composer of this century, I can try to describe the
spiritual element in his music through analogy using language, but
ultimately there is no direct evidence I can provide you. You have to
listen to the music _for_yourself_ to understand what I am talking about.
Similarly, if you are unwilling to open yourself up to the possibility of
knowing the world in a different way, outside the realm of traditional
scientific investigation, then your demands are futile. I suspect you will
not be satisfied with this explanation, but if understanding reality were
so easy, what would we strive for?
)Calkins:
))For me, this is the basis of anthroposophy. It provides a philosophical
))foundation for how we know, along with techniques for extending our
))capacities to know.
)
)KOPP says:
)
)Clairvoyance as epistemology. Wow. I'm not impressed.
I did not mention or presume clairvoyance. It is interesting how you have
introduced clairvoyance; it certainly did not come from me. Perhaps you
have an unconscious fascination with it? If you would actually read what I
wrote, the observations Steiner makes in his "Philosophy of Freedom" are
within the grasp of normal everyday consciousness. So are his basic
exercises (the first lecture in the volume "Anthroposophy in Everyday Life"
describes six exercises anyone can do to improve one's attentiveness, I
don't have all my books with me here so I can't tell you the title). There
is very little in either of these that one would consider mystical in the
usual sense. It is all rather practical stuff.
)KOPP says:
)
)What other kind of observations are there? As far as I know -- because it
)hasn't been demonstrated otherwise to me with tangible evidence -- we
)humans are the only ones around this planet to think about our
)"observations".
)
)But lots of people don't have that difficulty, and use words quite
)eloquently to describe beauty in art: try Robert Adams, "Beauty in
)Photography; Essays in Defense of Traditional Values". This difficulty of
)yours (and mine and Steiner's) has less to do with there being something
)esoteric, occult, spiritually foreign and "higher", than with our own
)inadequacies of language or thought.
Language yes, but thought no. I know what my thoughts are. Are you saying
that compared to animals, plants, and minerals, human thinking is not a
'higher' activity? Rather than foreign, I would call thinking spiritual
familiar.
)I read Steiner as a poet, not a scientist of any kind at all, trying to
)grapple with the weirdness of his own mind.
Perhaps this is why you have failed to understand his epistemology.
)KOPP says:
)
)My frustration is not that I don't understand Steiner or Anthroposophy.
)It's possible, if one wants to devote enough time, to comprehend it
)intellectually. I think it's mumbo jumbo, and I'm not going to waste my
)time on it, nor have my kids exposed to it any longer. My displeasure is
)that it is becoming accepted as a valid alternative way of education _in
)the public school system_ of New Zealand.
)From your comments with regard to Steiner's epistemology, it is clear that
you do not understand anthroposophy, intellectually or otherwise. If you
want to fairly criticize anthroposophy, I suggest that you read and
understand his "Philosophy of Freedom". Without this fundamental
understanding of his way of knowing the world, your criticism rests on very
shaky ground. It is easy to get lost in the "mumbo-jumbo" without the
proper foundation, you certainly are not the first.
)Altruism is explainable both scientifically and morally without need to
)have reference to spirituality. Moral codes develop not for goodness but
)social control. Altruism is a form of selfishness in animal terms. The
)ethical culture of humanists is explainable by our tendency to organise
and
)codify behaviour and our desire to make life comfortable and progressive
)without the need for oppressive moral or spiritual dimensions that we
)cannot truly know.
Are you sure about this??? To turn the tables, what scientific proof do
you have for this claim you make with such confidence? You yourself
pointed out our uniqueness from animals in our ability to think about our
observations. It appears that you are making some assumptions that are not
necessarily valid. How do you know that human consciousness evolved
directly from animal consciousness? For that matter, can you be certain
that life evolved on the earth without a pre-existing consciousness?
Again, where is your proof? Show us the evidence. Frankly, I don't see
how through scientific means these assumptions in the previous paragraph
can be validated.
)Kopp:
)(I've cited so many of these, without any rebuttal, I grow weary, but,
just
)for any newcomers to the list, here's my favourite: My children's English
)teacher (English teacher, for god's sake!) told their classes that Greek
)epic poetry developed dactylic hexameter because of a relationship between
)the ratio of human heartbeat to respiration, and the number of human
)breaths in a lifetime and the number of years in the "Platonic Year"
[known
)to science as the precession of the equinoxes, but _unknown_ to the Greeks
)at the time of the development of Homeric poetry, and, indeed, unknown for
)at least another 400 years].
The relationship between the heartbeat and breath I can understand, between
the breath and the Platonic year may be stretching it a little.
Nonetheless, can you explain to me *clearly* why these are any less
plausible than the coincidence that falling bodies follow the shape of a
conic curve (given that we don't have any proof for or knowledge of what is
the mechanism of gravity)? I don't think anyone can. You will probably
accuse me of comparing some subjective coincidence with hard science. But
if you have read my recent postings, you will understand that knowledge
gained through science is subjective by nature as well. Things are not as
clear cut as we think are. (I will be happy to forward these postings to
you if you have not read them.)
)If we're going to have multiple views, and the proponents of those views
)wish them to be taken seriously, as do the proponents of Anthroposophy,
)then we have to have multiple proofs, and the scientific method is the
best
)for that. Except that, as John Calkins admits above, science cannot
"prove"
)anything about intangibles (it never tries), and everything Steiner talks
)about is intangible. So much of the education in Waldorf schools is about
)intangibles, and scientific proof is never mentioned, taught or desired,
)even in the teaching of what passes for normal science!
Perhaps you are not familiar with the epistemology of traditional science
(this is not a criticism because most people do not understand it
properly). Science cannot prove anything about anything, tangible or
intangible. There is no such thing as a scientific proof (if you don't
believe me, try to name one), and any good scientist knows this. The
objectivity of science is a modern myth. Please refer to my earlier
postings for further clarification.
)KOPP says:
)
)And the major flaw with his "epistemology" is that Steiner claimed "direct
)experience" of things that NO ONE SINCE has been able to duplicate; that
)neither he nor anyone else has ever been able to _demonstrate_ outside
)their own fevered brains; that do not even admit of an acceptable lingua
)franca for both the experiencer and the outsider; but that Steiner
proceded
)to proselytise in such a huge body of mumbo jumbo that it's almost
)impenetrable.
Speaking for myself, there are parts of Steiner's experience that I have
been able to duplicate: those parts of the spiritual realm that are
observable to normal consciousness. Since we are focused on Steiner, let
us use his definition of what is spiritual. The life forces,
consciousness, and self-consciousness are of spirit nature, and I know they
exist. I am unable to sense the spirit nature of the physical body though.
Free thinking is the highest spiritual activity in which we can engage
within normal consciousness, so says Steiner. Of course one may argue
whether or not these are 'spiritual'. To me this is largely a question of
belief, and I don't think we will ever settle this here. If this helps you
at all Michael, these are all intangible, we know they exist, yet we cannot
show to someone else in a scientific way that they exist. Whether or not
you agree that they are spiritual, they certainly have the same qualities
of the spirit nature whose existence of which you are skeptical.
Can you explain to me where the flaw is when Steiner himself says not to
take his word for it, but to check it out for yourself. He relates his
observations, and others can do with them whatever they please. If one
finds it useful and sees the truth in an observation, then one can use it
to his advantage. If not in another, one is free to ignore it or put it on
the shelf. It seems to me Michael that you are the one treating Steiner's
observations as dogma (one you don't agree with). Speaking for myself, I
do not.
John Calkins
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n812 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n813 --------------
001 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Re: Besant and Steiner
002 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddh
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n813.1 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Re: Besant and Steiner
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 21:56:43 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807011918.MAA05590 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807020428.VAA27920 lists1.best.com)
At 05:23 2-7-1998 +0100, Stephen Tonkin wrote:
)))Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl) wrote:
))))
))))So, we can all safely presume, that to Stephen Tonkin, the idea that in
the
))))seventeenth century, the Buddha went to planet Mars "at the request of
))))Christian Rosencreutz" on a peace mission is also crud? So is claiming the
))))existence of airplanes "in ancient Atlantis"? And so is the idea that
white
))))pregnant women should not read "negro novels" as their babies might then
))))turn out "mulatto"?
)))
)))Indeed, Dr de Tollenaere, you can safely presume that I believe that
)))there is no scientific evidence for any of the above.
))
))As Stephen Tonkin is probably aware, all three of the examples above can be
))found in Dr Rudolf Steiner's works.
)
)Yes, I am aware of that.
)))You can also safely presume that I consider the following to be crud:
)))# The implication that people who actively worked for Indian
)))independence (and who were recognised by the likes of Mohandas Gandhi
)))as having done so)
))
))Whom does Stephen Tonkin mean? Alice Bailey? Annie Besant?
)
)The latter.
Then, why the plural "people", please?
)
))Then, probably, he did not read Besant's [and Bailey's] writings,
explicitly against Indian
))[and Irish] independence, as India and Britain, both "Aryan" [Besant's
))word] should be in the same "Aryan empire".
)
)Again, I'm more interested in what she did (eg as President of the
)Indian National Congress) than what she said.
Then, read, eg, my book The Politics of Divine Wisdom, especially pp.
257-270. What Mrs Besant mainly *did* as president of the Indian National
Congress was *saying* things in speeches. Mrs Besant's 1917-1918 Congress
presidency destroyed much of her popularity with Congress members
(certainly with Gandhi; see also B.G. Tilak's writings), which she had won
in 1916-1917 with her Home Rule league. Congress members accused her of,
eg, authoritarianism, while the presidency of Congress was supposed to be a
honourary job for older people.
)) And please, show me where in Gandhi's works I might find a statement
that Mrs Besant ))"worked for Indian independence".
)
)Sorry, can't cite - heard/saw it on TV years (decades?) ago.
So, have you forgotten the link of TV to Ahriman :-)?
[By the way, the title/date of that (South African? British? TV program
*would* interest me greatly. It is always interesting to track down
mistakes in historical facts to their origins]
))I do think it is possible to be for Indian Home Rule within the British
))empire [as Besant was; so, not for independence],
)
)Empire or Commonwealth, Herman?
Actually, in Besant's writings, like her editorials in The Theosophist, she
used Empire and Commonwealth interchangeably.
)) However, a committee set up recently by the
))executive of the Dutch Anthroposophical Society concluded that "Racial
))Ethnography" courses at Waldorf schools were racist.
)has it perhaps occurred to you that if the AS concludes that
)something is racist it might just indicate that anthroposophists
)*oppose* racism?
Well, it took the AS many decades after the establishment of racial
ethnography courses in the first place [A Dutch proverb says: "better late
than never"]. At least until very recently, the Dutch Waldorf schools were
among the very few schools (including government, Catholic, Protestant,
Muslim etc., schools) to refuse admission to anti-racist teaching material
by national anti-racist education organizations like the Anne Frank
Foundation. A minority at the general meeting of the Dutch Anthroposophical
Society did not want the report criticizing "Racial Ethnography" to be
accepted or published. Among the others I would say there was honest
opposition to racism; but also worry about public relations images.
For there was big pressure from the outside. In 1984-1985, there had been a
big row in the Dutch national media after criticism of Racial Ethnography
by a black Waldorf parent, and Dr Gjalt Zondergeld and other Amsterdam
historians. Ten years later, that controversy became big again, after a
barrage of criticism by parents and media.
)It is a trivial matter to find words written more than a few decades ago
The South African Anthroposophical book case which I cited was about one
decade ago
)which, whilst perfectly acceptable at the time, are
"Accepted" by many people at the time who also had racial prejudices? Or
"acceptable", to, eg, the people *at the time* who wrote Letters to the
Editor [not published, only partly quoted, in the Indonesian nationalist
Tjipto Mangoenkoesoemo's letter's case], eg, protesting against the Dutch
East Indies Theosophical magazine labeling Indonesians as either "Aryan"
[the Javanese nobility], or as non-noble Atlanteans "staring with bovine
eyes and open mouth", or still more inferior "Lemurians"?
As for actions: one prominent member of the Dutch East Indies Theosophists
was Captain Christoffel, considered by many historians as the worst killer
of civilians in the Aceh war and other colonial wars of the first decades
of the twentieth century in Indonesia.
)considered racist by today's mores.
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n813.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Besant and Steiner (was: Proliferation of crud (was: Buddha to Mars)
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 23:03:19 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807020704.AAA11758 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
)Stephen Tonkin says:
)
))And has it perhaps occurred to you that if the AS concludes that
))something is racist it might just indicate that anthroposophists
))*oppose* racism? It is a trivial matter to find words written more than
))a few decades ago which, whilst perfectly acceptable at the time, are
))considered racist by today's mores. As an example, look at the words and
))deeds of those who held it to be "self evident" that "all men are
))created equal". It's what people actually *do* -- *now* -- that is
))important.
)KOPP says:
)
)Are you trolling, Stephen? What is the possible meaning of your American
)founding fathers example in relation to the what Anthroposophists say/do?
)
)If you're saying that the FF were mouthing plattitudes while holding
)slaves, there's enough historical scholarship to blow you out of the water
)on that error of false damning.
I think you completely misunderstood the intention of the above -- let
me try to explain: Jefferson (or so I read in history books) was
responsible for those fine words in the Declaration of Independence. He
was also a slave owner (or so I read in history books). With reference
to the mores of the time, there was no contradiction. If I remember my
history correctly, by the time Martin Luther King made his "I have a
Dream" speech (and probably before), the mores of the time definitely
found a contradiction, which MLK pointed out. Does this make Jefferson a
Hypocrite? I contend that it does not. Similarly, Steiner made comments
which were acceptable according to the time and place in which he lived
-- some of them are not acceptable now. I am trying to say that we
should not judge him by current mores; we can, however, use today's
mores to say "That is no longer an acceptable position". What we can
judge by current mores is what Waldorf schools (or anthroposophists) do
*now*.
Is that a bit clearer?
You also said:
)Is Anthroposophy's racism as dangerous as the KKK's? Probably not -- there
)are too many good people like Stephen Tonkin whose morals cannot be
)corrupted, and who will act on them, not Anthroposophy's agenda.
Thank you for the compliment, but your faith in my moral
incorruptibility is greater than mine -- but there are certainly many
people, inside and outside anthroposophy, who do have the incorruptible
morality of which you speak.
I'm going to duck out of this debate for a while -- I've picjked up a
staphylococcus infection in an eye and it's bloody difficult to
concentrate on a screen for any length of time. May join in again when
it gets better.
--
Stephen Tonkin
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n813 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n814 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Please consider...
002 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Please consider...
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Please consider...
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n814.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Please consider...
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 1998 21:22:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
We received the following from a visitor to our web site: -dD-
)Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:53:02 -0700
)From: Amanda Parla (amanda inet.net)
)To: snell netshel.net
)Subject: Please consider...
)
)I'm asking you as a moral person, please do not dis-credit somthing you
)do not fully understand. I joined the waldorf community and attended a
)school from 7th through my 12th year, I have seen it's bennifts on me and
)other children. The teachers in no way teach anthroposophy, and will not
)discuse it unless a student actively seaches it out. They teach students
)to think, to care about the world and to qustion things. Having spent
)six years in public education previous to this, I feal that I have a well
)rounded experience to draw from. I found public education to be more
)like the mass produceing of macheins than educating children, it was
)memorizing and spitting back facts, not discovering answers. I leave you
)with one qustion, Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it
)fully meeting everyone's individual needs? No one is forceing Waldorf
)edication on people, it isn't right for everyone. Let people decide on
)their own.
)-Amanda-
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n814.2 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Please consider...
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 17:51:59 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807060442.VAA08714 lists1.best.com)
)We received the following from a visitor to our web site: -dD-
)
))Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:53:02 -0700
))From: Amanda Parla (amanda inet.net)
))To: snell netshel.net
))Subject: Please consider...
))
))I'm asking you as a moral person, please do not dis-credit somthing you
))do not fully understand. I joined the waldorf community and attended a
))school from 7th through my 12th year, I have seen it's bennifts on me and
))other children. The teachers in no way teach anthroposophy, and will not
))discuse it unless a student actively seaches it out. They teach students
))to think, to care about the world and to qustion things. Having spent
))six years in public education previous to this, I feal that I have a well
))rounded experience to draw from. I found public education to be more
))like the mass produceing of macheins than educating children, it was
))memorizing and spitting back facts, not discovering answers. I leave you
))with one qustion, Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it
))fully meeting everyone's individual needs? No one is forceing Waldorf
))edication on people, it isn't right for everyone. Let people decide on
))their own.
))-Amanda-
Come on, Dan, admit it, you write these things yourself just as flamebait
for me!
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n814.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Please consider...
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 10:31:17 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807060442.VAA08714 lists1.best.com)
Dear Amanda,
Thank you for your note. I shared it with the waldorf-critics mailing list.
You asked,
)I leave you
)with one qustion, Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it
)fully meeting everyone's individual needs?
Regarding equality, if you're talking about law (or in Anthroposophical
terms, the "rights sphere") the answer is treating everybody the same. I'm
sure we agree that any good school does more than that.
)No one is forceing Waldorf
)edication on people, it isn't right for everyone. Let people decide on
)their own.
We agree on this, also. But PLANS sees too much Anthroposophy in Waldorf
education for it to be eligible for tax money, which is not given
voluntarily. We are also concerned that Waldorf education does not present
itself truthfully in the private schools, so the decisions that people make
are not well informed.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
Secretary, PLANS
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n814 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n815 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Sacramento parent
002 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Sacramento parent
003 - e-train mindspring.com - signoff waldorf
004 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Sacramento parent
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n815.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Sacramento parent
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 1998 11:00:32 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (v04011702b19a7d5a6c70 [205.149.169.113])
In-Reply-To: (3575B4C9.3C9D calweb.com)
Kelly (haar calweb.com), thanks for your note. You wrote,
)My son may attend the John Morse Waldorf Methods Magnet in the
)Sacramento CIty Unified School District.
)My question to PLANS, if you're suiing because WE is a cult religion and
)should't be in "public schools", isn't traditional public school based
)on Christian religion, ie., the pledge of allegience, "one nation under
)God", etc.
No, public schools are not based on Christian religion. Ask the Christians
about that!
)Students have been suspended for not wanting to say the pledge of
)allegience because they don't believe in God.
I was a devout Catholic child when "under God" was added to the Pledge.
Kind of cancels the "indivisible," doesn't it? I found it offensive then
and I still do now. The ACLU is always successful in defending violations
of personal freedom like children being required to pray in school, because
the constitution is quite clear. Religious people are always trying to
nibble away at church-state separation, and the Pledge is one of their
victories. I hope to see it reversed in my lifetime.
)I feel that school districts should do whatever it takes to educate the
)child the best way for that child, WE certainly benefits alot of
)divergent thinking children that have creative, non-conformists minds.
I don't know what makes you think that Waldorf encourages creativity or
non-conformity. They talk a lot about creativity, but what they actually do
is the opposite. In painting classes, everybody paints the same picture,
and the media they use are strictly prescribed by age. Encouraging
non-conformity? At Oak ridge children were required to walk between classes
with their hands crossed on their breasts (the occultist posture for
prayer).
)The public WE schools certainly don't teach religion, only their
)curriculim is based on WE, ie., no ditto sheets, standardized testing,
)and allowing art and music to be a part of education, something that has
)long been missing from our children. Doesn't PLANS understand the whole
)"hand, heart, head" thing?
The integration of art into all subjects was one of the things that
attracted me strongly to Waldorf. It's too bad it's all inextricably tied
up with occultist nonsense.
I'm copying this reply to the waldorf-critics mailing list. I encourage you
to subscribe, our list isn't censored.
Sincerely, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n815.2 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Sacramento parent
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 07:35:09 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Dan Dugan's response to Kelly:
)Kelly (haar calweb.com), thanks for your note. You wrote,
)
))My son may attend the John Morse Waldorf Methods Magnet in the
))Sacramento CIty Unified School District.
))My question to PLANS, if you're suiing because WE is a cult religion and
))should't be in "public schools", isn't traditional public school based
))on Christian religion, ie., the pledge of allegience, "one nation under
))God", etc.
)
)No, public schools are not based on Christian religion. Ask the Christians
)about that!
I was raised as a Christian, so perhaps I qualify. In my education in a
public school, we were taught not to lie, not to steal, and appropriate
sexual behavior. These sound like Christian values to me. Social Studies
was taught with a strong Judeo-Christian slant. Religiously inspired music
was often performed (Handel's Messiah, Jesu Joy of Man's Desiring,
Christmas carols to name a few). The content of studies in art, poetry,
and literature all were primarily western Judeo-Christian. These are just
a few obvious examples. I am not an educational historian, but it would
not surprise me if there are religious influences that have existed in
American education for a long time. We may not even think of them as being
so, since Judeo-Christian values are strong in our culture and thought
habits. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I can say more.
With all of these spiritual influences in public education, we still do not
see it as religious education. Dan, I am glad that you have the energy to
respond to this topic, for it is directly related to the third question of
my posting "PLANS Credibility Check". Namely, how is Waldorf education
"religious" if anthroposophy is not taught, though it influences the
curriculum? Perhaps we can gain some clarity from you as to the difference
you see?
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n815.3 ---------------
From: e-train mindspring.com
Subject: signoff waldorf
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 10:36:58 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
signoff waldorf
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n815.4 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Sacramento parent
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 11:06:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (v04011702b19a7d5a6c70 [205.149.169.113]) (199807070636.XAA13775 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
) )I feel that school districts should do whatever it takes to educate the
) )child the best way for that child, WE certainly benefits alot of
) )divergent thinking children that have creative, non-conformists minds.
)
) I don't know what makes you think that Waldorf encourages creativity or
) non-conformity. They talk a lot about creativity, but what they actually do
) is the opposite. In painting classes, everybody paints the same picture,
) and the media they use are strictly prescribed by age. Encouraging
) non-conformity? At Oak ridge children were required to walk between classes
) with their hands crossed on their breasts (the occultist posture for
) prayer).
Well, empirically speaking, what makes me think that WE encourages creativity or non-conformity is the amount of artists it 'actually' graduates. In elementary painting, students do copy from the teacher, a rather classic approach to learning
technique. Michaelangelo, Leonardo and Raphael all learned to paint by copying from the 'masters'. In HS, kids are not told to copy from a painting, though there may be requirements to their finished composition.
ezra
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n815 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n816 --------------
001 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Artists
002 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Please Consider . . .
003 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Please Consider . . .
004 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Please Consider . . .
005 - Sune Nordwall (thebee hem - Re: Please Consider . . .
006 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Please Consider . . .
007 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Please Consider . . .
008 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Please Consider . . .
009 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Please Consider . . .
010 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Please Consider . . .
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.1 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Artists
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 20:57:47 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807080710.AAA07592 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman posted:
) Well, empirically speaking, what makes me think that WE encourages creativity or non-conformity is the amount of artists it 'actually' graduates.
Who are these artists? Is there a greater percentage of recognized
artists graduated from Waldorf schools as opposed to public schools?
Likewise, is there a higher percentage of people that have a
self-conception of themselves as "artists" graduated from Waldorf
schools as opposed to public schools?
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.2 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Please Consider . . .
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 21:09:39 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807070510.WAA25329 lists1.best.com)
Re: Amanda Parla's post:
Amanda Parla posted a lengthy message rife with misspellings and
grammatical errors. She is a self-described Waldorf graduate and
supportive of the Waldorf educational method. While I appreciated her
willingness to post to the list, I found her message alarmingly similar
in spelling/writing skills to those posted by Angelica Hesse this
spring. Amanda and Angelica are both Waldorf graduates.
Although my experience with Waldorf graduates is limited, I am concerned
with the apparent lack of writing skills exhibited by these students.
When I was teaching in the local school district I also experienced
former Waldorf students to be lacking in academic skills, particularly
grammar and writing skills. Does this lack of basic academic mastery
follow across the core curriculum subjects?
Kathy
) )Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:53:02 -0700
) )From: Amanda Parla (amanda inet.net)
) )To: snell netshel.net
) )Subject: Please consider...
) )
) )I'm asking you as a moral person, please do not dis-credit somthing you
) )do not fully understand. I joined the waldorf community and attended a
) )school from 7th through my 12th year, I have seen it's bennifts on me and
) )other children. The teachers in no way teach anthroposophy, and will not
) )discuse it unless a student actively seaches it out. They teach students
) )to think, to care about the world and to qustion things. Having spent
) )six years in public education previous to this, I feal that I have a well
) )rounded experience to draw from. I found public education to be more
) )like the mass produceing of macheins than educating children, it was
) )memorizing and spitting back facts, not discovering answers. I leave you
) )with one qustion, Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it
) )fully meeting everyone's individual needs? No one is forceing Waldorf
) )edication on people, it isn't right for everyone. Let people decide on
) )their own.
) )-Amanda-
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.3 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 06:30:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807090414.VAA10199 lists1.best.com)
spike (spike netshel.net) wrote:
)Amanda Parla posted a lengthy message rife with misspellings and
)grammatical errors.
[...]
)Although my experience with Waldorf graduates is limited, I am concerned
)with the apparent lack of writing skills exhibited by these students.
A perusal of the archives of this list will demonstrate that problems
with grammar and spelling are not limited to Waldorf graduates.
In fact, I repeatedly come across articles bemoaning the lack of basic
literacy (and numeracy) in university graduates. Usenet postings from
addresses ending in ".edu" often reinforce the perception of this lack.
--
Stephen Tonkin
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UK Amateur Telescope Making - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/atm.htm)
Tonkin's Astronomy Books - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/books/books.htm)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.4 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 18:04:08 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807070510.WAA25329 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807090414.VAA10199 lists1.best.com)
Kathy Sutphen (Spike) wrote:
)Re: Amanda Parla's post:
)
)Amanda Parla posted a lengthy message rife with misspellings and
)grammatical errors. She is a self-described Waldorf graduate and
)supportive of the Waldorf educational method. While I appreciated her
)willingness to post to the list, I found her message alarmingly similar
)in spelling/writing skills to those posted by Angelica Hesse this
)spring. Amanda and Angelica are both Waldorf graduates.
)
)Although my experience with Waldorf graduates is limited, I am concerned
)with the apparent lack of writing skills exhibited by these students.
)When I was teaching in the local school district I also experienced
)former Waldorf students to be lacking in academic skills, particularly
)grammar and writing skills. Does this lack of basic academic mastery
)follow across the core curriculum subjects?
Michael KOPP says:
In my children's experience, and that of many of their mates, yes. My kids
are both having a lot of trouble coping with the workload and the academic
discipline and the depth and breadth of material in regular public schools,
now that they have switched from a Steiner school. The Steiner school is
slack in its teaching rigour (the teachers were ignorant of many things
they were supposed to teach), lackadaisical in their approach to the
students' scholarship (no negative consequences for laziness or lack of
effort), and intentionally relaxed about whether the children really
learned anything or not.
Kathy quoted the post from Amanda Parla (to which I originally replied with
a jape at Dan Dugan, who I said must fabricate these kinds of posts just as
flame-bait for me. I've resisted replying further to Amanda's post in the
same fashion as I did to Angelica's (hold the applause, defenders of the
faith), but I want to point out one flaw in her logic.
)) )Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 22:53:02 -0700
)) )From: Amanda Parla (amanda inet.net)
)) )To: snell netshel.net
)) )Subject: Please consider...
)) )
)) )I'm asking you as a moral person, please do not dis-credit somthing you
)) )do not fully understand. I joined the waldorf community and attended a
)) )school from 7th through my 12th year, I have seen it's bennifts on me and
)) )other children. The teachers in no way teach anthroposophy, and will not
)) )discuse it unless a student actively seaches it out. They teach students
)) )to think, to care about the world and to qustion things. Having spent
)) )six years in public education previous to this, I feal that I have a well
)) )rounded experience to draw from.
)) )I found public education to be more
)) )like the mass produceing of macheins than educating children, it was
)) )memorizing and spitting back facts, not discovering answers.
What is the difference between facts learned through "memorization" and
those "discovered" as "answers"? Surely what is right is right, no matter
how it is arrived at, and the knowledge learnt at a Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophical school will be the same as that learnt elsewhere? Well ...
maybe not.
The defenders of the Waldorf methods would have us believe that only by
using intuition and observation can one truly _know_ something.
Rubbish. What passes for "knowing" in the Steiner system (in my children's
empirical experience) is nothing more than "anything goes". There is no
right answer, there is no truth, there is no _fact_. There is only the
student's "observations", and what they think of those observations.
But since they have no solid framework of empirical knowledge to test their
observations and ideas against, and since the modern scientific method of
hypothesis and experimental proof is rejected, the student comes away from
a Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education with only a loose and
diffuse range of impressions of the world from their own imagination.
What is wrong with that? say the new agers and anti-intellectuals. Surely
that's preferable to having to memorize all that stuff that nobody will
ever use.
Well, in the first place, whether they use it or not, their world-view is
critical to the success or failure of the societies we live in. My
impression is that we are entering a new dark age where mystical,
uncritical, anti-science and anti-intellectualism hold sway over a scary
percentage of the population.
Second, I don't believe that public schools, in general. simply shovel
facts into kids' memories. (Though rote memorization has its place,
particularly in mathematics. Many studies show that children who did maths
drills early in life succeed better at later maths studies. My children had
to memorise the multiplication tables in their public primary school before
coming to Steiner; their Steiner mates often did not know their times
tables, and they were the poorer at maths for it. My kids both did well.)
I doubt that a highly qualified, highly respected, prize-winning, and
highly popular (with everyone but the new-agers and bungling bureaucrats)
teacher like Kathy Sutphen, teaches by allegedly boring, rote memorization.
In fact, I imagine that her methods, and her respect for fact as opposed to
opinion, are far superior to the "science teachers" my children had at our
Steiner school. I imagine her as something like a "gee-whiz" Mrs. Wizard,
leading the students into the wonder and awe of the real through not only
observation, but practical thinking, hypothesizing, experimentation and
conclusion-drawing.
What my kids got was _anti_ science, pseudo-science, mythology, occultism
and spiritualistic mumbo-jumbo. They found _it_ boorrring, compared to the
exciting world of experimentation and scientific thinking they were taught
elsewhere.
What Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical students get is, as Angelica and
Amanda and many others like them have demonstrated here, an inflated belief
in their self-image and their world-view as the one true way. It is one
thing to instill confidence in young people through respect; it is another
to give them a false sense of security that they are so knowledgeable and
so wise, when, in fact, they are neither.
)) )I leave you
)) )with one qustion, Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it
)) )fully meeting everyone's individual needs? No one is forceing Waldorf
)) )edication on people, it isn't right for everyone. Let people decide on
)) )their own.
)) )-Amanda-
This last paragraph is so illliterate that I cannot fathom what she is
getting at, and I reject the possibility of anyone (as someone else has
here) understanding it enough to agree or disagree with whatever it is she
seems to be saying.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.5 ---------------
From: Sune Nordwall (thebee hem.passagen.se)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 10:30:52 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807070510.WAA25329 lists1.best.com) (199807090606.XAA17207 lists1.best.com)
Not intending to develop it further,
just meant as a small comment:
Quoting Amanda Parla:
) )) )I leave you
) )) )with one qustion, Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it
) )) )fully meeting everyone's individual needs? No one is forceing Waldorf
) )) )edication on people, it isn't right for everyone. Let people decide on
) )) )their own.
Michael Kopp wrote:
) This last paragraph is so illliterate that I cannot fathom what she is
) getting at, and I reject the possibility of anyone (as someone else has
) here) understanding it enough to agree or disagree with whatever it is she
) seems to be saying.
Dear sir,
could the interpretation you reject as impossible be that by
))
Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it fully meeting
everyone's individual needs?
))
Amanda means something in the way of:
Is it better to treat every pupil in the same way,
- meeting only the "general" pupil in the indivividual pupil and
- teaching it _only_ what society requires it to know to be economically
productive,
or is it "better" in some way to
- focus on the unique needs and potentials of every pupil as individuals
- teaching it more in the spirit, oops, sorry!, _direction_ of Socratic
maieutics?
And are not these two poles between which every teacher in every school
have to steer in their work, waldorf schools more strongly bent towards
the second one, even though you also there find more or less wide spread
tendencies to at times only look at the principal "general" pupil
developing according the "waldorf scheme"?
No one is forcing Waldorf education on people, it isn't right for
everyone (unclear?).
Let people decide on their own.
(this point being the central problem, not least to PLANS; what schools
should be "allowed" to exist, and which principles should govern the
financing of them with that part of the taxes meant for the general
school system, that _everyone_ pays?)
Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden
thebee hem.passagen.se
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/indexeng.htm
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.6 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 18:23:53 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807090414.VAA10199 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807090544.WAA00570 lists1.best.com)
Stephen Tonkin tries to take the wind out of Kathy Sutphen's sails:
)spike (spike netshel.net) wrote:
))Amanda Parla posted a lengthy message rife with misspellings and
))grammatical errors.
)[...]
))Although my experience with Waldorf graduates is limited, I am concerned
))with the apparent lack of writing skills exhibited by these students.
)
)A perusal of the archives of this list will demonstrate that problems
)with grammar and spelling are not limited to Waldorf graduates.
Michael KOPP says:
Well, Stephen, come on, let's have a little statistical and qualitative
analysis here, not just a generalisation. How many other people, besides
the Waldorf graduates we're concerned with, have such bad communication
skills? I can think of only one other poster who has any real problem with
language skills -- and you used to give him a hiding every time he opened
his mouth. You even give the Anthropsophical Science list weirdos, with
their pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo, a hard time. How come it is that you
never give the expression or thought of a Waldorf _supporter_ or _graduate_
a hard time on this list, but defend them by generalising about others?
)In fact, I repeatedly come across articles bemoaning the lack of basic
)literacy (and numeracy) in university graduates. Usenet postings from
)addresses ending in ".edu" often reinforce the perception of this lack.
Where do you see these egregious illiterates? Here? If elsewhere, and
you're making a comment on the state of education generally, how about some
facts and figures? How about some literacy, reading comprehension, and
vocabulary tests for Steiner/ Waldord/ Anthroposophical graduates -- a
large cross section, as exists with public schools, not a minuscule mention
of one school in the UK and a few others elsewhere?
We are concerned with the repeated evidence from Waldorf graduates, seen
here on this list, of illiteracy and inarticulateness -- not to mention
fundamental logical and factual deficiencies that we, as critics, find
startling.
Waldorf is supposed to be a superior educational system (by its own press
releases, not by any empirical data). So how come its most vocal and
visible products are so inferior in these fundamentally important areas?
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.7 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 00:46:45 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807070510.WAA25329 lists1.best.com)
(199807090606.XAA17207 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807090832.BAA22117 lists1.best.com)
Sune Nordwall attempts to interpret (and embellish) Amanda Parla's
illiterate and indecipherable babble:
)Not intending to develop it further,
)just meant as a small comment:
)
)Quoting Amanda Parla:
)) )) )I leave you
)) )) )with one qustion, Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it
)) )) )fully meeting everyone's individual needs? No one is forceing Waldorf
)) )) )edication on people, it isn't right for everyone. Let people decide on
)) )) )their own.
)
)Michael Kopp wrote:
)) This last paragraph is so illliterate that I cannot fathom what she is
)) getting at, and I reject the possibility of anyone (as someone else has
)) here) understanding it enough to agree or disagree with whatever it is she
)) seems to be saying.
)
)
)Dear sir,
)
)could the interpretation you reject as impossible be that by
)))
)Is equlatly treating everyone the same, or is it it fully meeting
)everyone's individual needs?
)))
)Amanda means something in the way of:
)Is it better to treat every pupil in the same way,
)- meeting only the "general" pupil in the indivividual pupil and
)- teaching it _only_ what society requires it to know to be economically
)productive,
)or is it "better" in some way to
)- focus on the unique needs and potentials of every pupil as individuals
)- teaching it more in the spirit, oops, sorry!, _direction_ of Socratic
)maieutics?
)And are not these two poles between which every teacher in every school
)have to steer in their work, waldorf schools more strongly bent towards
)the second one, even though you also there find more or less wide spread
)tendencies to at times only look at the principal "general" pupil
)developing according the "waldorf scheme"?
[snip]
KOPP says:
My point was why should anyone care to try to decipher such babble?
And aren't you putting an awful lot of pretty sophisticated Steiner/
Waldorf/ Anthroposophical dogma into the mouth of a rather naive,
unsophisticated teenager?
How can you possibly attribute such reasoning to someone who can't make an
English sentence work? Writing is a reflection of thinking; we think in
words. If the writing is so weak, can the thought be as developed as your
interpretation?
Your interpretation (not Amanda's) is that public schools teach all
students according to the lowest common intellectual denominator, and with
the ulterior motive of only making economic units. I reject that notion,
though I am not blind to the faults of our schools today. (One of them is
the failure to teach effectively reading, writing and thinking. Butthis is
more a factor of educational trends -- "whole language" learning instead of
phonics, for example -- and is prevalent in the Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophical schools too.)
Finally, this is the first time I have heard the Steiner pedagogy referred
to as "Socratic". I think that is a superficial description that won't hold
water, in my experience at least. I didn't find, despite the "personal
attention and respect" paid to my children individually, that their
education was Socratic in any way; it was in fact subtly led by the
teachers towards just the esoteric points they wished to promulgate. True
Socratic education requires the student to justify his views with logic and
fact, not just personal observations and intuition, as is the norm in
Steiner/ Waldorf/ ANthroposophical schools.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.8 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:01:15 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Michael KOPP says:
)Where do you see these egregious illiterates? Here? If elsewhere, and
)you're making a comment on the state of education generally, how about
some
)facts and figures? How about some literacy, reading comprehension, and
)vocabulary tests for Steiner/ Waldord/ Anthroposophical graduates -- a
)large cross section, as exists with public schools, not a minuscule
mention
)of one school in the UK and a few others elsewhere?
Ezra recently cited the failure of a high percentage of education graduates
who failed some sort of aptitude test in Massachusetts. I have deleted the
posting so I may not have my facts straight, but I recall the English test
to be at an 8th grade reading level. If you want to see the facts and
figures Michael, I'm sure someone can show you.
Public schools as well as Waldorf schools have difficulties attracting
qualified teachers. I have heard that for both public and Waldorf schools:
about 1/3 of the teachers probably should not be teaching, about 1/3 of the
teachers do an acceptable job, and about 1/3 of the teachers are
exceptionally good. We should not make light of this serious problem by
finger pointing. It is a general issue (at least in the U.S.) for both
private and public education which needs to be addressed.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.9 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:59:07 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
KOPP says:
)What is the difference between facts learned through "memorization" and
)those "discovered" as "answers"? Surely what is right is right, no matter
)how it is arrived at, and the knowledge learnt at a Steiner/ Waldorf/
)Anthroposophical school will be the same as that learnt elsewhere? Well
...
)maybe not.
)
It sounds to me like you are saying the product is more important than the
process. You must advocate that it is just as good to learn how the phases
of the moon are caused from a diagram than it is to arrive at the same
conclusion starting with observations of the real moon and sun? I hope you
are not planning on founding a school on this principle. In Norman
Davidson's "Sky Phenomena", he cites a survey where faculty and graduates
at Harvard University were asked the two simple questions: "Why does the
moon go through phases?" and "Why is it warmer in the summer?" 90% of them
could not answer the questions correctly, the creme de la creme of American
education! Clearly this does not speak well for orthodox education. How
can this happen? It happens when abstract learning is valued more than
knowledge gained through direct experience.
(In case anyone was wondering, the most common _incorrect_ answers
respectively are: "The shadow of the earth appears on the moon." and "The
earth moves in an ellipse around the sun and is further away from the sun
in the winter." It is interesting to note that an uneducated medieval
peasant would never have given either of these answers. I'm sure Stephen
Tonkin can fill you in if anyone wants a better explanation, if he doesn't
mind being put on the spot.)
)The defenders of the Waldorf methods would have us believe that only by
)using intuition and observation can one truly _know_ something.
)
)Rubbish. What passes for "knowing" in the Steiner system (in my children's
)empirical experience) is nothing more than "anything goes". There is no
)right answer, there is no truth, there is no _fact_. There is only the
)student's "observations", and what they think of those observations.
)
)But since they have no solid framework of empirical knowledge to test
their
)observations and ideas against, and since the modern scientific method of
)hypothesis and experimental proof is rejected, the student comes away from
)a Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education with only a loose and
)diffuse range of impressions of the world from their own imagination.
)
Michael, you still seem to think there is such a thing as an "experimental
proof". The greatest scientific thinkers of our time agree there is no
such thing as a scientific proof. The "solid framework" we thought we had
in the 19th century has crumbled away. It's time you moved into the 20th
century before the 21st arrives!
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n816.10 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 98 13:00:36 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199807091726.KAA24415 lists1.best.com); from "469593N knotes.kodak.com" at Jul 9, 98 11:59 am
) From: John Calkins
(snip)
) Michael, you still seem to think there is such a thing as an "experimental
) proof". The greatest scientific thinkers of our time agree there is no
) such thing as a scientific proof. The "solid framework" we thought we had
) in the 19th century has crumbled away. It's time you moved into the 20th
) century before the 21st arrives!
)
HSMP:
I have not participated in this discussion because I am extremely busy at the
moment. I just want to say that I am in disagreement with almost all of John
Calkins' views on science. I would like to ask John for references to his above
statement on the great scientific thinkers who deny the existence of scientific
proof.
Thank you, John.
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n816 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n817 --------------
001 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: Please Consider . . .
002 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Please Consider . . .
003 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Please Consider . . .
004 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Artists
005 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Please Consider . . .
006 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Please Consider . . .
007 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Please Consider . . .
008 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Please Consider . . .
009 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Please Consider . . .
010 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Please Consider . . .
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.1 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 15:39:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (53921646 toto.iv)
469593N knotes.kodak.com (John Calkins) writes:
)
) Michael, you still seem to think there is such a thing as an "experimental
) proof". The greatest scientific thinkers of our time agree there is no
) such thing as a scientific proof. The "solid framework" we thought we had
) in the 19th century has crumbled away. It's time you moved into the 20th
) century before the 21st arrives!
I'm not the "Michael" John is referring, too, but John has made this
point too many times without anyone replying for me to let it pass
again. What follows is diatribe about what makes science a science
and a non-science not a science. The main point is that though there
may be no absolute proof in science, it is the best way we know of
ruling out false things. This is enormously valuable.
I agree with these great scientific thinkers that there is no such
thing as "scientific proof" in any true philosophical sense. (I wish
that made me a great thinker, too.) We can't "prove" that there are
central force fields, electrons or ghosts.
Fortunately, "proof" is not what distinguishes science from
pseudo-science. Science is all about "disproof". A theory in an
experimental science (I am not talking here about some of the more
descriptive sciences such as taxonomy) is something that is in
principle disprovable.
Scientific theories:
1) Planets travel in epicycles about the earth. This was shown to be
false when every system of epicycles failed to correctly predict
the positions of the planets. Everyone could agree on how to show
it was false. (N.B. It was known for a long time that this was
false, even when they tried to use epicycles upon epicycles.
Multiple epicycles is a different, more complex, and harder to
disprove theory, but still nicely disprovable.)
2) Planets travel in ellipses about the Sun. This was a nice theory
because it made very good predictions about the location of planets
(not that that proved anything). It was also shown to be false,
for instance, when Neptune's orbit was found to be perturbed.
3) Matter attracts matter under a central force law. This was nice
because it predicts theory 2) and even explains Neptune's orbit
(Neptune was also attracted by the as yet undiscovered Uranus). Not
that that proves anything. This was disproved by the precession of
Mercury.
4) Matter curves space-time according to general relativity. This is
nice because it explains 3) and also explains the precession of
Mercury. As far as I know, it has not yet been disproved. But it
is easy to think of ways it could be disproved.
5) Wearing a crystal is good for your health. This is a tricky one
because to disprove it you have to understand a little about
placebo effects and statistical methods, but a good controlled
study could disprove it. Even then one could quibble about whether
it is really a disproof, or just made is statistically unlikely to
be true. I don't know if the proper studies have been made to test
the theory.
Non-scientific theories:
6) There is a God. No one has yet come up with a potential way to
disprove this statement. That doesn't make it false, just not
science. (Arguably, the statement "There is no God" might be
considered a scientific theory. If God were to show Herself then
the statement would be disproved.)
6) We all have a life force. How could I demonstrate the lack of a
life force? I can't even think of a way to prove this without
first making it disprovable.
7) Ghosts and spirits are all around us. This is easily
provable--just show me some.
The experimental method is not about "proof" but disproof. It is the
most effective means known of refining your beliefs. If is a way of
winnowing the wheat from the chaff. The fact there there is no proof
in science is it's strength, not a weakness. It forces scientists to
keep an open mind, to search for ways to show they are wrong, to look
for alternate explanations.
Science deals with ruling out the false. Though we have no proof of
our theories, we do have proof that lots of other theories are false.
Thus, though we can never be absolutely certain, there is no need to
despair. We don't have to say "Since nothing is provable, everything
is equally true." Lots of things are known to be false. Lots of
other things are known to be impossible to disprove, so lets not call
them scientific questions, but rather religious or spiritual questions.
Someone on this list once said that Anthroposophy is "science-like".
If so, what things does it claim that are disprovable? What
experiments have been done to test it? Is there an ebb and flow of
conjecture and argumentation from which some positions are disproven?
IMHO these are the only valid tests of whether something is truly
science-like.
I know little about Anthroposophy, but what I know of other new age,
theosophical and/or eastern influenced viewpoints is that they have no
means of disproof, and are thus religions or philosophies. Not that
that is bad in itself, but it should not try to pass itself off as
objective truth, either.
Okay, enough ranting for the day,
--
Michael D, Hirsch Work: (404) 727-4969
Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 FAX: (404) 727-5611
email: hirsch mathcs.emory.edu http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~hirsch/
Public key for encrypted mail available upon request (or finger
hirsch cssun.mathcs.emory.edu).
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.2 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 14:06:15 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807070510.WAA25329 lists1.best.com) (199807090606.XAA17207 lists1.best.com)
Michael KOPP says:
) In my children's experience, and that of many of their mates, yes. My kids
) are both having a lot of trouble coping with the workload and the academic
) discipline and the depth and breadth of material in regular public schools,
) now that they have switched from a Steiner school. The Steiner school is
) slack in its teaching rigour (the teachers were ignorant of many things
) they were supposed to teach), lackadaisical in their approach to the
) students' scholarship (no negative consequences for laziness or lack of
) effort), and intentionally relaxed about whether the children really
) learned anything or not.
Have you read about the teachers in MA? If not, I would be happy to send you a copy of Reuters or AP news feed. The latest is that their are offering a US $20,000 bounty for new hires. My experience in WE was decidedly different. I spent more
time on school work in my 7th, 8th and 11th years in WE education than in 4 years of 'elite' liberal arts classes. Finally, the only subsequent teacher with any grasp of Strunk and White was a government professor at Claremont McKenna College by the
name of Jack Pitney who is a national pundit on things Republican.
) What is the difference between facts learned through "memorization" and
) those "discovered" as "answers"? Surely what is right is right, no matter
) how it is arrived at, and the knowledge learnt at a Steiner/ Waldorf/
) Anthroposophical school will be the same as that learnt elsewhere? Well ...
) maybe not.
I think she was commenting on learning how to think instead of what to think. Both may yield the same answer.
) The defenders of the Waldorf methods would have us believe that only by
) using intuition and observation can one truly _know_ something.
Is this a gut feeling on your part? I, a defender (and 'product') of Waldorf methods, would have you believe no such thing.
) Second, I don't believe that public schools, in general. simply shovel
) facts into kids' memories. (Though rote memorization has its place,
) particularly in mathematics.
Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Botany. Why do you allow the luxury of believe all of a sudden?
) Many studies show that children who did maths
) drills early in life succeed better at later maths studies. My children had
) to memorise the multiplication tables in their public primary school before
) coming to Steiner; their Steiner mates often did not know their times
) tables, and they were the poorer at maths for it. My kids both did well.)
We (at SWS) new our times tables backwards and forwards, we did head problems and in Mathletes we usually finished mid pack. This may not seem like much (Mathletes performance), but we were a motley crew of volunteers with no advanced math. And
most of use were there for the cookies. Still, a kid two years ahead of me went to Harvey Mudd, the uncontested, number one engineering school in the nation.
) I doubt that a highly qualified, highly respected, prize-winning, and
) highly popular (with everyone but the new-agers and bungling bureaucrats)
) teacher like Kathy Sutphen, teaches by allegedly boring, rote memorization.
Why do you point to exceptions to prove your rules? Not the most sound of syllogisms.
e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.3 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 14:21:53 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807070510.WAA25329 lists1.best.com)
(199807090606.XAA17207 lists1.best.com) (199807091258.FAA23150 lists1.best.com)
Could we keep the quotes to the absolute minimum for those of us with short attention spans (and large email boxes)?
Michael Kopp wrote:
) KOPP says:
)
) My point was why should anyone care to try to decipher such babble?
I assume this must be rhetorical as it makes no sense otherwise. Why 'should' anyone care about anything? Where does this line of reasoning brings to?
) And aren't you putting an awful lot of pretty sophisticated Steiner/
) Waldorf/ Anthroposophical dogma into the mouth of a rather naive,
) unsophisticated teenager?
Please clarify who is the presumptive one?
) How can you possibly attribute such reasoning to someone who can't make an
) English sentence work? Writing is a reflection of thinking; we think in
) words. If the writing is so weak, can the thought be as developed as your
) interpretation?
So are you saying that illiterate people are morons? Moreover, is sloppy writing the product of a sloppy mind? When I am coding, something that demands syntactic precision of the highest order, I usually pay more attention to program structure and
algorithm looping than if I misspelled that last aggragate function call.I seem to remember a psych-studie where anal-retentive people were mentally disorganized. Turns out that they compensated for their mental innadequacies by keeping up outward
appearences of order.
) Finally, this is the first time I have heard the Steiner pedagogy referred
) to as "Socratic". I think that is a superficial description that won't hold
) water, in my experience at least. I didn't find, despite the "personal
) attention and respect" paid to my children individually, that their
) education was Socratic in any way; it was in fact subtly led by the
) teachers towards just the esoteric points they wished to promulgate.
Ummm, and what did Socrates do? (Not that I am in agreement with the rest of Mr. Kopp's statement).
) True
) Socratic education requires the student to justify his views with logic and
) fact,
Well, as I recall the various dialogues, Socrates dealt mainly with the metaphysical: Justice, virtue, death and etc. Not a great many facts, except his debt of a rooster, for Socrates to reason from. But mostly he used his observations and
intuition.e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.4 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Artists
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 14:37:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807080710.AAA07592 lists1.best.com) (199807090402.VAA01612 lists1.best.com)
All my fellow students are quite capable of drawing, painting and sculpture. Does this necessarily make them artists? Not in my mind, but neither are the droves of 'art' students incapable of illustrating Dick and Jane books.
Perhaps someone will suggest nationwide testing for artistry?
e
spike wrote:
) Ezra Beeman posted:
) ) Well, empirically speaking, what makes me think that WE encourages creativity or non-conformity is the amount of artists it 'actually' graduates.
)
) Who are these artists? Is there a greater percentage of recognized
) artists graduated from Waldorf schools as opposed to public schools?
) Likewise, is there a higher percentage of people that have a
) self-conception of themselves as "artists" graduated from Waldorf
) schools as opposed to public schools?
)
) Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.5 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 17:57:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Michael D, Hirsch:
)I'm not the "Michael" John is referring, too, but John has made this
)point too many times without anyone replying for me to let it pass
)again. What follows is diatribe about what makes science a science
)and a non-science not a science. The main point is that though there
)may be no absolute proof in science, it is the best way we know of
)ruling out false things. This is enormously valuable.
)
. . . and it continues.
Michael, you have stated it very well, and I am largely in agreement with
you. What we have learned through science is nothing but miraculous, and I
am one of its great admirers.
)Someone on this list once said that Anthroposophy is "science-like".
)If so, what things does it claim that are disprovable? What
)experiments have been done to test it? Is there an ebb and flow of
)conjecture and argumentation from which some positions are disproven?
)IMHO these are the only valid tests of whether something is truly
)science-like.
The questions you ask get into a science known as phenomenology, and the
processes you describe do not take place in it (at least not in the way
they do in orthodox science). Phenomenology is based on a different
epistemology, and it is not necessarily a branch of anthroposophy, though
many in anthroposophy have contributed. I don't think this forum can do it
justice, but if one is interested in this subject, I can recommend a
collection of essays edited by Seamons and Zajonc entitled "Goethe's Way of
Science", published by S.U.N.Y. Press.
My main point is the orthodox scientific view is but one of many valid
perspectives. There are other ways of understanding phenomena than within
the constraints of the reductionist techniques of science (which you
explained so well). Orthodox science cannot deal with knowledge that
cannot be quantified, and therefore has an inherently subjective limitation
to what it can help us know. Students should be made aware of and in fact
are able to understand this limitation. Forgive me for repeating myself,
but the Waldorf curriculum has been criticized for teaching science in a
non-scientific way. This may be correct, but what such criticism fails to
understand is that we can know the world in ways outside the subjective
limits of science. A more orthodox view is certainly presented before the
students finish high school. The Green Meadow Waldorf School in Spring
Valley, New York offers a class in calculus-based physics.
This is not directed specifically at you Michael, but is this subjective
limitation of science really so difficult to understand. I know it is not
a typical way of thinking, but once one is aware of this idea, I don't
think it is so difficult to grasp. It's not rocket science.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.6 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 18:08:44 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Humberto Saint Martin:
)I have not participated in this discussion because I am extremely busy at
the
)moment. I just want to say that I am in disagreement with almost all of
John
)Calkins' views on science. I would like to ask John for references to his
above
)statement on the great scientific thinkers who deny the existence of
scientific
)proof.
)
)Thank you, John.
Humberto, I think Michael Hirsch has responded quite well to your request.
Most of my books are in boxes in Spring Valley where I cannot get at them
just now. If you still want a specific reference, I have one or two books
with me here within which I can find a specific quote for you. If you are
not satisfied with Michael's response, I would be happy to dig out one or
two for you. Just let me know.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 23:30:10 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807091202.FAA26651 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz) wrote:
)Well, Stephen, come on, let's have a little statistical and qualitative
)analysis here
It would be nice, wouldn't it? However, I don't think the data exists to
enable such statistics to be drawn. However, if anyone wants to fund me
to carry out such a study.....
--
Stephen Tonkin
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UK Amateur Telescope Making - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/atm.htm)
Tonkin's Astronomy Books - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/books/books.htm)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.8 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 23:32:29 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807091726.KAA24415 lists1.best.com)
469593N knotes.kodak.com wrote:
)I'm sure Stephen
)Tonkin can fill you in if anyone wants a better explanation, if he doesn't
)mind being put on the spot.)
I don't mind -- history of astronomy is one of my abiding interests
(I've spent most of the last year nearly making a good living from it
(g)). However, it is well off-topic for this list, so I suggest that any
requests are by private email.
--
Stephen Tonkin
(N50.9105 W1.829)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UK Amateur Telescope Making - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/atm.htm)
Tonkin's Astronomy Books - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/books/books.htm)
The Astronomical Unit - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/astunit.htm)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.9 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 09:43:28 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807091458.HAA28565 lists1.best.com)
)From: John Calkins
)
)Michael KOPP says:
)
))Where do you see these egregious illiterates? Here? If elsewhere, and
))you're making a comment on the state of education generally, how about
)some
))facts and figures? How about some literacy, reading comprehension, and
))vocabulary tests for Steiner/ Waldord/ Anthroposophical graduates -- a
))large cross section, as exists with public schools, not a minuscule
)mention
))of one school in the UK and a few others elsewhere?
)
)Ezra recently cited the failure of a high percentage of education graduates
)who failed some sort of aptitude test in Massachusetts. I have deleted the
)posting so I may not have my facts straight, but I recall the English test
)to be at an 8th grade reading level. If you want to see the facts and
)figures Michael, I'm sure someone can show you.
But I'm not the one making the claims about the failure of public schools.
You and the other defenders of the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthoroposophical
schooling are. You're saying your way is better. But the evidence of all
the graduates who post here is not impressive confirmation of your claims.
YOU and your friends are the ones who should provide the quantitative and
qualitative evidence that Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools are
better.
)Public schools as well as Waldorf schools have difficulties attracting
)qualified teachers. I have heard that for both public and Waldorf schools:
)about 1/3 of the teachers probably should not be teaching, about 1/3 of the
)teachers do an acceptable job, and about 1/3 of the teachers are
)exceptionally good. We should not make light of this serious problem by
)finger pointing. It is a general issue (at least in the U.S.) for both
)private and public education which needs to be addressed.
Again, this is NOT the issue here. The issue here is a cult-like religious
schooling which claims to be BETTER than the norm, but can't prove it, and
is wearing the emperors new finery while parading its graduates.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n817.10 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 10:15:26 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="============_-1312097921==_ma============"
In-Reply-To: (199807091726.KAA24415 lists1.best.com)
--============_-1312097921==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
)From: John Calkins
)
)KOPP says:
))What is the difference between facts learned through "memorization" and
))those "discovered" as "answers"? Surely what is right is right, no matter
))how it is arrived at, and the knowledge learnt at a Steiner/ Waldorf/
))Anthroposophical school will be the same as that learnt elsewhere? Well
)...
))maybe not.
))
)It sounds to me like you are saying the product is more important than the
)process. You must advocate that it is just as good to learn how the phases
)of the moon are caused from a diagram than it is to arrive at the same
)conclusion starting with observations of the real moon and sun?
Straw man. Besides, one cannot learn how the phases of the moon are caused
from direct observation of the real moon and sun, unless one wants to go
back to Tycho and Kepler and start over with complete mathematical
observations over a long period and the making of formulas and hypothess.
One has to give children _some_ things on faith that we know what we're
talking about. One would be that the earth and moon revolve around the sun.
That's now provable from spacecraft observations from above the plane of
the ecliptic.
What I would do -- what I DID do with my own kids when they were small, and
asked about it -- was use a lamp in the center of a darkened room, with a
couple of beach balls on sticks they could hold above their heads as they
walked around each other and around the "sun", so they could SEE the
phases. Of course, they still had to visualise the moon as seen from the
earth's surface, but that was easy enough. THEN I showed it to them on
paper, and with models (can't afford the orrery I always wanted).
)I hope you
)are not planning on founding a school on this principle. In Norman
)Davidson's "Sky Phenomena", he cites a survey where faculty and graduates
)at Harvard University were asked the two simple questions: "Why does the
)moon go through phases?" and "Why is it warmer in the summer?" 90% of them
)could not answer the questions correctly, the creme de la creme of American
)education! Clearly this does not speak well for orthodox education. How
)can this happen? It happens when abstract learning is valued more than
)knowledge gained through direct experience.
Your conclusion is a wild assertion not supported by the survey you mention.
It also sets up a false dichotomy between intuition and logic. Steiner/
Waldorf/ Athroposophical pedagogy depends not on teaching students to use
logic and reason, but to use intuition and "observation" which, in my
experience, is usually faulty technically, and can lead to students making
wild guesses without the least supporting evidence.
)(In case anyone was wondering, the most common _incorrect_ answers
)respectively are: "The shadow of the earth appears on the moon." and "The
)earth moves in an ellipse around the sun and is further away from the sun
)in the winter." It is interesting to note that an uneducated medieval
)peasant would never have given either of these answers.
What answers would the uneducated medieval peasant give? Enquiring minds
want to know. Isn't it likely that medieval peasants would give the
Church's answer: that the heavens revolve around the earth, and God makes
the moon phases and summer/winter?
Would you be willing, as a part of your training to be a Waldorf teacher,
to engage in a bit of educational research, and ask the same questions --
in controlled study conditions -- of a number of graduating classes from
various Waldorf high schools? I wonder what kinds of answers _they_ would
give?
)I'm sure Stephen
)Tonkin can fill you in if anyone wants a better explanation, if he doesn't
)mind being put on the spot.)
)
))The defenders of the Waldorf methods would have us believe that only by
))using intuition and observation can one truly _know_ something.
))
))Rubbish. What passes for "knowing" in the Steiner system (in my children's
))empirical experience) is nothing more than "anything goes". There is no
))right answer, there is no truth, there is no _fact_. There is only the
))student's "observations", and what they think of those observations.
))
))But since they have no solid framework of empirical knowledge to test
)their
))observations and ideas against, and since the modern scientific method of
))hypothesis and experimental proof is rejected, the student comes away from
))a Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education with only a loose and
))diffuse range of impressions of the world from their own imagination.
))
)Michael, you still seem to think there is such a thing as an "experimental
)proof". The greatest scientific thinkers of our time agree there is no
)such thing as a scientific proof. The "solid framework" we thought we had
)in the 19th century has crumbled away. It's time you moved into the 20th
)century before the 21st arrives!
And you Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical faithful still don't understand
that when scientists talk about "proof" they mean "the evidence supports
the hypothesis being tested". It is a straw man to argue that when we talk
about proof we mean ultimate, inviolable, invontrovertible TRUTH with a
capital T. Science is about continued refinement of our understanding of
nature; Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical "science" is about the
understanding of SUPERnature. They are mutually exclusive. The believers in
one cannot teach the other anything according to the opposite system.
Science is in continual flux.
I'll end here by quoting yet again Carl Sagan:
"At the heart of science is an essential tension between two seemingly
contradictory attitudes -- an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre
or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny
of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep
nonsense."
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--============_-1312097921==_ma============
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset="us-ascii"
)From: John Calkins
)
)KOPP says:
))What is the difference between facts learned through "memorization"
and
))those "discovered" as "answers"? Surely what is right is right, no
matter
))how it is arrived at, and the knowledge learnt at a Steiner/
Waldorf/
))Anthroposophical school will be the same as that learnt elsewhere?
Well
)...
))maybe not.
))
)It sounds to me like you are saying the product is more important than
the
)process. You must advocate that it is just as good to learn how the
phases
)of the moon are caused from a diagram than it is to arrive at the
same
)conclusion starting with observations of the real moon and sun?
Straw man. Besides, one cannot learn how the phases of the moon are
caused from direct observation of the real moon and sun, unless one
wants to go back to Tycho and Kepler and start over with complete
mathematical observations over a long period and the making of formulas
and hypothess. One has to give children _some_ things on faith that we
know what we're talking about. One would be that the earth and moon
revolve around the sun. That's now provable from spacecraft
observations from above the plane of the ecliptic.
What I would do -- what I DID do with my own kids when they were small,
and asked about it -- was use a lamp in the center of a darkened room,
with a couple of beach balls on sticks they could hold above their
heads as they walked around each other and around the "sun", so they
could SEE the phases. Of course, they still had to visualise the moon
as seen from the earth's surface, but that was easy enough. THEN I
showed it to them on paper, and with models (can't afford the orrery I
always wanted).
)I hope you
)are not planning on founding a school on this principle. In Norman
)Davidson's "Sky Phenomena", he cites a survey where faculty and
graduates
)at Harvard University were asked the two simple questions: "Why does
the
)moon go through phases?" and "Why is it warmer in the summer?" 90% of
them
)could not answer the questions correctly, the creme de la creme of
American
)education! Clearly this does not speak well for orthodox education.
How
)can this happen? It happens when abstract learning is valued more
than
)knowledge gained through direct experience.
Your conclusion is a wild assertion not supported by the survey you
mention.
It also sets up a false dichotomy between intuition and logic. Steiner/
Waldorf/ Athroposophical pedagogy depends not on teaching students to
use logic and reason, but to use intuition and "observation" which, in
my experience, is usually faulty technically, and can lead to students
making wild guesses without the least supporting evidence.
)(In case anyone was wondering, the most common _incorrect_ answers
)respectively are: "The shadow of the earth appears on the moon." and
"The
)earth moves in an ellipse around the sun and is further away from the
sun
)in the winter." It is interesting to note that an uneducated
medieval
)peasant would never have given either of these answers.
What answers would the uneducated medieval peasant give? Enquiring
minds want to know. Isn't it likely that medieval peasants would give
the Church's answer: that the heavens revolve around the earth, and God
makes the moon phases and summer/winter?
Would you be willing, as a part of your training to be a Waldorf
teacher, to engage in a bit of educational research, and ask the same
questions -- in controlled study conditions -- of a number of
graduating classes from various Waldorf high schools? I wonder what
kinds of answers _they_ would give?
)I'm sure Stephen
)Tonkin can fill you in if anyone wants a better explanation, if he
doesn't
)mind being put on the spot.)
)
))The defenders of the Waldorf methods would have us believe that only
by
))using intuition and observation can one truly _know_ something.
))
))Rubbish. What passes for "knowing" in the Steiner system (in my
children's
))empirical experience) is nothing more than "anything goes". There is
no
))right answer, there is no truth, there is no _fact_. There is only
the
))student's "observations", and what they think of those observations.
))
))But since they have no solid framework of empirical knowledge to
test
)their
))observations and ideas against, and since the modern scientific
method of
))hypothesis and experimental proof is rejected, the student comes away
from
))a Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education with only a loose and
))diffuse range of impressions of the world from their own
imagination.
))
)Michael, you still seem to think there is such a thing as an
"experimental
)proof". The greatest scientific thinkers of our time agree there is
no
)such thing as a scientific proof. The "solid framework" we thought we
had
)in the 19th century has crumbled away. It's time you moved into the
20th
)century before the 21st arrives!
And you Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical faithful still don't
understand that when scientists talk about "proof" they mean "the
evidence supports the hypothesis being tested". It is a straw man to
argue that when we talk about proof we mean ultimate, inviolable,
invontrovertible TRUTH with a capital T. Science is about continued
refinement of our understanding of nature; Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophical "science" is about the understanding of SUPERnature.
They are mutually exclusive. The believers in one cannot teach the
other anything according to the opposite system. Science is in
continual flux.
I'll end here by quoting yet again Carl Sagan:
"At the heart of science is an essential tension between two seemingly
contradictory attitudes -- an openness to new ideas, no matter how
bizarre
or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical
scrutiny
of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from
deep
nonsense."
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--============_-1312097921==_ma============--
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n817 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n818 --------------
001 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Please Consider . . .
002 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - different thread
003 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Please Consider . . .
004 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Teaching
005 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: different thread
006 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Please Consider . . .
007 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Please Consider . . .
008 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Please Consider . . .
009 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - MA Bounty
010 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Please Consider . . .
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n818.1 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 98 18:14:28 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199807092206.PAA11337 lists1.best.com); from "469593N knotes.kodak.com" at Jul 9, 98 6:08 pm
John Calkins:
) Humberto, I think Michael Hirsch has responded quite well to your request.
) Most of my books are in boxes in Spring Valley where I cannot get at them
) just now. If you still want a specific reference, I have one or two books
) with me here within which I can find a specific quote for you. If you are
) not satisfied with Michael's response, I would be happy to dig out one or
) two for you. Just let me know.
)
Thank you, John, I think Michael Hirsch has been quite clear. Gauguing by your
writings I concluded that you were denying the value of science to discriminate
"true" from "false". I am still uneasy about your lines of reasoning that lead
you to conclude that becasue orthodox science is limited then "spiritual
science" and Steiner's epistemiology must be right. Maybe I am just making a
wrong interpretation and you do not mean to say "must", but "might", in which
case I guess you would also accept that they (spiritual science and S.
epistemiology) "might" be wrong.
Another interesting point made by Michael Hirsch is that trying to pass
pseudo-science (or even simple non-science) as science is cheating. I am
concerned that in some classes at the WS at Cuernavaca this cheating has
happened.
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n818.2 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: different thread
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 16:13:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807092250.PAA14725 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp wrote:
) YOU and your friends are the ones who should provide the quantitative and
) qualitative evidence that Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools are
) better.
Since when do we go by the Napoleonic code in a free society? Lt. Governor Danforth went by such a code, as well as most other celebrated witch hunters. No, I think the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.
) )Public schools as well as Waldorf schools have difficulties attracting
) )qualified teachers. I have heard that for both public and Waldorf schools:
) )about 1/3 of the teachers probably should not be teaching, about 1/3 of the
) )teachers do an acceptable job, and about 1/3 of the teachers are
) )exceptionally good. We should not make light of this serious problem by
) )finger pointing. It is a general issue (at least in the U.S.) for both
) )private and public education which needs to be addressed.
)
) Again, this is NOT the issue here. The issue here is a cult-like religious
) schooling which claims to be BETTER than the norm, but can't prove it, and
) is wearing the emperors new finery while parading its graduates.
How about disproving it? Normally, in situations of insufficient evidence, judgement is suspended. You seem to take the lack of evidence (for either side of WE efficacy) as reason for judgement in the negative. Now that California has tested its
pupils (although many districts are refusing to publish the results) we can see what WE is up against. Somehow I think the lack of full disclosure bodes ill for state schooling.e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n818.3 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 20:14:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807091754.KAA16427 lists1.best.com)
Stephen Tonkin posted:
) A perusal of the archives of this list will demonstrate that problems
) with grammar and spelling are not limited to Waldorf graduates.
)
) In fact, I repeatedly come across articles bemoaning the lack of basic
) literacy (and numeracy) in university graduates. Usenet postings from
) addresses ending in ".edu" often reinforce the perception of this lack.
I am in complete agreement with you on this score. I find the lack of
grammatical literacy, in general, to be alarming. However, I would think
that most private school, such as Waldorf schools, would hold to a
higher standard. My children attend public schools, however, theirs are
highly rated and have exacting academic standards. I can honestly say
that my recently graduated 7th grader has a better grasp of spelling and
grammar than that exhibited by Amanda Parla. If Waldorf schools are
letting these basic skills go by the wayside, what other academic
standards are also going by the wayside?
I do believe that spelling ability is somewhat innate, but it can be
improved immensely with proper education. Grammar and punctuation are
learned, both by modeling and education. A poor speller should be able
to identify themselves as such and use the tools available to correct
their misspellings before making their writing public - at least in my
opinion.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n818.4 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Teaching
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 1998 20:40:22 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807091754.KAA16427 lists1.best.com)
Michael Kopp posted:
in reference to his picture of my teaching methods:
) In fact, I imagine that her methods, and her respect for fact as opposed to
) opinion, are far superior to the "science teachers" my children had at our
) Steiner school. I imagine her as something like a "gee-whiz" Mrs. Wizard,
) leading the students into the wonder and awe of the real through not only
) observation, but practical thinking, hypothesizing, experimentation and
) conclusion-drawing.
I am touched with your picture of me. I do know that my students and I
had fun. And yes, I used practical thinking, hypothesizing,
experimentation and conclusion-drawing, in addition to some rote
memorization (in my math courses).
I must tell you, though, I no longer teach science or in a traditional
classroom. My Waldorf experience ended in the loss of my public school
job, albeit because I resigned after the intense harassment following my
refusal to engage in cult-like teacher training in Waldorf methodology.
Although I like my present job I do experience a strong sense of loss as
a result of my overall loss of teaching in a traditional classroom. I
suspect I was blacklisted, however I have no proof of that. I simply
know many interviews ended highly promising, only to be followed up with
a postcard in the mail telling me I had not received the job or no
notification whatsoever. This, of course, followed a phone call from the
hiring board to my previous employer. Perhaps nothing was said. I will
never know. I simply have my suspicions.
I look back on my experience a little more than a year ago with what, I
believe now, is greater clarity and less emotion. I was deeply
traumatized by that experience and I know it will haunt me for many
years. I find that I haven't the confidence I once had and I am hesitant
to speak out at work about anything. I choose to be quiet, do my job,
and go home. This is enough. I never want to experience what I went
through after being outspoken about my objections to being forced to
participate in Waldorf training. I believe I have had three major
emotional traumas in my adult life. These are my divorce from my 1st
husband, the death of a dearly beloved, and the harassment I experienced
a year ago centered around my objections to Waldorf in a public school.
I have had the good luck to be appreciated in my new job and have
received praise and an offer of a contract for next year. However, I
know that my employers and coworkers have no knowledge of how I once
taught in a traditional classroom. The wind is knocked out of my sails
and I find I have no desire to retrieve it.
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n818.5 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: different thread
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 15:13:12 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807092250.PAA14725 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807092314.QAA07473 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman writes:
)Michael Kopp wrote:
)
)) YOU and your friends are the ones who should provide the quantitative and
)) qualitative evidence that Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical schools are
)) better.
)
)Since when do we go by the Napoleonic code in a free society? Lt.
)Governor Danforth went by such a code, as well as most other celebrated
)witch hunters. No, I think the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the
)accused.
KOPP says:
Listen, philosopher king, we're not talking law here, we're talking about a
group of people who advertise themselves as superior, but who clearly
aren't. I don't have to prove anything. If you or Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophical defenders of the faith can't back up your claims, that's
your problem. Don't shove that responsibility off on me just because I'm
saying your emperor ain't got no clothes on. See answer below.
)) )Public schools as well as Waldorf schools have difficulties attracting
)) )qualified teachers. I have heard that for both public and Waldorf schools:
)) )about 1/3 of the teachers probably should not be teaching, about 1/3 of the
)) )teachers do an acceptable job, and about 1/3 of the teachers are
)) )exceptionally good. We should not make light of this serious problem by
)) )finger pointing. It is a general issue (at least in the U.S.) for both
)) )private and public education which needs to be addressed.
))
)) Again, this is NOT the issue here. The issue here is a cult-like religious
)) schooling which claims to be BETTER than the norm, but can't prove it, and
)) is wearing the emperors new finery while parading its graduates.
)
)How about disproving it? Normally, in situations of insufficient
)evidence, judgement is suspended. You seem to take the lack of evidence
)(for either side of WE efficacy) as reason for judgement in the negative.
)Now that California has tested its
)pupils (although many districts are refusing to publish the results) we
)can see what WE is up against. Somehow I think the lack of full
)disclosure bodes ill for state schooling.e
KOPP says:
No, I don't "take the lack of evidence" for WE efficacy as reason for
judgement in the negative.
The evidence is there for anyone with critical faculties, philosopher kings
like you who keep trying to transform simple issues of educational practice
into epistemological and esoteric, mystical realms notwithstanding.
I base my criticisms of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthropsophical educational
failure on your abstruseness and the illiteracy of at least two recent
graduates, as well as the many instances of the failure of a Steiner school
to properly educate my own children.
If that evidence doesn't disprove the "efficacy" (horrid word, why do you
use it?) of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education, then what would?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n818.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 06:45:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807100318.UAA19672 lists1.best.com)
spike (spike netshel.net) wrote:
)I am in complete agreement with you on this score. I find the lack of
)grammatical literacy, in general, to be alarming.
As do I. The infuriating thing is that many of these common grammatical
errors are now so widely used that they are being considered, even by
teachers, to be correct. It must make the learning of the grammar of a
foreign language unnecessarily difficult for pupils who cannot correctly
parse a sentence in English.
My pet bugbears at present (all of which have been committed by UK
Education Ministers over the last few years) are:
Use of plural pronoun with singular noun. ("Each teacher should teach
their children the correct use of pronouns.")
The use of plural verb with singular noun. ("The government want to make
good grammar a thing of the past.")
The inability to distinguish cases in first person singular personal
pronoun. ("Chris and me went to town." "He gave the boxes to Pat and
I.")
The use of 'less' in place of 'fewer'. ("Less graduates use good grammar
than was the case a decade ago.")
Misplaced modifiers. ("The girl lay on the beach watching a seagull
wearing a striped bikini." "Don't talk to me like that.")
Qualification of absolutes. ("Waldorf education is very unique.")
(The examples aren't the Ministers')
) However, I would think
)that most private school, such as Waldorf schools, would hold to a
)higher standard.
If one is attempting to assess the efficacy of a form of education, one
needs to try to gauge what is referred to in this country by the ghastly
term "added value"; i.e. at what standard did the child start when he
came to the school? It is certainly the case that a large number of
pupils at UK Waldorf schools were previously having problems at state
schools.
--
Stephen Tonkin
(N50.9105 W1.829)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UK Amateur Telescope Making - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/atm.htm)
Tonkin's Astronomy Books - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/books/books.htm)
The Astronomical Unit - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/astunit.htm)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n818.7 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:30:54 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
)John Calkins:
)
)) Humberto, I think Michael Hirsch has responded quite well to your
request.
)) Most of my books are in boxes in Spring Valley where I cannot get at
them
)) just now. If you still want a specific reference, I have one or two
books
)) with me here within which I can find a specific quote for you. If you
are
)) not satisfied with Michael's response, I would be happy to dig out one
or
)) two for you. Just let me know.
))
)Thank you, John, I think Michael Hirsch has been quite clear. Gauguing by
your
)writings I concluded that you were denying the value of science to
discriminate
)"true" from "false". I am still uneasy about your lines of reasoning that
lead
)you to conclude that becasue orthodox science is limited then "spiritual
)science" and Steiner's epistemiology must be right. Maybe I am just making
a
)wrong interpretation and you do not mean to say "must", but "might", in
which
)case I guess you would also accept that they (spiritual science and S.
)epistemiology) "might" be wrong.
Humberto, I do believe that knowledge gained from a purely spiritual
perspective is limited to that realm just as scientific knowledge has its
limits. I do not see it as a matter of whether one or another epistemology
is "right" or "wrong" but of understanding the limits of each particular
way of seeing the world. The challenge is to form a more universal yet
coherent view of reality accounting for the various particular
perspectives. This may sound lofty and theoretical, but for me this is a
practical part of living. As a violinist/violist, at one level I have to
know all the technical things that I must do to make the instrument sound.
The challenge of the artist is to live in the spirit of the music while
simultaneously doing the technique necessary to express that spirit. If
either of these does not happen, then the music does not happen. Many a
person can deeply feel the inner meaning of music, but hand her a violin
and she cannot express it. Contrarily, many of us have heard a great
technician perform, yet there is no life to the music. It is a constant
struggle to maintain an artful balance between the two views.
)Another interesting point made by Michael Hirsch is that trying to pass
)pseudo-science (or even simple non-science) as science is cheating. I am
)concerned that in some classes at the WS at Cuernavaca this cheating has
)happened.
)
)--
)
) Humberto Saint Martin
To answer your concern, I know that non-scientific views have helped me to
understand science better (and the other way around also). The best
electronics professor I had in college used human analogies for
understanding how transistors and amplifiers work. Many of my classmates
who were struggling in previous classes were able to grasp the material
through his unique approach. As odd as it may sound at first, non-science
has its place in science.
I did find a quote for you last night from Frederick Armine from his essay
"The Metamorphosis of the Scientist" in the book a have mentioned "Goethe's
Way of Science":
((According to Karl Popper, the chief theorist of the hypothetico-deductive
method, "science" is anything but the bastion of unassailable truths
portrayed in the high school science texts, in the popular media, and
-disingenuously- in the popular writings of certain scientists. It is
rather the set of hypotheses we have not yet succeeded in falsifying. We
can never know with any certainty whether any of our hypotheses are valid.
That conclusion would seem dismal enough, but the scientist's dilemma
is actually much more acute, for even the falsifying of hypotheses that
have been disconfirmed is now open to doubt. [Thomas] Kuhn, [Paul]
Feyeradend, and others have shown convincingly on the historical evidence
that falsification through experimentation almost never happens in science.
More recently, Kuhn has made this point even more strongly, arguing that
"in the final analysis it is the individual scientist rather than the
current theory that is tested."))
I do not want to drag us too far off topic, but when critics like Dan Dugan
and Michael Kopp use faulty premises to discredit the Waldorf science
curriculum, I feel it is appropriate to present a more balanced and real
perspective.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n818.8 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:57:16 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
)Calkins:
))(In case anyone was wondering, the most common _incorrect_ answers
))respectively are: "The shadow of the earth appears on the moon." and
"The
))earth moves in an ellipse around the sun and is further away from the sun
))in the winter." It is interesting to note that an uneducated medieval
))peasant would never have given either of these answers.
)
)Kopp:
)What answers would the uneducated medieval peasant give? Enquiring minds
)want to know. Isn't it likely that medieval peasants would give the
)Church's answer: that the heavens revolve around the earth, and God makes
)the moon phases and summer/winter?
I don't think it would be unreasonable for a peasant to say, "The summer is
warmer because the days are longer and the sun is higher in the sky." This
answer is directly related to the phenomenon we experience, as true today
as it was in medieval times. The difference is the typical peasant had a
greater awareness of the behavior of the sun then (his livelihood depended
on it) than most of us living the modern life style have today.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n818.9 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: MA Bounty
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 08:56:05 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
quote of the day - from CNN almanac
"If we are serious about having a
world-class education system and if we
are serious about attracting the best and
the brightest, we're going to have to
spend some money."
-- Massachusetts Senate President Thomas. F.
Birmingham, speaking about plans to offer top
college graduates a $20,000 signing bonus if they
become public school teachers
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n818.10 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 98 11:35:33 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199807101228.FAA16348 lists1.best.com); from "469593N knotes.kodak.com" at Jul 10, 98 8:30 am
)From John Calkins:
)
) Humberto, I do believe that knowledge gained from a purely spiritual
) perspective is limited to that realm just as scientific knowledge has its
) limits. I do not see it as a matter of whether one or another epistemology
) is "right" or "wrong" but of understanding the limits of each particular
) way of seeing the world. The challenge is to form a more universal yet
) coherent view of reality accounting for the various particular
) perspectives.
HSMP:
OK, let me try to put it in another way: besides the anthroposophical views on
spirituality, there are others, e. g. the theosophical. I know very little
about either, but perhaps you can explain why you choose anthroposophy over
theosophy, and, if the views coincide, why there is an anthroposophy separate
from a theosophy. Perhaps you even have an explanation of why other spiritually
oriented people do not embrace either. In other words, please explain what are
your criteria to make decisions and to choose your beliefs.
J. C.:
) To answer your concern, I know that non-scientific views have helped me to
) understand science better (and the other way around also). The best
) electronics professor I had in college used human analogies for
) understanding how transistors and amplifiers work. Many of my classmates
) who were struggling in previous classes were able to grasp the material
) through his unique approach. As odd as it may sound at first, non-science
) has its place in science.
HSMP:
Once again, it seems to me that we are not talking about the same thing. I am
not complaining about non-scientific analogies in science classes; but about
non-science being passed as science. For instance, there was a class at the WS
at Cuernavaca that was announced by the teacher as a lecture on the physics of
sound. However, he talked about such things as the "feelings" of sounds being
distinctly different from those of noises. My first criticism here is that
neither sounds nor noises have any feelings whatsoever. But let's consider that
he was aiming at describing the feelings that are evoked in people by sounds,
then talking about how this sounds can be combined by humans to produce music,
or how the sounds in the surroundings can affect human feelings. This has
nothing to do with the physics of sound, not even as an analogy.
There is yet one more thing I don't understand: you cite the works of Popper,
Kuhn and Feyerabend to support your statement that there isn't any objectivity
in science; nevertheless, you agree with Michael Hirsch that the scientific
method is quite able to disprove hypothesis. Would you please resolve this
dichotomy?
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n818 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n819 --------------
001 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: different thread
002 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Please Consider . . .
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - it's not dogma
004 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - RE:Simon says.. Sagan says...
005 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Please Consider . . .
006 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Please Consider . . .
007 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Please Consider . . .
008 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - Theosophy and Anthroposophy (was: Please Consider . . .)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n819.1 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: different thread
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 09:50:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807092250.PAA14725 lists1.best.com) (199807100537.WAA12315 lists1.best.com)
) KOPP says:
)
) Listen, philosopher king, we're not talking law here, we're talking about a
) group of people who advertise themselves as superior, but who clearly
) aren't.
Remind me, are you passing judgment on PLANS, or WE, or Anthros? Moreover, isn't there a group of people on this list that advertise WE inferiority? I appreciate that your control group of two (which happen to be in the experimental group as well)
are very important to you. In the interest of dispassionate science, emotion (no matter how intense) cannot add to the importance and pertinence of the numbers. I would rather not go over the numbers again, but all told (and this is my unofficial
count from the last 6 months) the number of horror stories doesn't even register statistically. I don't mean to be cold, for each example represents an individual, only trying to keep you (more or less) honest in your 'peculiar felicity of
expression.'
) I don't have to prove anything. If you or Steiner/ Waldorf/
) Anthroposophical defenders of the faith can't back up your claims, that's
) your problem. Don't shove that responsibility off on me just because I'm
) saying your emperor ain't got no clothes on. See answer below.
Not my emperor, nor my liege, or even my friendly neighborhood super hero. Your assumption of responsibility is begging the question.
) KOPP says:
) The evidence is there for anyone with critical faculties, philosopher kings
) like you who keep trying to transform simple issues of educational practice
) into epistemological and esoteric, mystical realms notwithstanding.
I prefer Mr. philosopher king, if we're going by our Christian names (grin). I believe that you are making gross generalizations here. Since when is educational practice a simple issue? Certainly not since Socrates, who died for his educational
practices. (subverting the youth)
) I base my criticisms of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthropsophical educational
) failure on your abstruseness and the illiteracy of at least two recent
) graduates, as well as the many instances of the failure of a Steiner school
) to properly educate my own children.
So your sample size is now a whopping 4.
) If that evidence doesn't disprove the "efficacy" (horrid word, why do you
) use it?) of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education, then what would?
Probably from reading one too many economics and statistical texts. I use it because I believe there is an economy of expression. Since when has diction been an issue anyway? I though we were fixating on spelling and grammar...e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n819.2 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 13:39:26 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
HSMP said:
)OK, let me try to put it in another way: besides the anthroposophical views on
)spirituality, there are others, e. g. the theosophical. I know very little
)about either, but perhaps you can explain why you choose anthroposophy over
)theosophy, and, if the views coincide, why there is an anthroposophy separate
)from a theosophy. Perhaps you even have an explanation of why other spiritually
)oriented people do not embrace either. In other words, please explain what are
)your criteria to make decisions and to choose your beliefs.
Hi,
I've been lurking until I had something to contribute. I think I can
give a response to the foregoing invitation for comment.
I do not choose either Anthroposophy or Theosophy for my spiritual
sustenance. I have made other choices. However, it is enough for me to
know some of the essential spiritual underpinnings of Steiner and
Anthroposophy to be convinced that there is no other reasonable choice
in the United States for an education that treats the whole child and is
infused with a level of spiritual foundation which I believe is
unavailable in either the public schools or in any other private form of
education.
For about 25 years, I've been engaged in a spiritual path called Cafh.
It is small and not well-known. If you want an idea about what's
involved, you can go to my website (URL below) and read an interview
with me which was recently published in a magazine issued by Cafh
Foundation, or follow other links from my site.
My two kids are both in the Green Meadow Waldorf School in Spring
Valley, NY. My admittedly limited knowledge of Steiner and
Anthroposophy lead me to conclude that they share with my own world view
the sense of spiritual universality which I find missing in major
religions. I also find this component missing in traditional, state-run
education.
It is enough for me, even without knowing all the tenets of
Anthroposophy or all the writings of Steiner, that the foundation of the
Waldorf educational system comes from this kind of a spiritual base. It
is my sense that Waldorf education treats the whole child and not just
the mind.
I do have misgivings about some of the "features" of Waldorf education,
such as what seems to me as the targetting of all media as the enemy of
the child. But whatever I see as shortcomings of the system are
strongly outweighed by the essential spiritual (but, in my view,
non-religious) foundation of that system.
Bob
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n819.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: it's not dogma
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 00:56:10 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
"Scientology means the study of knowledge and it recognizes that the person
himself is a spiritual being and he has a mind and he has a body," says Heber
C. Jentzsch, president of the Church of Scientology International. "And
Scientology is not a dogma, it is a route, a way, rather than a dissertation or
an assertive body of knowledge."
Sounds familiar.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n819.4 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: RE:Simon says.. Sagan says...
Date: 10 Jul 1998 13:57:30 -0400
)I'll end here by quoting yet again Carl Sagan:
)"At the heart of science is an essential tension between two seemingly
)contradictory attitudes -- an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre
)or counterintuitive they may be, and the most ruthless skeptical scrutiny
)of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are winnowed from deep
)nonsense."
Would anyone else care to deconstruct this quote?
Sagan appears in this quote to be a dualist with "geometric theoretical" *
tendencies (Although dualists seem to have geometrical tendencies,
geometrically theoretical people are not necessarily all dualists). He makes
a statement that presents a (geometric)picture of what he wants to describe
without providing a mechanism that leads to his concluding sentence. What is
the mechanism of deciding when enough scrutiny has been conducted to allow for
new ideas to stand (should we look to the tobacco industry scientists for
answers?) What happens if the most intense scrutiny cannot engage a new idea
(do we go to the scrutiny warehouse and pick up some different tools or just
use a bigger hammer?) In short,(and where I find things most interesting) how
does one deal with an apparent standstill (penalty kicks?.. Go Brasil!) and
how does one know if one has a standstill?
From Michael's description of the process of science(not Michael Kopp but
the other Michael), my sense of Sagan's last sentence should read: "This is
how deep nonsense is winnowed(falsified) from the general array of what we
have, leaving us with mostly a big pile of potential deep nonsense (not yet
falsified). No truths involved here, just currently useful (and hopefully not
deleterious) bits for our endeavors.
How about some other geometric forms that paint a picture/give form to an
explanation? The relationships might change.
* an idea that I read about in "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephan Jay Gould.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n819.5 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 15:25:19 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
)From John Calkins:
))
)) Humberto, I do believe that knowledge gained from a purely spiritual
)) perspective is limited to that realm just as scientific knowledge has
its
)) limits. I do not see it as a matter of whether one or another
epistemology
)) is "right" or "wrong" but of understanding the limits of each particular
)) way of seeing the world. The challenge is to form a more universal yet
)) coherent view of reality accounting for the various particular
)) perspectives.
)
)HSMP:
)
)OK, let me try to put it in another way: besides the anthroposophical
views on
)spirituality, there are others, e. g. the theosophical. I know very little
)about either, but perhaps you can explain why you choose anthroposophy
over
)theosophy, and, if the views coincide, why there is an anthroposophy
separate
)from a theosophy. Perhaps you even have an explanation of why other
spiritually
)oriented people do not embrace either. In other words, please explain what
are
)your criteria to make decisions and to choose your beliefs.
Frankly I don't know what an anthroposophical or theosophical view on
spirituality is. What is important to me is my own view and the view of
another individual. I try to base my beliefs on my own inner self, this is
what anthroposophy teaches, and that is why I chose to study anthroposophy.
For me, I cannot see a universal anthroposophical view (at least not for
individuals), and I am not sure if one exists.
)J. C.:
)) To answer your concern, I know that non-scientific views have helped me
to
)) understand science better (and the other way around also). The best
)) electronics professor I had in college used human analogies for
)) understanding how transistors and amplifiers work. Many of my
classmates
)) who were struggling in previous classes were able to grasp the material
)) through his unique approach. As odd as it may sound at first,
non-science
)) has its place in science.
)
)HSMP:
)
)Once again, it seems to me that we are not talking about the same thing. I
am
)not complaining about non-scientific analogies in science classes; but
about
)non-science being passed as science. For instance, there was a class at
the WS
)at Cuernavaca that was announced by the teacher as a lecture on the
physics of
)sound. However, he talked about such things as the "feelings" of sounds
being
)distinctly different from those of noises. My first criticism here is that
)neither sounds nor noises have any feelings whatsoever. But let's consider
that
)he was aiming at describing the feelings that are evoked in people by
sounds,
)then talking about how this sounds can be combined by humans to produce
music,
)or how the sounds in the surroundings can affect human feelings. This has
)nothing to do with the physics of sound, not even as an analogy.
Sensing the feelings invoked by sound is as much of a reality as sensing
sound with our ears. I agree that orthodox physics does not and cannot
deal with our feelings. However, just because we cannot measure our
feelings with an instrument does not invalidate the feeling as a part of
the phenomenon of humans hearing sounds. You are right it is not science
in the usual science, but perhaps you can imagine of a different kind of
science that is able to address qualitative properties of nature.
Walter Heitler was a professor of theoretical physics at the University of
Zurich stated it better than I can, "The fundamental importance of Goethean
science for us lies in its demonstration that rigorous science is possible
both with the realm of pure form and the qualitative, and that science is
as valid as the Galilean." Methods similar to Goethe's are particularly
well suited to understanding taxonomy, plant morphology, and other life
studies where quantitative science has fallen short.
I wish I could explain to you more about Goethe's approach to science, but
I cannot give it justice without the risk of it being misunderstood in the
short format of this forum. If anyone is interested there are several
books on Goethean science.
)There is yet one more thing I don't understand: you cite the works of
Popper,
)Kuhn and Feyerabend to support your statement that there isn't any
objectivity
)in science; nevertheless, you agree with Michael Hirsch that the
scientific
)method is quite able to disprove hypothesis. Would you please resolve this
)dichotomy?
)
)--
)
) Humberto Saint Martin
I wrote that I "largely" agree with Michael Hirsch. You are quite
perceptive to point out one of the subtleties in Michael's post that I did
not have any reason to criticize. I have not reviewed Kuhn's work myself,
so the question of science's ability to disprove a hypothesis remains open
for me.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n819.6 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 98 15:01:35 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199807101742.KAA26412 lists1.best.com); from "Robert Tolz" at Jul 10, 98 1:39 pm
Thank you for an answer, Robert Tolz, but I don't think it suits my question,
so I will try yet another way of asking: what if you find some contradiction
between anthroposophy and cafh? What would you choose and why?
And what if you cannot find any difference between anthroposophy and cafh? Why
should they have different names?
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n819.7 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 98 15:22:59 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199807101926.MAA02527 lists1.best.com); from "469593N knotes.kodak.com" at Jul 10, 98 3:25 pm
)From John Calkins:
) Frankly I don't know what an anthroposophical or theosophical view on
) spirituality is. What is important to me is my own view and the view of
) another individual. I try to base my beliefs on my own inner self, this is
) what anthroposophy teaches, and that is why I chose to study anthroposophy.
) For me, I cannot see a universal anthroposophical view (at least not for
) individuals), and I am not sure if one exists.
)
HSMP:
I guess that way of making decisions might work for an individual, but what
about a group of individuals whose inner selves lead them to different
conclusions?
J. C.:
) Sensing the feelings invoked by sound is as much of a reality as sensing
) sound with our ears. I agree that orthodox physics does not and cannot
) deal with our feelings. However, just because we cannot measure our
) feelings with an instrument does not invalidate the feeling as a part of
) the phenomenon of humans hearing sounds. You are right it is not science
) in the usual science, but perhaps you can imagine of a different kind of
) science that is able to address qualitative properties of nature.
)
HSMP:
Psychology deals with those feelings in an orthodox scientific manner. And your
observation supports my criticism: this particular teacher at this particular
class tried to pass your different kind of science as science. I think that is
cheating.
J. C.:
) Walter Heitler was a professor of theoretical physics at the University of
) Zurich stated it better than I can, "The fundamental importance of Goethean
) science for us lies in its demonstration that rigorous science is possible
) both with the realm of pure form and the qualitative, and that science is
) as valid as the Galilean." Methods similar to Goethe's are particularly
) well suited to understanding taxonomy, plant morphology, and other life
) studies where quantitative science has fallen short.
)
HSMP:
Quantitative science falls short from quantitatively describing complex
phenomena just because the mathematical language involved is consequently more
complicated. But orthodox science is also qualitative. Most of biology is still
purely qualitative, yet subject to scientific validation.
(snip)
J. C.:
) I wrote that I "largely" agree with Michael Hirsch. You are quite
) perceptive to point out one of the subtleties in Michael's post that I did
) not have any reason to criticize. I have not reviewed Kuhn's work myself,
) so the question of science's ability to disprove a hypothesis remains open
) for me.
)
HSMP:
The question of science's ability to disprove a hypothesis is _not_ a subtlety
in Michael's post, it is at the very heart of the matter. But don't take my word
for it; let's ask him to clarify this, if he doesn't mind.
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n819.8 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: Theosophy and Anthroposophy (was: Please Consider . . .)
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 1998 23:35:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807101228.FAA16348 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807101628.JAA25663 lists1.best.com)
At 11:35 10-7-1998 CDT, Humberto Saint Martin wrote:
)besides the anthroposophical views on
)spirituality, there are others, e. g. the theosophical. I know very little
)about either, but perhaps you [John Calkins] can explain why you choose
anthroposophy over
)theosophy, and, if the views coincide, why there is an anthroposophy separate
)from a theosophy.
To make complex history succinct: because in 1912-1913 Rudolf Steiner,
General Secretary for Life of the German section of the Theosophical
Society, wanted Annie Besant (International) President of the Theosophical
Society, to step down. (Mrs Besant wrote this was a plot by Steiner and the
German imperial secret service, to destabilize British India.) Mrs Besant
didn't. She expelled Steiner, who then founded the Anthroposophical Society.
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n819 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n820 --------------
001 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Please Consider . . .
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Personal Attacks vs Critical Thinking
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
004 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: refuting claims of college preparation
005 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
006 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Thomas Kuhn, paradigms, and theory falsification
007 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - "preoven" theories
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n820.1 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 16:50:22 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Humberto saint Martin said:
)Thank you for an answer, Robert Tolz, but I don't think it suits my question,
)so I will try yet another way of asking: what if you find some contradiction
)between anthroposophy and cafh? What would you choose and why?
)
)And what if you cannot find any difference between anthroposophy and cafh? Why
)should they have different names?
Dear Humberto,
Oh, I'm quite sure there are differences between Anthroposophy and
Cafh, though I'm not sure that I would characterize them as
"contradictions." I chose Cafh as a means of making spirituality "real"
in my life quite a long time ago, well before I ever heard of
Anthroposophy. It has provided me with a method and an environment to
translate ideas, thoughts and feelings (which might otherwise remain in
the realm of mental gymnastics) into daily life. Since I've stuck with
it for about 25 years, you can see I'm not a window-shopper for
spiritual experiences. So, I see no reason to split my energies to seek
another path.
There are many choices that people can make when selecting a spiritual
path. I do not believe that any path can claim that it is for everyone,
because one size does not fit all. Before I chose Cafh, I looked around
a bit and found that some possibilities felt too commercial, dogmatic or
evangelizing. Others simply did not suit my Western background. In the
end, I made my choice based on a sense of harmony with the people I met
and a feeling they had something to teach me that I really wanted to
learn, and having sampled the tools offered for spiritual work and
finding them eminently suitable for my needs.
I certainly could go on but will stop here. If I haven't adequately
answered your question, prod me forward in the direction you wanted to
elicit a response.
Bob
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n820.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Personal Attacks vs Critical Thinking
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 23:18:51 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199805220643.XAA14375 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199805261619.JAA13842 lists1.best.com)
)Dan Dugan wrote:
)
)) I remember in a lecture at the S.F. Waldorf School Anthroposophical science
)) guru Dennis Klocek knocked on wood to make a point, saying "According to
)) Einstein, this is just atoms." I thought it very strange, since Albert
)) Einstein had nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of the atom. I
)) think Klocek was just using him as a stereotype "materialistic scientist."
)
)Funny thing is he was my gardening teacher and perhaps woodworking as
)well. He never taught any science to me.... What was the topic of the
)lecture, exactly?
It was April 22, 1988. I didn't note the title. I think it was about
science teaching in Waldorf. His talk was full of Anthroposophical
doctrine, and he got very upset when I pointed this out in the question
period. It was the beginning of the end for me at Waldorf.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n820.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 01:03:56 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199806101624.JAA01287 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199806101816.LAA26019 lists1.best.com)
Stephen Tonkin, you wrote,
)Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com) wrote:
))Dan, how do you define "cult," and how,
))precisely, does anthroposophy fit within that definition?
)
)I hope you get an answer to this. For several years I have been trying
)to get the PLANS people to publish their definition of "religion". I do
)not recall them doing so, and my latest attempt to do so (*) was
)"diverted".
)
)The PLANS rationale seems to claim that anthroposophy is a religion, for
)which Waldorf schools are a "missionary" front and that this therefore
)violates the separation of church and state; I find it strange that
)PLANS appears so reluctant to define the key word in that context.
)
)* The attempt to which I refer is:
)
)Message-Id: (199805300542.WAA13067 lists1.best.com)
)From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
)Subject: Who/what is religious? (was: Web page on Waldorf schools)
)Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 06:09:01 +0100
)
)[...]
)Perhaps Daniel would be kind enough to let us know what his definitions
)of "religion" and "religious" are?
I'd like to use words in their common sense. The 1936 *Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary* on my desk says:
"1. The service and adoration of God or a god as expressed in forms of
worship. 2. One of the systems of faith and worship. 3. The profession or
practice of religious beliefs; religious observances collectively. 4.
Devotion or fidelity; conscientiousness. 5. An awareness or conviction of
the existence of a supreme being arousing reverence, love, gratitude, the
will to obey and serve, and the like."
It's obvious to me that Anthroposophy fits this definition as a "system of
faith and worship". Steiner sez:
"This anthroposophical movement is not an earthly service, this
anthroposophical movement in its entirety, in all its details, is a service
of the gods, a divine service." [Christmas Conference, 1st lecture]
Others see it that way, too:
"A 20th century religious system growing out of theosophy and centering on
man rather than God." [Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, quoted in the
WestEd report, 1996, p. 75]
I'll call any system containing "spiritual" (non-physical) entities
religious. Anthroposophy's claim that "spiritual" and "religious" are
distinct categories doesn't wash with me. I think it's a ruse to recruit
religious people.
The definitions that matter for the church-state issue are those of the
courts that have ruled on that issue. In the federal appellate case "Malnak
v. Yogi," one very much like the Waldorf situation, the court posited three
definitional factors for religion:
1) Does the belief system address fundamental questions, or areas of
ultimate concern (e.g., humanity's place in the cosmos)?
2) Does the belief system proffer comprehensive systematic answers to those
fundamental questions?
3) Are there any practices analogous to accepted religions, such as ritual,
services, clergy, etc?
This definition isn't as well constructed as I'd like, but it's there, and
it seems likely to set the standard for PLANS' case. Anthroposophy and its
child Waldorf education fit all three factors.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n820.4 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: refuting claims of college preparation
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 1998 23:17:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: (199805272200.PAA21239 lists1.best.com)
Charlie wrote,
)I am new to the list, having recently discovered it. I am a disillusioned
)parent of two children that are still in a Waldorf school, due to the fact
)that my ex-wife is into Waldorf, Anthroposophy and all. Pretty complex
)scenario, eh?
Sadly, a common one.
)I am seeking information that addresses Waldorf claims that it prepares
)children for entry into and success in university studies. I am combing
)through the archives and have found a few references to the "WCA Results
)pamphlet", but haven't yet found clear info. Can anybody point me in the
)right direction?
This promotional pamphlet has three articles in it, no data. The third
article is a very brief report from a German newsmagazine about the only
real study of Waldorf graduates that I know of,
Hofmann, U., C. v. Pr=FCmmer, D. Weidner. *Forschungsbericht =FCber
Bildungslebensl=E4ufe ehemaliger Waldorfsch=FCler Eine Untersuchung der
Geburtsjahrg=E4nge 1946 und 1947*. Projektleiter: B. Vier. Stuttgart:
P=E4dagogische Forschungsstelle beim Bund der Freien Waldorfschulen e.V.,
1981.
Two thoughts about the study:
1) It's not clear to me what the relationship of the authors was to the
Waldorf movement. The study was published by the German Waldorf school
association.
2) The study was published in German, never translated, and they allowed it
to go out of print. Odd, isn't it, that the only hard data (if it was that)
ever collected on Waldorf graduates isn't being made available. Makes me
think it may have been more truthful than the movement could stand.
I searched for it for years. Finally a friend went to a library in Germany
and copied all 500 pages for me. Now I'm looking for a grant to have it
translated. Any suggestions?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n820.5 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 01:03:56 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199806101624.JAA01287 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199806101816.LAA26019 lists1.best.com)
Stephen Tonkin, you wrote,
)Steve Premo (premo cruzio.com) wrote:
))Dan, how do you define "cult," and how,
))precisely, does anthroposophy fit within that definition?
)
)I hope you get an answer to this. For several years I have been trying
)to get the PLANS people to publish their definition of "religion". I do
)not recall them doing so, and my latest attempt to do so (*) was
)"diverted".
)
)The PLANS rationale seems to claim that anthroposophy is a religion, for
)which Waldorf schools are a "missionary" front and that this therefore
)violates the separation of church and state; I find it strange that
)PLANS appears so reluctant to define the key word in that context.
)
)* The attempt to which I refer is:
)
)Message-Id: (199805300542.WAA13067 lists1.best.com)
)From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
)Subject: Who/what is religious? (was: Web page on Waldorf schools)
)Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 06:09:01 +0100
)
)[...]
)Perhaps Daniel would be kind enough to let us know what his definitions
)of "religion" and "religious" are?
I'd like to use words in their common sense. The 1936 *Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary* on my desk says:
"1. The service and adoration of God or a god as expressed in forms of
worship. 2. One of the systems of faith and worship. 3. The profession or
practice of religious beliefs; religious observances collectively. 4.
Devotion or fidelity; conscientiousness. 5. An awareness or conviction of
the existence of a supreme being arousing reverence, love, gratitude, the
will to obey and serve, and the like."
It's obvious to me that Anthroposophy fits this definition as a "system of
faith and worship". Steiner sez:
"This anthroposophical movement is not an earthly service, this
anthroposophical movement in its entirety, in all its details, is a service
of the gods, a divine service." [Christmas Conference, 1st lecture]
Others see it that way, too:
"A 20th century religious system growing out of theosophy and centering on
man rather than God." [Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, quoted in the
WestEd report, 1996, p. 75]
I'll call any system containing "spiritual" (non-physical) entities
religious. Anthroposophy's claim that "spiritual" and "religious" are
distinct categories doesn't wash with me. I think it's a ruse to recruit
religious people.
The definitions that matter for the church-state issue are those of the
courts that have ruled on that issue. In the federal appellate case "Malnak
v. Yogi," one very much like the Waldorf situation, the court posited three
definitional factors for religion:
1) Does the belief system address fundamental questions, or areas of
ultimate concern (e.g., humanity's place in the cosmos)?
2) Does the belief system proffer comprehensive systematic answers to those
fundamental questions?
3) Are there any practices analogous to accepted religions, such as ritual,
services, clergy, etc?
This definition isn't as well constructed as I'd like, but it's there, and
it seems likely to set the standard for PLANS' case. Anthroposophy and its
child Waldorf education fit all three factors.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n820.6 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Thomas Kuhn, paradigms, and theory falsification
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 16:17:26 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Humberto saint Martin writes:
) J. C.:
)
) ) I wrote that I "largely" agree with Michael Hirsch. You are quite
) ) perceptive to point out one of the subtleties in Michael's post that I did
) ) not have any reason to criticize. I have not reviewed Kuhn's work myself,
) ) so the question of science's ability to disprove a hypothesis remains open
) ) for me.
) HSMP:
)
) The question of science's ability to disprove a hypothesis is _not_ a subtlety
) in Michael's post, it is at the very heart of the matter. But don't take my word
) for it; let's ask him to clarify this, if he doesn't mind.
Actually, Kuhn's work raises very interesting problems with the
"scientific method". Supposedly objective science should be able to
choose one theory over another via a process of weeding out the
the0ories that get disproven, but Kuhn shows quite convincingly that
this doesn't happen in general.
Here I need to use an oft over used word: paradigm. There are two
types of theories in science. Those that can be used to generate
explicit predictions, such as "The moon travels in an exact circle
around the Earth of radius 250,000 miles and constant orbital
velocity", and general frameworks within which theories of the first
type fit, such as "The Moon travels around the Earth". This latter
type is called by Kuhn a "paradigm".
When science changes from one paradigm to another (e.g. the Copernican
revolution) Kuhn calls this a "paradigm shift". Kuhn suggests that
falsification alone is not enough to generate a paradigm shift. It
also requires a generation of scientists to retire. For instance,
there were few, if any, astonomers/astrologers (same thing in those
days) older than Copernicus who ever adopted the heliocentric view
point. That didn't become well established until the old guard died
off. Similar statements can be made about Darwinian Evolution, Plate
Techtonics, and Quantum Physics. In each case, the established
scientists fought a losing war against the younger scientists who
adopted the new paradigm.
This shows
1) that scientists are stubborn people whose theories are influenced by
non-objective beliefs.
2) Merely falsifying a paradigm will not in general get establishment
science people to agree with you.
Within a given paradigm, the scientific method usually works well.
Even there, there are shades of grey--the difference between a
paradigm and a simple predictive theory is not cut and dried.
My view is that the scientific method of evaluating theories is still
the best we have. In the long run (across generations) it does seem
to enable us to pick even between paradigms.
Even if we say that the scientific method fails to help us pick our
paradigm, it still appears to be a wonderful way to choose between
theories within a paradigm. It would be interesting to hear of a more
spiritual paradigm that tries to do this.
Actually, I can think of some. I think various physical arts such as
Tai Chi, Aikido, Yoga, and maybe western dance do this to some extent.
They evaluate what works and what doesn't within the context of the
particular art. But you don't find the scientific method helping
anyone choose between the different paradigms, e.g. Tai Chi
vs. Aikido.
The question several people have been asking is how can Anthroposophy
claim to be a "science" or "science like" if it doesn't use anything
like theory falsification?
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n820.7 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: "preoven" theories
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 1998 16:22:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I just thought of why we say that a theory of technology has been
"proven".
In it's original meaning "to prove" meant to test. This meaning is
still current in expressions such as "proving grounds" and "the
exception proves the rule."
So when we say a theory has been "proven" we mean that it has been
tested, not that it is true beyond a shadow of a doubt (i.e., not
"proven" in the mathematical sense).
Now can we stop arguing as to whether proven theories are really
"proven" and discuss Waldorf education?
--Michael
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n820 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n821 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Admin: web counter
002 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
003 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Thomas Kuhn, paradigms, and theory falsification
004 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
005 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Please Consider . . .
006 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Thomas Kuhn, paradigms, and theory falsification
007 - Herman de Tollenaere (her - fwd: Scientologists' school Sweden
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n821.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Admin: web counter
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 00:41:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
The PLANS web page has seen 15,972 visitors since 8/12/96. The last 30 days
we had 774 for an average of about 26 per day.
http://www.waldorfcritics.org
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n821.2 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:53:16 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807120916.CAA03789 lists1.best.com)
Firstly, may I make it clear that what follows is merely my opinion and
does not necessarily represent the point of view of any anthroposophical
organisation.
Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com) wrote:
)Stephen Tonkin, you wrote,
[...]
)For several years I have been trying
))to get the PLANS people to publish their definition of "religion".
)I'd like to use words in their common sense. The 1936 *Webster's Collegiate
)Dictionary* on my desk says:
If we ignore the implication that a 1936 dictionary definition
necessarily equates with the 1998 common sense, let's still look and see
how anthroposophy fits these criteria.
)
)"1. The service and adoration of God or a god as expressed in forms of
)worship.
The final half-dozen words are crucial here -- if there are forms of
worship in antrhoposophy, I have yet (after 15 years or so) to encounter
them.
) 2. One of the systems of faith and worship.
Again, no system of worship.
) 3. The profession or
)practice of religious beliefs; religious observances collectively.
This is a "circular" definition and not particularly useful -- for it to
be useful, one needs to define "religious".
)4.
)Devotion or fidelity; conscientiousness.
Anthroposophy may possibly fit this definition (or, better stated, the
practice of some (but not all) anthroposophists *does* fit this
definition). But then, so do the ideal of family (and other)
relationships and patriotism; or, more topical at present, so does the
practice of many soccer supporters.
)5. An awareness or conviction of
)the existence of a supreme being arousing reverence, love, gratitude, the
)will to obey and serve, and the like."
I can only speak for myself (I cannot say what is aroused in others): I
have the conviction of the existence of *spiritual* (not necessarily
supreme) being, but gratitude and obedience are not among the feelings
they arouse in me.
Assuming the compilers of the dictionary are aware of the logical
distinction between "and" and "or", anthroposophy is a pretty poor fit
to those definitions.
I've also had a look at the (1975) SOED definitions; the ones which
include references to monasticism, worship or obedience do not apply to
anthroposophy. This leaves:
3. Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire
to please, a divine ruling power; the exercise of rites and observances
implying this.
The bit after the semicolon is irrrelevant, since rites and observances
are unnecessary to anthroposophy. The bit before the semicolon falls
down on the "and" again -- I am certainly not aware of a "desire to
please" any ruling power, divine or otherwise. (Ruling powers invoke
entirely the opposite reaction in me!)
)It's obvious to me that Anthroposophy fits this definition as a "system of
)faith and worship". Steiner sez:
)
)"This anthroposophical movement is not an earthly service, this
)anthroposophical movement in its entirety, in all its details, is a service
)of the gods, a divine service." [Christmas Conference, 1st lecture]
I don't see "worship" there. Service does not imply worship (there are
myriads of counter-examples).
)Others see it that way, too:
)
)"A 20th century religious system growing out of theosophy and centering on
)man rather than God." [Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, quoted in the
)WestEd report, 1996, p. 75]
Your contention that others see it that way is certainly correct.
Whether or not they are correct in seeing it that way is a distinct
issue.
The SOED has merely:
[(snip Greek etymology): in more recent use contrasted w. /theosophy/.]
The knowledge of the nature of man.
The second part of that is singularly useless as a definition; it is
merely a repetition of the etymology. Interesting, though, is the
"contrasted w. /theosophy/". Modern (i.e. related to Theosophical
Sociey) theosophy is based on a belief in divine revelation (hence the
"theo-", = God) -- the OED seems to think that there is a contrast with
anthroposophy -- hmmm.
)
)I'll call any system containing "spiritual" (non-physical) entities
)religious.
Is the '(non-physical)' a description of your use of the word
'spiritual'? If not, what is the '(non-physical)' there for and what do
you mean by "spiritual" if not "non-physical". If so, psychology and
pure mathematics (for example) also deal with non-physical entities.
However, I agree that anthroposophy recognises (believes, is convinced
that, or however you want to phrase it) that there is more to a human
being than a conglomeration of physical/chemical systems and that this
"more" is conveniently referred to as "spiritual".
)Anthroposophy's claim that "spiritual" and "religious" are
)distinct categories doesn't wash with me. I think it's a ruse to recruit
)religious people.
I disagree. Again, speaking for myself, there is a clear distinction
between "spiritual" and "religious" -- I like to think that I am a
spiritual person; I'm not a particularly religious one (I abhor both
worship and the idea of obedience to anything outside me).
If anthroposophy is trying to recruit people, it has one of the most
botched recruitment campaigns in the whole of recorded history. I would
hazard an educated guess that fewer than 10% (probably less than 1%) of
the population of this country has even heard of it. It looks nothing
like a recruitment effort to me.
)The definitions that matter for the church-state issue are those of the
)courts that have ruled on that issue.
In the context of this discussion, I agree.
)In the federal appellate case "Malnak
)v. Yogi," one very much like the Waldorf situation, the court posited three
)definitional factors for religion:
)
)1) Does the belief system address fundamental questions, or areas of
)ultimate concern (e.g., humanity's place in the cosmos)?
Does modern cosmology address this? I contend that it does and that it
is not a religion.
)2) Does the belief system proffer comprehensive systematic answers to those
)fundamental questions?
Ditto, and see below.
)3) Are there any practices analogous to accepted religions, such as ritual,
)services, clergy, etc?
Anthroposophy has no "ritual, services, clergy, etc?". The Christian
Community does, but many (most?) anthropops are not members of the CC.
)This definition isn't as well constructed as I'd like, but it's there, and
)it seems likely to set the standard for PLANS' case. Anthroposophy and its
)child Waldorf education fit all three factors.
I disagree.
It fits #1, but so do other things which are clearly not religions.
As regards #2, it is certainly very close, but I contend that it falls
down on the "comprehensive systematic". I would suggest that atheist
authors like Richard Dawkins proffer "comprehensive systematic answers
to those" ... "fundamental questions, or areas of ultimate concern
(e.g., humanity's place in the cosmos)".
#3 is a non-starter, for reasons stated above.
Also of importance (I assume) is that even if anthroposophy is deemed to
be a religion, does that make Waldorf schools "religious schools"?
I would imagine (please correct me if I am wrong) that the foundations
of the US public school system are Judeo-Christian in nature -- do they
(or some of them at least) not still take the oath which contains the
"one nation under God" phrase? That does not mean that the schools are
religious. I accept that Waldorf schools are (or should be) much more
strongly rooted in anthroposophy than public schools are in the Judeo-
Christian traditions, but they are not anthroposophical schools unless
they teach anthroposophy. (Similarly, one would expect a Catholic school
to teach Roman Catholicism or an Islamic school to teach Islam.)
It is obvious that some teachers in some schools *have* taught
anthroposophy, either through ignorance or through some sort of
misguided zeal (I have myself witnessed this as I have stated
previously, e.g. Message-Id: (199805300542.WAA13101 lists1.best.com)
Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 06:21:43 +0100)
From the evidence of people like Michael Kopp it would seem that some
schools are possibly worse than others in this respect. However, I would
be surprised if Christianity was not taught in some way in US public
schools of the "Bible Belt" -- I don't think that this would make the US
public school system a "religious education".
Similarly, it is not the *intention* of Waldorf education to teach
anthroposophy (whether or not it is a religion) -- this was stated
several times when I did my Waldorf teacher training, where we (the
students) were exhorted not to do so -- the lapses of individuals do not
alter that fact. In my somewhat arrogant opinion, many Waldorf teachers
aren't qualified by either experience or knowledge to teach
anthroposophy, even if they wished to do so.
To paraphrase the above:
# Yes, anthroposophy does fit soem definitions of religion, but only
those which are also fitted by things which are clearly not religions.
# Waldorf schools should not teach anthroposophy and cannot therefore be
considered to be anthroposophical schools in the sense that schools
which teach religion are considered to be religious schools.
I doubt that this one is going to lie down quietly -- the debate is
obviously one that is crucial to PLANS and to US Waldorf education. I
suggest that the sooner this issue is decided in the US courts, the
better for all concerned. (Provided there is adequate legal funding for
both sides -- I take the view that it is unsatisfactory if an issue such
as this is influenced by lack of financial clout of one party)
--
Best,
Stephen
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
UK Amateur Telescope Making - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/atm.htm)
Tonkin's Astronomy Books - (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk/books/books.htm)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n821.3 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Thomas Kuhn, paradigms, and theory falsification
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:04:03 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Michael,
Thank you for you posting filling us in on some of Kuhn's work. I will
look further into it when I have some time.
Michael Hirsch:
)The question several people have been asking is how can Anthroposophy
)claim to be a "science" or "science like" if it doesn't use anything
)like theory falsification?
The way anthroposophy is "science like" is that it begins with the
phenomena, the direct human experience of the world. The difference
between spiritual science and orthodox science is that qualitative
phenomena like our feelings (in a broad sense including our senses of
color, warmth, sound, balance, somatic sense etc. in addition to emotions)
and our thoughts are not quantifiable (so we can all follow, we'll leave
out anything that may exist outside normal consciousness). It is clear
that orthodox science relies of the quantification of physical qualities of
time, mass, distance, etc. The problem with working with these qualitative
phenomena are that one cannot use the same methods of independent
verification leading to theory falsification as is used in science. This
is how anthroposophy is not like orthodox science. I believe that
anthroposophy is a part of a new paradigm of thought that considers the
more subjective human side of knowing reality. Clearly this way of
thinking falls outside the traditional view of scientific investigation,
and I think that is why people have a difficult time understanding it.
The following appraisal does not fully address the complexity of the
situation, but simply stated: There is a realm of knowledge that does not
submit to the methods of science. What do we do about this? We can
continue using the same methods to try and poke about the periphery of the
intangible, but after four centuries of science, we are not getting very
close. The challenge is to develop new ways of looking at the qualitative
reality to deepen our understanding of nature.
Taking a simple example, when we stare at a red spot on a white page for
long enough then remove our gaze from the spot, we see a green spot. Now
physiological explanations have been given, such as the overstimulation of
the retina causes it to be more sensitive to the opposite color. That may
be part of the understanding, but then where is the green? It is not on
the retina; it is not in the optic nerve; it is not in the physical brain.
The green cannot be seen by an outside observer. It has no wavelength.
Science can barely penetrate this more subjective happening. We see the
green is there, yet one can only see it by going through the experience of
the exercise.
The preceding example is more practical than one might imagine. Color
science is a growing field of study with the popularity of color printers,
copiers, and scanners. It distinguishes itself from most sciences in that
it _consciously_ uses a living human being as its yardstick. Surely it
uses the quantifiable wavelength view of light, but ultimately color
science judges its success by how it looks to a living, breathing human
being. Since everyone may perceive color differently, how does color
science choose which person's eye to please? There are empirical ways of
determining what looks good to most people, but this is no science in the
traditional sense. If over time our eyes or our tastes change, the goals
of color science will change with them.
Color is one example where science is beginning to account for the human
side of phenomena. It is not subject to independent verification, because
a person who is color blind will not see the same way. Like it or not,
this is the nature of the qualitative world. Some methods do exist for
gaining knowledge of this realm, but their applicability is more on a
personal level than a universal objective level. Michael, I see a
relationship between this and why one person chooses Tai Chi and another
Aikido.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n821.4 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 10:49:02 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807122110.OAA10259 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
) I'll call any system containing "spiritual" (non-physical) entities
) religious. Anthroposophy's claim that "spiritual" and "religious" are
) distinct categories doesn't wash with me. I think it's a ruse to recruit
) religious people.
As I mentioned in another thread, I view Anthroposophy as spiritual but
not religious, and I have no association with Anthroposophy. We
probably won't agree on the difference between spiritual and religious,
but you've highlighted in your comment what I think is one of the
critical differences. To me, a spiritual movement does not have an
evangelical or messianic quality, and most religions do.
I've never been aware of any recruitment effort by Anthroposophists
towards me, towards the children or towards any of the other parents at
the school. Rather, I sense a genuine respect for the religious and
spiritual practices of others. Some of the teachers practice
Anthroposophy and some do not. I do not know who does and who does
not. None of them wear name-tags with identification of spiritual or
religious affiliation.
If, viewed from the outside, there is an identifiable "mission" by the
teachers in the Waldorf system, it is to nurture the children in a way
that you don't see in normal public education; I see this, for instance,
in the commitment that a teacher makes to staying with the same class of
individuals from first through eight grade.
The problem with the discussion on defining religion is that reasonable
people may differ on that definition. And even if there were common
agreement on a definition, there is a sufficiently wide variety of
religious expression that trying to apply that definition to what many
people consider recognized religions would prove the unworkability of
the definition.
For instance, one of the most common factors applied to defining a
religion is a belief in God or some supreme being. How does that
definition fit with Buddhism, Taoism or Ethical Culture, none of which
profess such a belief.
The courts have had terrible difficulty creating or applying a
definition. Which brings us to....
) The definitions that matter for the church-state issue are those of the
) courts that have ruled on that issue. In the federal appellate case "Malnak
) v. Yogi," one very much like the Waldorf situation, the court posited three
) definitional factors for religion:
)
) 1) Does the belief system address fundamental questions, or areas of
) ultimate concern (e.g., humanity's place in the cosmos)?
)
) 2) Does the belief system proffer comprehensive systematic answers to those
) fundamental questions?
)
) 3) Are there any practices analogous to accepted religions, such as ritual,
) services, clergy, etc?
)
) This definition isn't as well constructed as I'd like, but it's there, and
) it seems likely to set the standard for PLANS' case. Anthroposophy and its
) child Waldorf education fit all three factors.
If this is all you're relying on for the PLANS case, I think you're
wasting your time and money.
Your quotation seems to be alluding to the district court decision, not
the appellate court's opinion.
The Malak decision (rendered about 20 years ago) did not turn on
whether or not the teachers were part of a religion, though the court
believed that the teachers indeed were. Rather, the holding was based
on what was the nature of the teachings and activity complained of. The
question for consideration was whether the state "action," the teaching
of transcendental meditation in the school, violated the constitution.
The appellate court's decision used the following test for whether the
particular "action" of the school was constitutionally permissible: "A
recognition of the religious nature of the teachings and activities
questioned here is largely determinative of this appeal because of the
apparent governmental action which is involved.... To pass muster, the
action in question must: (1) reflect a clearly secular legislative
purpose; (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits
religion; and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with
religion."
The activities complained of in Malak included chanting, rituals which
were plainly linked to the Hindu religion, and invocations of Hindu
deities. On this basis, the appellate court ruled the teaching and
activity unconstitutional.
Now, I invite you to apply this test to Waldorf education in the public
schools. This is how I come down on each of the three parts of the
test:
(1) Does offering an alternative method of education reflect a clearly
secular legislative purpose? Yes. You and others may complain of the
particular methods, such as not forcing the kids to read in first grade,
but there are many different methods of education. I doubt that a court
would substitute its judgment for that of a school board on the choice
of methods of instruction.
(2) Is the primary effect one which neither advances nor inhibits
religion? Yes. The primary effect is education of the children. You
may make your arguments about New Age mumbo-jumbo, but to the extent any
of that exists (and I wouldn't doubt that it appears from time to time),
the effect of that is not primary, nor is it either secondary or
tertiary. Sorry, I forget what words to use after "tertiary," if I ever
knew them in the first place.
(3) Does the action of bringing Waldorf education into the public
schools avoid excessive government entanglement with religion? I guess
that's really a fact-sensitive inquiry which depends on the particular
implementation. First, you have to determine whether Anthroposophy is a
religion. You've stated your case in prior posts, but I really do
believe you'll have a hard time showing that. Even if you succeed on
that issue, you will next have to show that using Waldorf educational
methods in the public school causes "excessive entanglement." You'll
need a lot of luck on that one. I suspect that there is no direct
government entanglement with Anthroposophy and that the government
merely sees Waldorf education as a viable alternative method of
educating the children. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I further suspect
that taxpayer's money is paid to teachers in connection with their
performing services, and no money is paid to any organized entity which
advances the "religion" of Anthroposophy.
There! I've done it. I've outted myself not only as a Waldorf parent
and a practitioner of some obscure spiritual path, but also as a (gasp)
practicing lawyer.
Bob
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n821.5 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 11:45:53 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
)Calkins:
)) Frankly I don't know what an anthroposophical or theosophical view on
)) spirituality is. What is important to me is my own view and the view of
)) another individual. I try to base my beliefs on my own inner self, this
is
)) what anthroposophy teaches, and that is why I chose to study
anthroposophy.
)) For me, I cannot see a universal anthroposophical view (at least not for
)) individuals), and I am not sure if one exists.
))
)HSMP:
)
)I guess that way of making decisions might work for an individual, but
what
)about a group of individuals whose inner selves lead them to different
)conclusions?
That is okay. The fact is we all have limited perspectives to some degree,
and we may come to conflicting conclusions. As I see it, the challenge is
to let go of one's own perspective enough to understand the view of others.
)J. C.:
)
)) Sensing the feelings invoked by sound is as much of a reality as sensing
)) sound with our ears. I agree that orthodox physics does not and cannot
)) deal with our feelings. However, just because we cannot measure our
)) feelings with an instrument does not invalidate the feeling as a part of
)) the phenomenon of humans hearing sounds. You are right it is not
science
)) in the usual science, but perhaps you can imagine of a different kind of
)) science that is able to address qualitative properties of nature.
))
)HSMP:
)
)Psychology deals with those feelings in an orthodox scientific manner. And
your
)observation supports my criticism: this particular teacher at this
particular
)class tried to pass your different kind of science as science. I think
that is
)cheating.
There is an orthodox psychology (sort of), but it works with intangibles
inaccessible to physical science. Psychology is usually thought of as
separate from physical sciences in the tradition of Descartes's separation
of subject and object. But you missed my point. To the mind, sensing is
sensing, whether we sense sounds, temperature, feelings, or thoughts. To
be blunt, if a person's mind is distracted by some mental crisis and drives
off a cliff, what causes this disaster? Our thoughts and feelings are real
and have real consequences.
)J. C.:
)
)) Walter Heitler was a professor of theoretical physics at the University
of
)) Zurich stated it better than I can, "The fundamental importance of
Goethean
)) science for us lies in its demonstration that rigorous science is
possible
)) both with the realm of pure form and the qualitative, and that science
is
)) as valid as the Galilean." Methods similar to Goethe's are particularly
)) well suited to understanding taxonomy, plant morphology, and other life
)) studies where quantitative science has fallen short.
))
)HSMP:
)
)Quantitative science falls short from quantitatively describing complex
)phenomena just because the mathematical language involved is consequently
more
)complicated.
How do you know this is the reason?
)But orthodox science is also qualitative. Most of biology is still
)purely qualitative, yet subject to scientific validation.
I am not a biologist, but I am not sure if I would agree with your
assessment of how biology is practiced today. Much of biology is in
categorizing and counting of parts (leaves, petals, toes, chromosomes,
genes) and biochemistry is mostly quantitative. Can you explain to me how
qualitative biology is subject to scientific validation?
Honestly Humberto, I don't think this discussion is leading anywhere. I am
happy to answer questions you have, but you don't seem to be getting the
meaning of what I am saying. Obviously we have two different perspectives.
Where do you want to go with this?
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n821.6 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Thomas Kuhn, paradigms, and theory falsification
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 15:10:30 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
((The difference
between spiritual science and orthodox science is that qualitative
phenomena like our feelings (in a broad sense including our senses of
color, warmth, sound, balance, somatic sense etc. in addition to emotions)
and our thoughts are not quantifiable (so we can all follow, we'll leave
out anything that may exist outside normal consciousness).))
Sheesh! Did I really write this? I need an editor. Big news that
qualitative things are not quantifiable (or maybe not?). What I meant to
say is spritual science tries to understand qualitative phenomena that
cannot be easily approached with orthodox science.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n821.7 ---------------
From: Herman de Tollenaere (hermantl stad.dsl.nl)
Subject: fwd: Scientologists' school Sweden
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 00:20:43 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
)From Goteborgs-Posten July 3 1998:
---
Scientologists wants to start their own independent school
As long as the Scientologist's school adheres to l=E4roplanen [the national
guidelines for education], Skolverket [the National Agency for Education]
will find it difficult to turn their application down. But the kommunalr=E5d
[Municipal Commissioner] Lars Johansson of Gothenburg is sceptical.
F=F6reningen Aktiva Studier V=E4stra Sverige [The Association Active Studies
West Sweden] has applied to start an independent school in Gothenburg by=
fall
in the year 2000. It shall use the Swedish national guidelines for
education.
But the principal and teachers should also be trained in something called
the study method of Applied Scholastics. This is the same method as that
worked out by the founder of the Church of Scientology, L Ron Hubbard.
Just like in the last year's discussions about religious independent
schools, this application may be expected to complicate the relationship
between
the national government and municipalities. In statements, municipalities
around Sweden have claimed that ethnic and religious schools result in
segregation.
But as long as the independent schools state that they intend to adhere
to the national guidelines, the National Agency for Education cannot deny
them licenses.
In Stockholm, the Scientologists run the Studema school since seven
years, and now also want to start a high school [for the 13-16 years old].
Thus it
seems logical that the National Agency will also approve the Gothenburg
equivalence, says Educational Director Staffan Engstrom, according to Radio
Goteborg.
But Municipal Commissioner Lars Johansson (Social Democrat) is hesitant.
- Spontaneously, I'd say I'm very sceptical. From what I have heard they
are going to use pedagogical methods that are similar to those of
Scientology. We have to look into this carefully, he says.
There might be purely formal grounds to say no, since the Association
Active Studies wants to start the school with only 15 children, while the
recommended minimum is 20. Lars Johansson also wonders why they want to
wait until the year 2007 to extend the school to care for 69 children in 1st
to 5th grade [7-11 years old].
In August, Lars Johansson is going to visit the National Agency for=
Education.
Then he will also bring up the issue of how to inspect independent schools.
- This concerns a lot more than making an inspection each term. If we are
going to have a coordinated educational system in Sweden, with the common
values that have been agreed upon by the Parliament, it is of immense
importance that those who run establishments of education are of serious
character. This is especially important when it comes to young children -
that parents are aware of what kind of school they are putting their
children in, and how the values of the teachers will influence the
teaching. It is
these more emotional issues that I feel are important to discuss.
The application is right now being referred for consideration to SDN
Centrum [local municipal office of central Gothenburg].
---
Some addresses for Swedes:
Skolverket
106 20 Stockholm
skolverket skolverket.se
SDN Centrum
Box 5293
400 25 Goteborg
sdf.centrum centrum.goteborg.se
Catarina
------------------------------------------
Herman de Tollenaere
------------------------------------------
Internet site:
http://stad.dsl.nl/~hermantl/
See also:
http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm
------------------------------------------
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n821 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n822 --------------
001 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
002 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Cults
003 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Benchmarking
004 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma -
005 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
006 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - PERSONAL: Netiquette (Was Re: Benchmarking)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n822.1 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 07:20:14 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
In response to Robert Tolz's posting of July 13:
Well done, Bob. You certainly picked an opportune time to join in. It is
good to have someone on the list who knows something about the law. You
certainly have cleared up some of the vague conceptions (and
misconceptions) I had. I appreciate your clarity and honesty.
John
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n822.2 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Cults
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 10:04:35 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Maybe we can go by the EP's definition of cult.
Which reminds me, I was thinking the other day (when I had a wee bit too
much time on my hands) that Dan needs to come up with a working
hypothesis for his WE cult theory. Without a working hypothesis, or
really any hypothesis, how on earth could such a theory be falsifiable.
And well, if it isn't falsifiable, then it ain't science (unless your a
proponent of supersymmetry or steady state, or various other
non-falsifiable branches of modern science). And if it ain't science it
must be a CULT!
e
EP seeks to monitor cult activities
BRUSSELS, July 14 (UPI) The European Parliament will soon
vote on proposals to monitor the activities of religious sects in an
effort to protect vulnerable people from the risk of mental or
physical abuse.
A report today by the parliament's Civil Liberties and Internal
Affairs Committee calls on the European Union to take action to
root out the "problematic" aspects of cults.
The report says increasing numbers of people are attracted to
dangerous cults that could threaten either health or public safety.
It urges Parliament to produce a survey of cult activity across
Europe and recommends establishing an international educational
network about cults.
Concern about cult activity has grown after a series of highly
publicized incidents in recent years.
In 1994, mass suicides by disciples of the Solar Temple
movement took more than 60 lives in France and Switzerland.
In 1995, 10 people died in nerve gas attacks by members of the
Aum Shinrikyo sect on the Tokyo underground.
Last year, 39 members of the Heaven's Gate group poisoned
themselves in California, believing the appearance of a comet
signaled the arrival of a UFO that was to rescue them from earth.
Germany has been engaged in a fierce intelligence battle with the
U. S.-based Church of Scientology, which it regards as a
money-making organization and a "threat to democracy."
Concerns about the church's activities led to its being denied
official recognition as a religion earlier this year.
The European Parliament's report says priority should be given to
protecting people through information and advice, "allowing
individuals to make a well-informed and independent choice and
providing help if they wish to leave a cult."
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n822.3 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Benchmarking
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 10:20:38 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Schools pay a price for raising standards
COLUMBUS, Ohio - You can see the fear and frustration
in her eyes.
Kayeta Dye still doesn't have her high school diploma,
even though the
18-year-old has completed all of her senior-year course
work. She got
better-than-average grades; she showed up every day for
class.
But Kayeta can't quite master two of the four
proficiency tests required
by the state of Ohio - so-called "high stakes,"
must-pass-to-graduate
tests that she's taken nearly a dozen times over the
past four years.
In Ohio and in 21 states nationwide, similar exams
designed to raise the
bar on academic achievement quietly are tripping up
tens of thousands
of students who used to get their diplomas without
fanfare. Even more
students may be denied a diploma in the future: a
growing number of
states are introducing high-stakes testing, and many
states that already
have them are making them tougher.
"I don't think it's fair," says Kayeta, who has
weathered hot summer
school lectures in a final attempt to pass the tests in
math and citizenship
this week. "If you have to go to school for the whole
12 years and then
they throw a test in your face saying you have to pass
to graduate,
what's the use of going to school?"
What's raising concerns among some educators about high
stakes tests
is that these students are not dropouts in the
traditional sense. Not only
would most have graduated in the past, but some already
had been
accepted to college. Others had job offers and military
enlistments
contingent on passing the tests and receiving their
diplomas.
"It's almost like a two-edged sword," says Rod Roscoe,
principal of
South High School, where Kayeta attended. "The school
has to be
accountable. We have to have a basic body of knowledge
that
everybody should learn. When you look at the stats on
how many pass
and don't pass, that's one thing.
"But then when you get that one child that you've known
since the ninth
grade who comes to school, is a good person, a good
school citizen
and tries hard but can't get through the math portion
of the test. I have
mixed emotions about it. I really do."
Twenty South High students out of the 1998 class of 120
so far have
failed the tests. Roscoe estimates 12 of them will pass
in July.
Clearly, many politicians and parents ardently support
high-stakes
testing, arguing they are a weapon in the arsenal
against "social
promotion" that produces graduates without basic
skills. And the vast
majority of students do, in fact, pass them.
Many others, however, just as ardently fault the exams
for everything
from dubious educational value to discriminating
against minorities to
what they see as arbitrarily condemning late-bloomers
to a convenience
store instead of a career.
"A high school diploma now is a basic ticket into any
form of
productive life," says Linda Darling-Hammond of the
National Center
for Restructuring Education, Schools and Teaching,
based at Columbia
University's Teachers' College. "If someone doesn't
know what the
Lousiana Purchase was, does that mean they can't get
and hold a job?
Does that mean they should really be kept out of the
labor market?"
Here in Columbus, an estimated 500 students have ended
up in that
predicament since the state program started in 1994.
The same thing
has happened in the past four years to about 10,000
students
statewide. No one has an accurate count of how many
students have
failed high stakes tests nationally, but experts
believe the number is
easily into the tens of thousands of students -
possibly many more -
since the tests began to be introduced in the 1980s.
Bert Wiser, director of testing and assessment for
Columbus Public
Schools, thinks the tests largely have had a positive
impact on students
and on teachers. But he, too, worries about what
happens to kids who
initially don't do well on the exams.
"My concern is this denial of graduation is creating a
lot of pressure.
We've lost thousands." He says unofficial district
studies have found
that students now tend to drop out of school earlier -
especially if they
fail the tests a few times. "Your chances of getting
from 9th to 12th
grades have gone down," he says. "If you get to 12th,
your chances of
getting through have gone up."
In Florida, high stakes tests have been a requirement
since 1982, but
were recently made harder by the addition of algebra. A
growing
number of students - nearly 3,000 - failed them this
year. That doesn't
bother Stephen Stoloff, guidance director at South
Broward High
School in Hollywood.
"It's hard to feel too much compassion" for students
who have failed the
tests "because most of them don't take school
seriously," Stoloff says.
Florida gives students who have completed course work
but failed the
tests a "certificate of completion," as opposed to a
"diploma."
The certificates are "totally worthless," Stoloff says.
"You are dead in
the woods with a certificate of completion. All it says
is you attended
school for four years, case closed, good bye and good
luck."
What happens to the kids who fail?
If Kayeta Dye fails the test again this week, she plans
to move to
another state and take the 12th grade again - without
the humiliation of
attending school with students who once were
underclassmen.
"I'm tired of taking this test," says Kayeta, who works
part-time at a
salon. "This is too much stress."
Few options
Kayeta's friend, Charity Luckett, 18, is in the same
situation: although
she was not as regular a student as Kayeta, Charity
completed her
course work but can't pass the tests in math and
citizenship. In May,
Charity missed the required 200 points by one-half
point in citizenship
and by two points in math.
"This is the closest I've ever come to passing it," she
says. "I don't
know what I'll do if I don't pass" this time. Her
career options right now
are to continue working in housekeeping at a local
hotel. Her
preference is to attend nearby Columbus State College.
When Charity and Kayeta learned they would not
graduate, they were
shattered. "I did everything" the other seniors did,
says Kayeta, "except
walk across the stage."
Shawn Edinger, 18, who attended Columbus' North High
School, also
should have graduated this spring. His future is on
hold because he
failed the math portion of the test.
It's a circumstance that has left him feeling angry and
shortchanged
because he was earning As and Bs by senior year.
"I want to attend Columbus State to complete courses in
law
enforcement," Shawn says. This year, Shawn earned state
certification
for Ohio Peace Officers Training Commission, which
allows him to
work part-time for a private security firm. Now,
though, nothing
matters except passing the math test.
"I'm not giving up. I had a counselor who told me I
should drop out and
get my GED and just be done with it. But I'm going to
get my diploma."
A GED doesn't have the prestige of a diploma, experts
say, and doesn't
carry the same weight with employers and college
officials.
Students' stories are similar across the country. In
Texas, which
introduced high stakes exams in 1985, the tests tripped
up Alfred
Hicks, now 23, from Paris.
Hicks went to Paris High School, where he completed his
classes and
was a solid, though not exceptional, student. He was
supposed to
graduate in 1993. He took the three-part Texas
Assessment of
Academic Skills exam four times. Each time, he was
stumped by the
math.
Hicks wanted to join the U.S. Navy and had passed the
qualifying
tests.
But everything was voided when he failed to pass the
exams.
Hicks won't dwell on the fact that his school grades
and enlistment tests
were good enough for the U.S. Navy, but couldn't cut
the mustard with
the state.
"I'm not going to let that get me down," he says. Hicks
now works at a
Paris grocery store. Since he can no longer take the
test, he plans to try
next month for his GED so he can enroll at the Paris
Community
College this fall. That would help him advance, even at
the grocery.
Setting higher standards
Today's high stakes tests were designed to prove that
getting a diploma
means a student can read and understand basic material,
compute
simple math problems, identify the U.S. Constitution
and write
concisely. Although the tests vary state to state, most
of the material is
at the eighth or ninth grade level.
According to a new report by The Center for Education
Reform, a
conservative think tank, more than 10 million Americans
since 1983
have reached the 12th grade not having learned to read
at a basic level.
More than 20 million have reached their senior year
unable to do basic
math, the report said, and almost 25 million don't know
the basics of
U.S. history.
With graduation exit exams, the theory goes, that can't
happen.
Those are among the reasons the tests were started in
Ohio, where, in
order to graduate, students must pass the Ninth Grade
Proficiency Test
that is given in writing, reading, math and
citizenship. The tests, which
soon will also require science, are a mixture of
multiple choice, short
answer and extended response.
State Sen. Eugene J. Watts, a conservative Republican,
was a key
author of the law who began pushing for stronger
standards in 1987.
Watts says he tells PTA leaders and teachers, "You were
graduating
students with fourth grade reading levels and second
grade math, giving
them a diploma and turning them on the junk pile of
life and saying you
were doing a good job."
The tests were "not designed to punish students or to
keep them from
graduating," says Watts. As for students who barely
miss passing the
test, he says he's "very sympathetic. And yes, that's
sad. But, of course,
if we start making excuses again," poor performance
will be the result.
There is, however, debate about whether testing
improves education.
Columbia's Darling-Hammond believes that, "in the long
run, some of
the evidence suggests that the quality of education has
not improved
much" with the tests.
And Monty Neill of The National Center for Fair & Open
Testing, a
Cambridge, Mass., advocacy group, believes the tests
have a kind of
"grade inflation" of their own. More students may be
passing the tests,
he says, but that doesn't necessarily mean overall
learning has
improved.
"If a test measures some things in a broad subject
area, and the teacher
teaches to the test, rather than to the broad domain,
you end up with
high scores on the test rather than if there was a fair
representation of
their knowledge of the domain," he says.
There is also concern about whether the tests
discriminate.
Court challenges to the high-stakes tests have been
brought in more
than a half dozen states, with cases in Texas and North
Carolina
focusing on whether they have a discriminatory impact
on blacks and
other minority groups. Other lawsuits are looking at
lack of resources
to prepare students in rural and urban communities.
Results have been
mixed, with rulings tilted more toward use of the
tests.
No matter what the specifics of a particular test,
questions about
high-stakes testing continue to swirl.
"I think these tests are the ultimate of high stakes
tests," says Albert
Kauffman, regional counsel for the Mexican American
Legal Defense
and Educational Fund, San Antonio, Texas. Students who
do poorly on
the SAT still have their grades considered by colleges,
he notes.
Students who fail the bar or medical exams "still can
make a living."
But "without a high school diploma, you can't do
anything," Kauffman
says. "You are screwed. Almost nobody will give you a
good job."
By Tamara Henry, USA TODAY
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n822.4 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject:
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 10:51:06 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Robert Tolz writes:
)
) (3) Does the action of bringing Waldorf education into the public
) schools avoid excessive government entanglement with religion?
Well, I guess it depends on what they do. I know our local Waldorf
school has 4 festivals a year, at least 3 of which are named in honor
of Christian (Catholic) Saints and Martyrs (St. Valentine, St. Martin,
and Christ). My understanding (I'm not a lawyer, but I am an ACLU
member and read their publications) is that this would probably not be
allowed in a public school. Public schools are regularly made to
remove creche scenes around Christmas time, for example.
)From what the school says, these festivals are an intrinsic and
important part of Waldorf education. I would be interested to hear
how public Waldorf schools handle them. Do they eliminate them? Do
they change the names? That might be easy enough, since they claim
that the festivals are really about the seasons and not the saints.
(Though how you could turn Advent into a winter celebration is beyond
me.) Personally, I wish they would do that at the local private
school.
But my point is that these three festivals would probably fail a
judicial test and be forced to be discontinued or altered. If these
festivals are really to important to WE, then it seems clear that WE
has an intrinsic religious component.
) There! I've done it. I've outted myself not only as a Waldorf parent
) and a practitioner of some obscure spiritual path, but also as a (gasp)
) practicing lawyer.
That's okay. We'll still talk to you in public. Heck, some of my
best friends are lawyers. Really. My sister even married one. :)
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n822.5 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 11:07:28 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (85256641.005BF8A6.00 knotes.kodak.com)
Robert Tolz wrote:
) As I mentioned in another thread, I view Anthroposophy as spiritual
) but not religious, and I have no association with Anthroposophy. We
) probably won't agree on the difference between spiritual and religious,
) but you've highlighted in your comment what I think is one of the critical
) differences. To me, a spiritual movement does not have an evangelical or
) messianic quality, and most religions do.
But many religions do not, if by "evangelical or messianic" you mean that they
actively recruit people. Judaism is not evangelical, and I believe that
Zoroastrianism gets new members only by marriage and childbirth; according
to one website, conversion goes against the laws of the religion.
) The problem with the discussion on defining religion is that
) reasonable
) people may differ on that definition. And even if there were common
) agreement on a definition, there is a sufficiently wide variety of
) religious expression that trying to apply that definition to what many
) people consider recognized religions would prove the unworkability of the
) definition.
)
) The courts have had terrible difficulty creating or applying a
) definition.
Indeed. Nevertheless, the courts must apply some definition to determine
whether a public Waldorf school violates the establishment clause.
) If this is all you're relying on for the PLANS case, I think you're
) wasting your time and money.
Bob, you should give the PLANS lawyers more credit than that. Although I see
plenty of shoddy legal work, I would be extremely surprised to see a brief on
this issue which discussed nothing more than the District Court decision in the
Malnak case.
) Now, I invite you to apply this test to Waldorf education in the
) public schools. This is how I come down on each of the three parts of the
) test:
)
) (1) Does offering an alternative method of education reflect a
) clearly secular legislative purpose? Yes.
To the extent that the public Waldorf school is only applying Waldorf
educational methods, and does not include such practices as reciting
blessings or celebrating festivals based on Christian saints, I agree. But I don't
know whether public Waldorf schools limit their activities in this manner.
) (2) Is the primary effect one which neither advances nor inhibits
) religion? Yes. The primary effect is education of the children.
That can be said for the funding of almost any religious school; the bulk of the
teaching is in secular subjects. Nevertheless, the public funding of parochial
schools violates the third prong:
) (3) Does the action of bringing Waldorf education into the public
) schools avoid excessive government entanglement with religion? I guess
) that's really a fact-sensitive inquiry which depends on the particular
) implementation. First, you have to determine whether Anthroposophy is a
) religion. You've stated your case in prior posts, but I really do believe
) you'll have a hard time showing that.
After following this discussion for the last year or two, I've become convinced
that for purposes of the First Amendment, Anthroposophy would be considered
a religion. It is a comprehensive system of belief which includes beliefs about
the nature of spiritual entities, the journey of the soul after death, and other
religious matters. On the other hand, it lacks some characteristics which tend
to be associated with religions, such as a clergy. But then, the Baha'i Faith is
clearly a religion, and has no clergy either.
Of course, many anthroposophists will say that anthroposophy is merely a
method, not a system of belief, but I think you'd have a hard time convincing a
court of that.
) Even if you succeed on that issue,
) you will next have to show that using Waldorf educational methods in the
) public school causes "excessive entanglement." You'll need a lot of luck
) on that one. I suspect that there is no direct government entanglement
) with Anthroposophy and that the government merely sees Waldorf education
) as a viable alternative method of educating the children. Correct me if
) I'm wrong, but I further suspect that taxpayer's money is paid to teachers
) in connection with their performing services, and no money is paid to any
) organized entity which advances the "religion" of Anthroposophy.
The issue is not that simple, Bob.
The first question is, as you say, whether Anthroposophy is a religion.
If so, the next question (assuming that religious activities and festivals are
removed from the classroom) is whether the state may fund a school where the
methodology is based on religious concepts, but those concepts are not taught
to the kids.
And the pedagogy is clearly based on concepts that would, I think, be
considered religious in nature, such as helping the child's soul to incarnate,
allowing the child's etheric body to develop before teaching certain types of
subjects, and allowing the astral body to develop before teaching other subjects.
This is a very interesting issue, and I have no idea how it will be resolved.
But even if the state may fund a school based on religious concepts, that does
not resolve the issue of teacher training. As long as teachers are required to
undergo training in religious/spiritual concepts as a condition of employment, or
preferential treatment is given to teacher applicants who agree with Steiner's
spiritual concepts, there is a clear violation of the first amendment. The
entaglement is even greater when the training takes place at an
Anthroposophical institution (Rudolf Steiner College) at public expense.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n822.6 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: PERSONAL: Netiquette (Was Re: Benchmarking)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 10:05:08 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807141421.HAA11562 lists1.best.com)
Ezra,
Would you please have a little consideration for the rest of the list and
learn how to use your emailer properly to quote stuff?
When you copy and paste text from a Web page (which is what I imagine you
are doing below) you get screwed-up tabs from the Web page formatting, and
screwed up line breaks.
You must have noticed it before you sent the message?! It's considered good
manners not to let this happen.
There are a number of utilities for both Mac and PC platforms that will
help you with this. I just fix the lines myself manually.
Just a thought, if you want people to read your forwarded messages.
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
)Schools pay a price for raising standards
)
) COLUMBUS, Ohio - You can see the fear and frustration
)in her eyes.
)
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n822 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n823 --------------
001 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
002 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
003 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
005 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
006 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: PERSONAL: Netiquette (Was Re: Benchmarking)
007 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - All Apologies
008 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
009 - Daniel Sabsay (danielsabs - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
010 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n823.1 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 10:16:16 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Steve Premo:
)After following this discussion for the last year or two, I've become
convinced
)that for purposes of the First Amendment, Anthroposophy would be
considered
)a religion. It is a comprehensive system of belief which includes beliefs
about
)the nature of spiritual entities, the journey of the soul after death, and
other
)religious matters. On the other hand, it lacks some characteristics which
tend
)to be associated with religions, such as a clergy. But then, the Baha'i
Faith is
)clearly a religion, and has no clergy either.
)
)Of course, many anthroposophists will say that anthroposophy is merely a
)method, not a system of belief, but I think you'd have a hard time
convincing a
)court of that.
The way I and many others approach anthroposophy is the way Steiner
recommends. Do not take anything on faith. Don't take his word for it.
One is free to accept, reject, or question anything Steiner says. This is
Steiner's view; this is what is taught at the Waldorf teacher training
institute at Sunbridge College. The only way I can possibly see this as
religious is if thinking for one's self is a religion. I do not see how
this fits into any proposed definition for a religion. In fact what
attracts many people to anthroposophy (including myself) is that it
encourages the free pursuit of an individual spiritual path that is
_not_religious_.
Steve, with this in mind (I can assure you this is how anthroposophy is
presented at Sunbridge College), how do you justify anthroposophy being a
religion?
I was recently reminded that materialism, atheism, and other beliefs in the
strictly non-spirit nature of the universe often have the same "religious"
qualities that you mention above. To name what they often believe: there
are no spiritual entities in nature, there is no journey of the soul after
death. These are non-objective, faith-based convictions, and these
doctrines of faith are often practiced more like a religion than
anthroposophy. Does it follow that we should not present the material
viewpoint in public schools?
)But even if the state may fund a school based on religious concepts, that
does
)not resolve the issue of teacher training. As long as teachers are
required to
)undergo training in religious/spiritual concepts as a condition of
employment, or
)preferential treatment is given to teacher applicants who agree with
Steiner's
)spiritual concepts, there is a clear violation of the first amendment.
The
)entaglement is even greater when the training takes place at an
)Anthroposophical institution (Rudolf Steiner College) at public expense.
Why don't you ask those who have actually experienced the training if it
was "religious/spiritual". Speaking for myself, I experienced it as
spiritual training, but not religious training. I can understand how
people can confuse the notions of spirit and religion, but they are
distinct.
I think it is important to point out that Steiner's use of the word
"spiritual" refers to non-physical things accessible to normal
consciousness (like our thoughts, emotions, and sensations) in additional
to what may exist observable through clairvoyance. The spirit viewed in
this light is far from being religious, rather it is a practical everyday
thing we all experience to a greater or lesser degree. I think this
distinction between spiritual and religious is rather clear. That I
_recognize_ I am hungry is a spiritual phenomenon. I don't think I have
ever seen it as a religious experience.
Now I do admit that there may be some people who practice anthroposophy
like a religion (I have not met any, but is seems likely they exist).
Indeed I have met people who practice materialistic science like a
religion, for example the worshiping of Einstein with life-size posters and
his quotes plastered all over the walls of his room. This does not make
science a religion in general. The analogy holds true for anthroposophy.
Since proper use of English is an issue on this list, I find it amusing
that those who want to classify Steiner's teachings as a religion more
often spell it "*A*nthroposophy" than the others who use "*a*nthroposophy",
as if this could really make a difference. Merriam-Webster's unabridged
dictionary, copyright 1981, uses a lower case 'a'. I play it safe and
follow its authority, not wanting to face the merciless wrath of the usage
police. Not to risk error, I suggest that we proceed using the small 'a'
spelling unless anyone can find an English language authority supporting
the other.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n823.2 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:51:43 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807151210.FAA01940 lists1.best.com)
Michael Hirsch wrote:
)
) Robert Tolz writes:
) )
) ) (3) Does the action of bringing Waldorf education into the public
) ) schools avoid excessive government entanglement with religion?
)
) Well, I guess it depends on what they do. I know our local Waldorf
) school has 4 festivals a year, at least 3 of which are named in honor
) of Christian (Catholic) Saints and Martyrs (St. Valentine, St. Martin,
) and Christ). My understanding (I'm not a lawyer, but I am an ACLU
) member and read their publications) is that this would probably not be
) allowed in a public school. Public schools are regularly made to
) remove creche scenes around Christmas time, for example.
)
) )From what the school says, these festivals are an intrinsic and
) important part of Waldorf education. I would be interested to hear
) how public Waldorf schools handle them. Do they eliminate them? Do
) they change the names? That might be easy enough, since they claim
) that the festivals are really about the seasons and not the saints.
) (Though how you could turn Advent into a winter celebration is beyond
) me.) Personally, I wish they would do that at the local private
) school.
)
) But my point is that these three festivals would probably fail a
) judicial test and be forced to be discontinued or altered. If these
) festivals are really to important to WE, then it seems clear that WE
) has an intrinsic religious component.
I agree with everything you've said. In fact, not hailing from a
Christian background, I myself have had some level of discomfort with
those holidays in the private Waldorf environment. If these were
celebrated in a Waldorf public school, I'd have serious question as to
whether that would pass constitutional muster. But, if such activities
were declared unconstituional, it would be in the same vein as the
prohibition against exhibiting creches because of an entanglement with
the Christian religion, not because of any purported characterization of
Anthroposophy as a religion or cult.
There is in my experience, however, one dogma of an almost "religious"
theme that carries through Waldorf education: the almost satanic
quality that television seems to hold. The idea of avoiding media for
the kids is stressed again and again, and if there is the smallest
deficiency in attention, behavior or ability of a child, the "usual
suspect" which is rounded up by the teachers is the television set and
the movie theater. This is the *only* dogma of Waldorf education (I'm
not sure whether or not it has anything at all to do with Anthroposophy)
as to which I have sensed any kind of conscious or unconscious pattern
of proselytization.
I could very well be in the minority of Waldorf parents by not
completely accepting this view. But if ever there were a tenet of
Waldorf education that could be said to be "religious" (in one of the
standard Oxford definitions) it would be this idea about the media. I
wonder if this idea is carried over into the public Waldorf experience.
)
) ) There! I've done it. I've outted myself not only as a Waldorf parent
) ) and a practitioner of some obscure spiritual path, but also as a (gasp)
) ) practicing lawyer.
)
) That's okay. We'll still talk to you in public. Heck, some of my
) best friends are lawyers. Really. My sister even married one. :)
I appreciate that. We lawyers can be so insecure....
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n823.3 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 13:38:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807151210.FAA01940 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) Robert Tolz wrote:
) [clip]
) )To me, a spiritual movement does not have an evangelical or
) ) messianic quality, and most religions do.
)
) But many religions do not, if by "evangelical or messianic" you mean that they
) actively recruit people. Judaism is not evangelical, and I believe that
) Zoroastrianism gets new members only by marriage and childbirth; according
) to one website, conversion goes against the laws of the religion.
)
) )[clip]
) ) The courts have had terrible difficulty creating or applying a
) ) definition.
)
) Indeed. Nevertheless, the courts must apply some definition to determine
) whether a public Waldorf school violates the establishment clause.
)
I agree with you. The fact is that there are probably a number of
factors the courts refer to when dealing with whether or not something
is a religion. For any single factor you could probably point to one or
more examples that a majority of people would call a religion but which
would not satisfy that factor.
A judge will use such a series of factors as guidance but need not be
chained to them. For example, a couple of years ago I won a tax case
against the City of New York which turned on the question of whether or
not the corporation I represented had a "regular place of business" in
Vermont. The City said no, because the office was in the home of a
corporate employee. We said yes, because the employee was a highly
skilled marketing expert who worked a regular work week out of that bona
fide office but would have refused to be an employee if he were required
to provide his services in NYC. The City's lawyer came up with a list
of maybe 17 factors that had been applied in prior case law to determine
the issue and pointed out that we satisfied well less than a majority of
those factors. I conceded his mathematics, but stressed in my brief
that applying a series of tests to real facts and circumstances "is not
a game of lists and numbers." The judge agreed with me and held in our
favor. The City appealed and lost again.
What the judge did in my tax case is similar to what a judge will have
to do in a case involving the classification of any organization or
movement as a religion. That is, he or she will look at the factors for
guidance to help shape a picture of what one might expect the animal to
look like, with room for variations. Then the judge will apply a gut
feeling to make the determination based on the particular facts and
circumstances.
The adage goes that if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and
quacks like a duck then it's a duck. However, the manner of walking,
outward appearance and method of producing sound are only a few of some
of the attributes that allow the classification of a particular bird as
a duck. Perhaps on closer examination, we'll find that other aspects of
the object lead us to the conclusion that it's actually a goose.
) ) If this is all you're relying on for the PLANS case, I think you're
) ) wasting your time and money.
)
) Bob, you should give the PLANS lawyers more credit than that. Although I see
) plenty of shoddy legal work, I would be extremely surprised to see a brief on
) this issue which discussed nothing more than the District Court decision in the
) Malnak case.
I'd love to see the brief so I could educate myself on how the issues
are genuinely being addressed.
To Dan Dugan: I have no idea what stage your case has reached. Are
there any papers available for my perusal? You can answer by email if
you prefer.
)
) ) Now, I invite you to apply this test to Waldorf education in the
) ) public schools. This is how I come down on each of the three parts of the
) ) test:
) )
) ) (1) Does offering an alternative method of education reflect a
) ) clearly secular legislative purpose? Yes.
)
) To the extent that the public Waldorf school is only applying Waldorf
) educational methods, and does not include such practices as reciting
) blessings or celebrating festivals based on Christian saints, I agree. But I don't
) know whether public Waldorf schools limit their activities in this manner.
I have no idea either, and we think alike that those recitations or
celebrations, if they are used in the public schools, would probably be
a transgression of the Constitution.
)
) ) (2) Is the primary effect one which neither advances nor inhibits
) ) religion? Yes. The primary effect is education of the children.
)
) That can be said for the funding of almost any religious school; the bulk of the
) teaching is in secular subjects. Nevertheless, the public funding of parochial
) schools violates the third prong:
Although I've never attended a parochial school, it's my understanding
that religious instruction is required in such schools. I would think
it to be a difficult thing to show that Waldorf education is
substantially similar to parochial schools.
There's another very significant difference between Waldorf education
and the parochial school example. If a public school were to bring in a
group of nuns dressed in black and white habits to teach mathematics or
science, the nuns are unlikely to have been brought in because they are
experts in teaching a particular educational method. So they only
distinction between the regular teachers and the new teachers who are
nuns is that the new teachers bring a religious presence.
On the other hand, I presume (perhaps incorrectly) that the public
schools are bringing in Waldorf education as a method of instruction and
are not requiring that those who teach the method be Anthroposophists.
Non-Anthroposophists can and do teach in the private Waldorf schools.
The distinction between a public school bringing in a Waldorf method
and a group of religious workers is to me relatively clear. With the
Waldorf method, the school board is expressing its judgment that a
particular educational approach is worth a try, just as trying a
Montessori approach might be worth a try. With the other example, there
is no apparent change in educational approach, just an entanglement with
religion.
Courts are loathe to intervene and substitute their judgment for the
judgment of people in decision-making capacities when the
decision-maker's judgment is founded on a considered evaluation of how
to achieve an objective. This certainly applies in the business world,
where court's routinely bow to management under the "business judgment"
rule unless management's decisions have been made arbitrarily or in
breach of some fiduciary duty. Although I don't know much about the law
pertaining to education, I would suspect that a similar hands-off rule
applies.
)
) ) (3) Does the action of bringing Waldorf education into the public
) ) schools avoid excessive government entanglement with religion? I guess
) ) that's really a fact-sensitive inquiry which depends on the particular
) ) implementation. First, you have to determine whether Anthroposophy is a
) ) religion. You've stated your case in prior posts, but I really do believe
) ) you'll have a hard time showing that.
)
) After following this discussion for the last year or two, I've become convinced
) that for purposes of the First Amendment, Anthroposophy would be considered
) a religion. It is a comprehensive system of belief which includes beliefs about
) the nature of spiritual entities, the journey of the soul after death, and other
) religious matters. On the other hand, it lacks some characteristics which tend
) to be associated with religions, such as a clergy. But then, the Baha'i Faith is
) clearly a religion, and has no clergy either.
)
) Of course, many anthroposophists will say that anthroposophy is merely a
) method, not a system of belief, but I think you'd have a hard time convincing a
) court of that.
We do not think alike on whether or not Anthroposophy is a religion.
However, look at factor (3) again. There needs not only to be a
religion, there also has to be "excessive entanglement" with that
religion. So long as Waldorf education is brought in for its
educational methods, without any of the quasi-religious trappings that
some may complain of, I have a hard time seeing excessive entanglement
here.
) But even if the state may fund a school based on religious concepts, that does
) not resolve the issue of teacher training. As long as teachers are required to
) undergo training in religious/spiritual concepts as a condition of employment, or
) preferential treatment is given to teacher applicants who agree with Steiner's
) spiritual concepts, there is a clear violation of the first amendment. The
) entaglement is even greater when the training takes place at an
) Anthroposophical institution (Rudolf Steiner College) at public expense.
)
I would agree that preferential treatment being given to those who
express agreement with Steiner's spiritual concepts might be found to be
unconstitutional if not in violation of some state statute. If that is
so, a court would prohibit such preferential treatment but would not
likely prohibit the teaching method from being used.
I don't know enough about the precedents to form a judgment on the
issue of where the teacher training takes place. However, I doubt that
there's any case that says that a public school paying for a teacher to
take a course at a university which is overtly Catholic is an
unconstitutional action. Now, the response back to me could be, "But
Bob! There's a difference. The teachers are forced to go to the
Steiner College; they are not permitted to take the courses elsewhere."
And the further response back from the public school's lawyer would
probably be something on the order of, "Well, we have no choice in the
matter, because this is the only place in our judgment which is
qualified to provide the training." Again, I think the "business
judgment" rule holds sway.
In any event, I would find it fascinating if I could get my hands on
the arguments being made by both sides in this case, as well as to learn
more of the facts that are being developed. An anecdote: the last
legal issue that I semi-voluntarily got involved with outside my own
practice was when Systems Enhancement Associates sued a young programmer
by the name of Phil Katz to stop distributing a program that was able to
create and modify .ARC files, an archiving system (born in the days of
DOS) which Systems Enhancement considered proprietary. Katz's program
(PKARC) actually did the job faster and more efficiently, based on a
series of tests of compression programs I compared and circulated around
the BBS communities in those days. I had a few conversations with Katz,
and when he revealed to me that he was prepared to agree to a permanent
injunction I asked him why he was willing to roll over and play dead.
His response was that he was preparing to come out with an archiving
program that would blow the .ARC format out of the water. He did. Ever
hear of the .ZIP archiving format?
Steve, it's a pleasure to have a discussion with you and others on this
list that is not a flame war. Reading many of the past posts made me
reluctant to join in.
Bob
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n823.4 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:17:59 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/enriched; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199807151417.HAA24007 lists1.best.com)
On 15 Jul 98, at 10:16, John Calkins wrote:
(color)(param)7F00,0000,0000(/param)) The way I and many others approach anthroposophy is the way Steiner
) recommends. Do not take anything on faith. Don't take his word for it.
) One is free to accept, reject, or question anything Steiner says. This is
) Steiner's view; this is what is taught at the Waldorf teacher training
) institute at Sunbridge College. The only way I can possibly see this as
) religious is if thinking for one's self is a religion. I do not see how
) this fits into any proposed definition for a religion.
(/color)This assumes that the single defining characteristic of a religion is that it is a
body of belief taken on faith. As a philosophical definition that's fine, but I don't
think it is too useful as a legal definition.
Imagine two people, Faith and Reason. Faith is a Christian, and believes in the
truth of the Bible because all her life, she has been taught that it is true, and it
gives her comfort to believe it.
Reason is also a Christian, but started out as an agnostic. He studies the
Bible intensely, and his studies convinced him that the Bible contains many
prophesies that have come true. He also studied accounts of miracles which
were attributed to Jesus, and finally, he had a profound spiritual experience
which he interpreted as a personal encounter with Jesus Christ.
For Faith, her religion is a matter of faith. Reason, though, came to his religion
through thinking for himself. For purposes of the Establishment Clause, it
would not make sense to say that Faith's Christianity is a religion, while
Reason's Christianity is not.
This would be the time for me to come up with a definition of religion, for
purposes of the First Amendment, which would be consistent with the case
law, which could be easily applied to Anthroposophy, and which I could
confidently predict would ultimately be adopted by the courts. Now, I've been a
lawyer for 17 years, and a court research attorney for almost ten, so I have the
skills necessary to undertake such a project. But that would require far more
research than I'm willing to put into this issue. I'll leave that to the lawyers for
PLANS and the school district, and to the court research attorney and judge
who review the issue. After all, that's what they're getting paid for.
As Bob noted, it is extremely difficult to come up with a simple definition for
"religion" that would include everything that is a religion, while excluding
everything that is not. It would probably be more useful to list common
characteristics of religions, recognizing that many, and perhaps most, religions
lack some of the characteristics, and some things that are not religions exhibit
some of these qualities.
Off the top of my head, I'd say that some of those characteristics are:
1) A system of belief which purports to explain matters of a spiritual nature,
including, but not limited to, the nature of the soul, the existence and nature of
spiritual entities (e.g., angels and God), and the existence and nature of life
after death;
2) An administrative structure which includes a clergy, or some other
institutional system for giving advice and comfort with respect to spiritual
matters;
3) Rituals and/or practices of a spiritual nature, which promote spiritual feelings
and/or purport to put the practitioner in touch with spiritual entities, e.g., prayer
or meditation;
4) Historical identification of the subject as a religion; and
5) Identification of the subject as a religion by its practitioners.
As I said, this is not an exhaustive list, and it's just off the top of my head.
(color)(param)7F00,0000,0000(/param)) Steve, with this in mind (I can assure you this is how anthroposophy is
) presented at Sunbridge College), how do you justify anthroposophy being a
) religion?
(/color)I think that anthroposophy has some attributes common to religions, and lacks
other attributes. But as I said, many established religions do not have all these
attributes. On balance, I think a court would be likely to find Anthroposophy to
be a religion.
(color)(param)7F00,0000,0000(/param)
) I was recently reminded that materialism, atheism, and other beliefs in
) the strictly non-spirit nature of the universe often have the same
) "religious" qualities that you mention above. To name what they often
) believe: there are no spiritual entities in nature, there is no journey
) of the soul after death. These are non-objective, faith-based
) convictions, and these doctrines of faith are often practiced more like a
) religion than anthroposophy. Does it follow that we should not present
) the material viewpoint in public schools?
(/color)Yes.
If public schools taught that there are no spiritual entities in nature, or that
there is no journey of the soul after death, I think that would be a violation of the
establishment clause.
Generally speaking, science does not answer spiritual questions one way or
the other. To answer questions about the material world with an explanation of
physical phenomena does not promote atheism or deny the existence of
spiritual entities. The argument that public schools promote the "religion" of
materialism is a red herring.
(color)(param)7F00,0000,0000(/param)) Why don't you ask those who have actually experienced the training if it
) was "religious/spiritual". Speaking for myself, I experienced it as
) spiritual training, but not religious training. I can understand how
) people can confuse the notions of spirit and religion, but they are
) distinct.
(/color)I don't think that the court would draw the distinction that you make between
the spiritual and the religious. I think the court would find that it is just as
offensive to require a public school teacher to undergo "spiritual" training as it
would be to require a public school teacher to undergo "religious" training.
(color)(param)7F00,0000,0000(/param)) Since proper use of English is an issue on this list, I find it amusing
) that those who want to classify Steiner's teachings as a religion more
) often spell it "*A*nthroposophy" than the others who use
) "*a*nthroposophy", as if this could really make a difference.
) Merriam-Webster's unabridged dictionary, copyright 1981, uses a lower case
) 'a'. I play it safe and follow its authority, not wanting to face the
) merciless wrath of the usage police. Not to risk error, I suggest that we
) proceed using the small 'a' spelling unless anyone can find an English
) language authority supporting the other.
(/color)I think I'll continue to capitalize is sporadically, as suits my fancy at the
moment.
(nofill)
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n823.5 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:51:28 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199807151739.KAA29073 lists1.best.com)
On 15 Jul 98, at 13:38, Robert Tolz wrote:
) We do not think alike on whether or not Anthroposophy is a religion.
) However, look at factor (3) again. There needs not only to be a religion,
) there also has to be "excessive entanglement" with that religion. So long
) as Waldorf education is brought in for its educational methods, without
) any of the quasi-religious trappings that some may complain of, I have a
) hard time seeing excessive entanglement here.
Yes. In that case, it comes down to the fascinating question of whether it is a
violation of the Establishment Clause to publicly fund a school where the
pedagogy is based on religious (or spiritual) concepts, where those concepts
are not taught to the kids. Again, I have no idea how this issue would come
out.
But if the school board adopted the methodology for reasons unrelated to the
underlying spiritual concepts, and prospective teachers were trained only in the
secular reasons for the methodology, and not required to undergo training in the
underlying spiritual concepts, and no preference in hiring was given to those
who did undergo the spiritual training, I think there would be no problem.
But I think you'd find considerable resistance in the anthroposophical
community to any attempt to divorce Waldorf methods from anthroposophy.
AWSNA might even insist that the label "Waldorf" not be used, or that the
school only be identified as "Waldorf-inspired."
) Now, the response back to me could be, "But Bob!
) There's a difference. The teachers are forced to go to the Steiner
) College; they are not permitted to take the courses elsewhere." And the
) further response back from the public school's lawyer would probably be
) something on the order of, "Well, we have no choice in the matter, because
) this is the only place in our judgment which is qualified to provide the
) training." Again, I think the "business judgment" rule holds sway.
Yes, but only if training at Steiner College is limited to the methodology, and
not to the spiritual concepts. My understanding from the posts of Kathy
Sutphens (Hi Kathy!), a public school teacher to had to undergo that training, is
that the training is not so limited.
Great story about Phil Katz, by the way.
) Steve, it's a pleasure to have a discussion with you and others on this
) list that is not a flame war. Reading many of the past posts made me
) reluctant to join in.
I can understand that. Emotions do run high on this list, and unfortunately
flaming is not uncommon. I've found, though, that when folks are treated with
respect (as you treat them), they generally respond in kind.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n823.6 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: PERSONAL: Netiquette (Was Re: Benchmarking)
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:55:27 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807150233.TAA05590 lists1.best.com)
Whoops, I am working in Boston for the next week. I threw together a pc and
forgot to reset the Netscape wrap preferences. Now I know.
Regards,
ezra
Michael Kopp wrote:
) Ezra,
)
) Would you please have a little consideration for the rest of the list and
) learn how to use your emailer properly to quote stuff?
)
) When you copy and paste text from a Web page (which is what I imagine you
) are doing below) you get screwed-up tabs from the Web page formatting, and
) screwed up line breaks.
)
) You must have noticed it before you sent the message?! It's considered good
) manners not to let this happen.
)
) There are a number of utilities for both Mac and PC platforms that will
) help you with this. I just fix the lines myself manually.
)
) Just a thought, if you want people to read your forwarded messages.
)
) Cheers from Godzone,
)
) Michael Kopp
) Wellington, New Zealand
)
) )Schools pay a price for raising standards
) )
) ) COLUMBUS, Ohio - You can see the fear and frustration
) )in her eyes.
) )
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n823.7 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: All Apologies
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 14:58:17 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
It was pointed out to me that the margins on my reposts were not set
correctly. I am in Boston (on a corporate terminal) and had forgotten
to reset my preferences. Sorry about that.
ezra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n823.8 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 15:27:01 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807151210.FAA01940 lists1.best.com) (199807151553.IAA17546 lists1.best.com)
You know, it seems odd that there is such an aversion to the media (although perhaps
you mean to say the medium, since we are encouraged to read the paper), since media
as we know it was not around during RS's lifetime. Television is what is demonized
and castigated by WE. I think there is so much basis in scientific fact (I using
the word fast and loose to include Psychology) to keep kids away from television
that I fail to see why it is an issue.
A little while ago there was a thread on Sesame Street where people were segmenting
television into good and bad. I would be hard pressed to come up with an example
of TV time well spent. In the same way that written language affects consciousness
(it forces a more linear conceptual structure), TV and multimedia reduce reality to
scenes (mostly action, mostly violent) that exist for no more than the optimal
advertising period. Perhaps then, the medium is truly the message.
I used to be able to read a book cover to cover. Now my attention span is such that
it is hard for me to concentrate for more than a few hours. I was not allowed
television as a child. There are hordes of people that will testify to the
harmlessness of television, or even perhaps to its usefulness. That may be their
experience but what is their perspective?
e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n823.9 ---------------
From: Daniel Sabsay (danielsabsay earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 98 15:44:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
John Calkins (469593N knotes.kodak.com) wrote:
)The way I and many others approach anthroposophy is the way Steiner
)recommends. Do not take anything on faith. Don't take his word for it.
)One is free to accept, reject, or question anything Steiner says. This is
)Steiner's view; this is what is taught at the Waldorf teacher training
)institute at Sunbridge College. The only way I can possibly see this as
)religious is if thinking for one's self is a religion. I do not see how
)this fits into any proposed definition for a religion. In fact what
)attracts many people to anthroposophy (including myself) is that it
)encourages the free pursuit of an individual spiritual path that is
)_not_religious_.
Daniel Sabsay recently asked Per Hallstr=F6m )
)Why do you think reincarnation is not a religious belief? Would a person
)who believes in everything Rudy said, except reincarnation, be considered
)an anthrosophist?
Per Hallstr=F6m answered )
)A person who believes in everything Rudolf Steiner said would not be
)considered an anthrosophist, at least not by me and most of the
)anthroposophists I know, mostly because this person seems unable to think
)for him/herself and is a dogmatic "believer".
)A person who believes in everything Rudolf Steiner said, except
)reincarnation is a totally hypothetic person, and would not be considered
)an anthrosophist.
No dogma here.
-- Daniel Sabsay, president
East Bay Skeptics Society
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n823.10 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:08:16 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
)On 15 Jul 98, at 10:16, John Calkins wrote:
)
)) The way I and many others approach anthroposophy is the way Steiner
)) recommends. Do not take anything on faith. Don't take his word for it.
)) One is free to accept, reject, or question anything Steiner says. This
is
)) Steiner's view; this is what is taught at the Waldorf teacher training
)) institute at Sunbridge College. The only way I can possibly see this as
)) religious is if thinking for one's self is a religion. I do not see how
)) this fits into any proposed definition for a religion.
Steve Premo:
)This assumes that the single defining characteristic of a religion is that
it is a body of belief taken on faith. As a )philosophical definition
that's fine, but I don't think it is too useful as a legal definition.
)
)Imagine two people, Faith and Reason. Faith is a Christian, and believes
in the truth of the Bible because all her )life, she has been taught that
it is true, and it gives her comfort to believe it.
)
)Reason is also a Christian, but started out as an agnostic. He studies
the Bible intensely, and his studies )convinced him that the Bible
contains many prophesies that have come true. He also studied accounts of
)miracles which were attributed to Jesus, and finally, he had a profound
spiritual experience which he interpreted )as a personal encounter with
Jesus Christ.
)
)For Faith, her religion is a matter of faith. Reason, though, came to his
religion through thinking for himself. For )purposes of the Establishment
Clause, it would not make sense to say that Faith's Christianity is a
religion, while )Reason's Christianity is not.
This is purely hypothetical. First of all it appears that this person
relied on the indirectness of the Bible rather than direct observation.
Even if the Bible did not factor directly into conclusions from his
observations, it is improbable he would observe the same particular view of
spiritual reality that Jesus Christ or anybody else sees. If such a person
truly came to a spiritual enlightenment strictly through his own
observations, he would be more his own man than a Christian. It is
important to distinguish between Steiner's way of knowing the world and his
particular observations (work arising from anthroposophy, Waldorf
education, B-D farming, for example, is yet another distinction). To be
true to Steiner's epistemology, one should base her decisions in life on
her own observations, not Steiner's. From this perspective whether or not
they correspond is of secondary importance.
Looking at it the other way around, the argument becomes absurd. Galileo
through the spiritual activity of thinking comes to the scientific method
of investigation. Others don't even try not understand his thinking, but
they see that it "works" so they accept it on faith. Clearly, this
particular activity of Galileo is not religious, but the acceptance of the
others is (though this alone is not enough upon which to base a religion).
I should point out this is not a hypothetical situation.
)I think that anthroposophy has some attributes common to religions, and
lacks other attributes. But as I said, )many established religions do not
have all these attributes. On balance, I think a court would be likely to
find )Anthroposophy to be a religion.
I think we've beaten this one into the ground enough. Ultimately it seems
like it will come down to Bob Tolz's point that if it looks, feels, and
smells like a duck, it's a duck. If not, it's not.
)) I was recently reminded that materialism, atheism, and other beliefs in
)) the strictly non-spirit nature of the universe often have the same
)) "religious" qualities that you mention above. To name what they often
)) believe: there are no spiritual entities in nature, there is no journey
)) of the soul after death. These are non-objective, faith-based
)) convictions, and these doctrines of faith are often practiced more like
a
)) religion than anthroposophy. Does it follow that we should not present
)) the material viewpoint in public schools?
)
)Yes.
)
)If public schools taught that there are no spiritual entities in nature,
or that there is no journey of the soul after )death, I think that would
be a violation of the establishment clause.
I agree Steve, but that is not what I am talking about.
)Generally speaking, science does not answer spiritual questions one way or
the other. To answer questions )about the material world with an
explanation of physical phenomena does not promote atheism or deny the
)existence of spiritual entities. The argument that public schools
promote the "religion" of materialism is a red )herring.
The fish swims for me. Increasingly so, we have been losing conviction in
ourselves and have been relying on the "experts" of science to make
judgments for us. Faith that was placed in religion has largely been
displaced by faith in scientific materialism. Even when we know in our gut
that something is wrong, often we do not know how to respond to the
arguments of science. Science has become a religious-like authority to the
extent that we doubt the validity of any other way of gaining knowledge. I
think this a fair appraisal of a significant element in today's society, at
least in the U.S. You are probably right that a court would not recognize
materialism as a religion (I'm assuming this is your red herring?), but the
limited view of our legal system should not blind us from the reality of
the situation we face.
The problem I have is when scientific materialists insist that science be
taught from the orthodox "scientific" view and none other. (I don't want
to rehash this too much for the sake of the others, Steve. Since you've
been on vacation, we can discuss by private e-mail if you don't understand
my brevity. ) Our "objective" science is in reality _subjectively_ limited
to that part of reality that exists independent of human consciousness
(This is a better distinction than the quantitative/qualitative one I
previously used). Knowledge of the more human side of phenomena is
accessible to normal consciousness (a smile for instance), but science does
not know how to deal with it. In short, there are other ways of knowing
the world than through the limited scope of science. There is a semantic
problem here, because I am advocating teaching a subject called 'science'
from a scientific view in addition to traditionally non-scientific views.
Please correct me if I am wrong: the view of some critics is to censor
this way of teaching from a publicly funded school.
John Calkins
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n823 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n824 --------------
001 - "David E. Gower" (dgower - RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
002 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
003 - Kristin Brown (KBrown opt - RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
004 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
005 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
006 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
007 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n823
008 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Please Consider . . .
009 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
010 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Cults
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n824.1 ---------------
From: "David E. Gower" (dgower interhop.net)
Subject: RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:01:04 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199807161505.IAA09058 lists1.best.com)
) -----Original Message-----
) From: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
) [mailto:waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com]On Behalf Of
) 469593N knotes.kodak.com
) Sent: 16-Jul-98 11:08
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
)
)
) From: John Calkins
) Looking at it the other way around, the argument becomes absurd. Galileo
) through the spiritual activity of thinking comes to the scientific method
) of investigation. Others don't even try not understand his thinking, but
) they see that it "works" so they accept it on faith.
Please define " "works" " in this context.
) (This is a better distinction than the quantitative/qualitative one I
) previously used). Knowledge of the more human side of phenomena is
) accessible to normal consciousness (a smile for instance), but science
) does not know how to deal with it.
What is this knowledge of the smile that science does not know how to deal
with?
**************************************************************************
Opinions, comments, etc. are my own and all original material is:
Copyright 1998 by David E. Gower. All Rights Reserved.
Contact: dgower interhop.net
_!_
_______(_)_______
"The plural of anecdote is not data" --Roger Brinner
**************************************************************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n824.2 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:15:36 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807151210.FAA01940 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (77374598 toto.iv)
Robert Tolz writes:
)
) There is in my experience, however, one dogma of an almost "religious"
) theme that carries through Waldorf education: the almost satanic
) quality that television seems to hold.
Funny. This is one belief that I am in accord with them pretty
strongly. While I don't think a small bit of exposure is going to do
great damage, I think it is very easy for a small bit of exposure to
become a regular small bit, then slowly increase without a parents
awareness.
When all of my friends say "Oh, I dont watch much TV" but then I find
out that they have several shows that they watch every week I see how
insidious it is. They spend probably around 10 hrs a week watching TV
which I consider a lot.
The "religious" practice (which they deny) that bothers me is the
wearing of long skirts and dresses by the women. I have never seen
any woman who is associated with Waldorf in any way other than just as
a parent wear pants or a skirt that wasn't long and flowing. I've
also heard them explicitly say that this isn't a requirement, but, I
believe there is strong peer pressure to do so. I know several people
who have been very turned off by this. It made them feel that Waldorf
was too "cultlike".
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n824.3 ---------------
From: Kristin Brown (KBrown optimizing.com)
Subject: RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 12:36:42 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
At the "end-of-the summer" picnic held by the Waldorf school of Atlanta
( where my daughter attends), most of the teachers attending wore
summer-casual clothes (shorts, overalls, sundresses, etc).
I overheard several joking amongst themselves about finally being able
to wear "real" clothes. A teacher of one of the younger grades even
joked to me later that she knew it was not "Waldorf-like" to wear
something that showed her knees, let alone cleavage and back. She was
dressed in a very common summer scoop-necked, above-the-knee fitted
dress.
A thread on the Waldorf list some time ago mentioned the dress code, as
well as the preponderance of female teachers in the lower grades.
Several of the contributions to the discussion disturbed me. One
comment that bothered me at that time (and still does) is that the long
flowing dresses and aprons are intended to hold back the teachers
"forces" from the children. Others mentioned that it made them appear
more "motherly," "welcoming," "nurturing" and "soft."
In addition, it was mentioned that in many Steiner schools, angels are
pictured as not having feet, and the long flowing clothing which hides
the teachers feet was symbolic somehow of that.
All of these comments rubbed me the wrong way; certainly they are
sexist, occultist and religious. Unfortunately, the thread sort of
disintegrated at that point into many disparate tangents. Although I
tried to get one of the more "knowledgeable" writers to explain what
exactly that meant, it was never fully clarified.
Kristin Brown
Atlanta, GA
Kbrown optimizing.com
----- Robert Tolz writes:
The "religious" practice (which they deny) that bothers me is
the
wearing of long skirts and dresses by the women. I have never
seen
any woman who is associated with Waldorf in any way other than
just as
a parent wear pants or a skirt that wasn't long and flowing.
I've
also heard them explicitly say that this isn't a requirement,
but, I
believe there is strong peer pressure to do so. I know several
people
who have been very turned off by this. It made them feel that
Waldorf
was too "cultlike".
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n824.4 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:15:13 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807161505.IAA09060 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) Yes. In that case, it comes down to the fascinating question of whether it is a
) violation of the Establishment Clause to publicly fund a school where the
) pedagogy is based on religious (or spiritual) concepts, where those concepts
) are not taught to the kids. Again, I have no idea how this issue would come
) out.
)
) But if the school board adopted the methodology for reasons unrelated to the
) underlying spiritual concepts, and prospective teachers were trained only in the
) secular reasons for the methodology, and not required to undergo training in the
) underlying spiritual concepts, and no preference in hiring was given to those
) who did undergo the spiritual training, I think there would be no problem.
Someone (maybe you) said before that preference was given to those who
professed agreement with Steiner's philosophy. My response was I
believed that violated the First Amendment.
Now, I hear from you that preference to teach the Waldorf method is
given to those who receive instruction in the underpinnings of the
philosophy behind the method. Frankly, I don't have as much difficulty
with that. I imagine that if a public school district chooses to have a
Montessori program, they will give preference to those who receive
training in both the method and the philosophical background. I can
imagine the school board's thinking in both the Waldorf and the
Montessori cases: If a teacher doesn't have the background to the
method, there's necessarily going to be a deficiency in the ability to
apply that method. Again, a case of the "business judgment" rule.
Query: In the facts of this case, if a teacher doesn't meet the
requirements for a Waldorf-type teacher job, does that mean that there
are no other employment opportunities for that teacher?
)
) But I think you'd find considerable resistance in the anthroposophical
) community to any attempt to divorce Waldorf methods from anthroposophy.
) AWSNA might even insist that the label "Waldorf" not be used, or that the
) school only be identified as "Waldorf-inspired."
I couldn't begin to guess. Does AWSNA (I don't even know what the
acronym stands for) hold a trademark on the name "Waldorf"?
)
) ) Now, the response back to me could be, "But Bob!
) ) There's a difference. The teachers are forced to go to the Steiner
) ) College; they are not permitted to take the courses elsewhere." And the
) ) further response back from the public school's lawyer would probably be
) ) something on the order of, "Well, we have no choice in the matter, because
) ) this is the only place in our judgment which is qualified to provide the
) ) training." Again, I think the "business judgment" rule holds sway.
)
) Yes, but only if training at Steiner College is limited to the methodology, and
) not to the spiritual concepts. My understanding from the posts of Kathy
) Sutphens (Hi Kathy!), a public school teacher to had to undergo that training, is
) that the training is not so limited.
See my reference above to the necessity for understanding the
underpinnings of the method in order to apply the method well. The
"Business Judgment Rule" ordinarily rules.
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n824.5 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:21:35 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
)) From: John Calkins
)
)
)
)) Looking at it the other way around, the argument becomes absurd.
Galileo
)) through the spiritual activity of thinking comes to the scientific
method
)) of investigation. Others don't even try not understand his thinking,
but
)) they see that it "works" so they accept it on faith.
)
David E. Gower:
)Please define " "works" " in this context.
What I mean is that the theories accurately predict the behavior within the
realm of their validity. For instance, the vertical position of a falling
body is proportional to the time from when it was released. This is a
hypothesis Galileo arrived at using his method, and one can verify that it
is reasonably accurate for objects falling close enough to the surface of
the earth.
)) (This is a better distinction than the quantitative/qualitative one I
)) previously used). Knowledge of the more human side of phenomena is
)) accessible to normal consciousness (a smile for instance), but science
)) does not know how to deal with it.
)
)What is this knowledge of the smile that science does not know how to deal
)with?
The material scientific view would say something like "a smile is formed
when certain muscles contract or relax opening the oral aperture in such
and such away..." This type of explanation, while meaningful from one
perspective, is far penetrating the real human meaning of the smile.
This subject was recently discussed in more detail than I think most on the
list would want repeated. I may have deleted some of the postings, so it
may lack continuity. I can forward you what I do have if you are
interested.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n824.6 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 13:59:33 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Before someone jumps all over me, the position of a falling body is
proportional to the square of the time.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n824.7 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n823
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 14:08:53 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807161505.IAA09060 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
[By the way Steve, your messages are coming through with formating
commands (HTML?)]
)
) ) Why don't you ask those who have actually experienced the training if it
) ) was "religious/spiritual". Speaking for myself, I experienced it as
) ) spiritual training, but not religious training. I can understand how
) ) people can confuse the notions of spirit and religion, but they are
) ) distinct.
)
) I don't think that the court would draw the distinction that you make between
) the spiritual and the religious. I think the court would find that it is just as
) offensive to require a public school teacher to undergo "spiritual" training as it
) would be to require a public school teacher to undergo "religious" training.
)
Maybe, maybe not. I did a search in Lexis in couldn't find any
instance in which a court was asked directly asked to answer directly
whether there is a distinction between "spiritual" and "religious."
However, a recent California case offers some insight. In Alvarado v.
City of San Jose, 94 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1996), a complaint was brought
against the City commissioning a 25' high statue of a coiled serpent
alluding to the Aztec deity of Quetzalcoatl. The District Court granted
summary judgment to the City, and the District Court's judgment was
affirmed on appeal.
Let me quote parts of the decision. I'm not going to comment on it,
but most readers will see how it applies to the PLANS case.
{{{"The district court found at the hearing that the statue had "some
religious significance," but not enough to prove a constitutional
violation. In its written order, the court stated that "religious
significance [by itself] is . . . insufficient to prove a
constitutional violation." }}}
***
{{{Plaintiffs include allusions to Native American religions as part of
their New Age argument. While Native American religions may be
cognizable under a First Amendment analysis, plaintiffs do not argue
that Native Americans worship the Plumed Serpent or Quetzalcoatl. The
gravamen of their argument is that the New Age movement is a religion
that includes worship of this symbol or deity.
{{{The picture of the New Age that emerges is one of individual efforts
to "find" or heal oneself, physically and spiritually, with the help of
symbols drawn from an infinite store of texts, visual sources and
"beliefs drawn from every religious tradition." (ER 380.) The New Age
proponents cited by plaintiffs clearly indicate that there is no New Age
organization, church-like or otherwise; no membership; no moral or
behavioral obligations; no comprehensive creed; no particular text,
rituals, or guidelines; no particular object or objects of worship; no
requirement or suggestion that anyone give up the religious beliefs he
or she already holds. In other words, anyone's in and "anything goes."
}}}
***
{{{ As we stated in Kreisner, "the First Amendment [**28] does
not prohibit practices which by any realistic measure create none of the
dangers which it is designed to prevent . . . . The measure of
constitutional adjudication is the ability and willingness to
distinguish between real threat and mere shadow." 1 F.3d at 780. Because
we find not even the shadow of a threat that the City has advanced
religion here, we hold that the statue does not violate the
Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. }}}
***
There are a few cases involving prisoners who attempted to invoke First
Amendment freedom of religion rights by claiming that their spiritual
practices amounted to religions and that the prison's interference with
those practices was unconstitutional. In the cases I've reviewed, the
Courts were unconvinced that the prisoners' spiritual practices amounted
to religion. These cases may or may not provide the basis of arguments
against the PLANS position.
Other than the foregoing, I didn't come up with anything in the limited
amount of time I allotted to myself to do this research.
Bob
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n824.8 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Please Consider . . .
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 98 13:21:00 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199807131546.IAA07166 lists1.best.com); from "469593N knotes.kodak.com" at Jul 13, 98 11:45 am
) From: John Calkins
)
) There is an orthodox psychology (sort of), but it works with intangibles
) inaccessible to physical science. Psychology is usually thought of as
) separate from physical sciences in the tradition of Descartes's separation
) of subject and object. But you missed my point. To the mind, sensing is
) sensing, whether we sense sounds, temperature, feelings, or thoughts. To
) be blunt, if a person's mind is distracted by some mental crisis and drives
) off a cliff, what causes this disaster? Our thoughts and feelings are real
) and have real consequences.
)
HSMP:
I don't think anybody would deny the senses and feelings, but I don't think
either that the only possible explanation for them is in terms of spirituality.
J. C.:
) )HSMP:
) )
) )Quantitative science falls short from quantitatively describing complex
) )phenomena just because the mathematical language involved is consequently
) more
) )complicated.
)
) How do you know this is the reason?
HSMP:
OK, it is just a guess. How do you know this is _not_ the reason?
J. C.:
) I am not a biologist, but I am not sure if I would agree with your
) assessment of how biology is practiced today. Much of biology is in
) categorizing and counting of parts (leaves, petals, toes, chromosomes,
) genes) and biochemistry is mostly quantitative. Can you explain to me how
) qualitative biology is subject to scientific validation?
)
HSMP:
Maybe you have heard about the studies of animal behavior. It seems that animals
also smile and present other manifestations that you seem to adjudge exclusively
to the spirit. Do you think animals have a spirit, too?
J. C.:
) Honestly Humberto, I don't think this discussion is leading anywhere. I am
) happy to answer questions you have, but you don't seem to be getting the
) meaning of what I am saying. Obviously we have two different perspectives.
) Where do you want to go with this?
)
HSMP:
John, my spirit has the same feeling in the opposite direction. I keep this
thread because it seems to me that your claim that science is purely subjective
has not been substantiated. I also would like to understand how you discriminate
"true" statements from "false" statements.
Now, I am aware that this is a digression from the topic of WE. But I expect it
to help in the discussion of WE's possible flaws, one of them being the teaching
of non-scientific topics as if they were scientific.
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n824.9 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 11:55:20 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199807161715.KAA02881 lists1.best.com)
On 16 Jul 98, at 13:15, Robert Tolz wrote:
) Someone (maybe you) said before that preference was given to those who
) professed agreement with Steiner's philosophy.
If I said that, then I did not say what I meant.
) Now, I hear from you that preference to teach the Waldorf method is
) given to those who receive instruction in the underpinnings of the
) philosophy behind the method. Frankly, I don't have as much difficulty
) with that. I imagine that if a public school district chooses to have a
) Montessori program, they will give preference to those who receive
) training in both the method and the philosophical background.
I don't know much about Montessori. Does the philosophical
background involve the existence of angels, and specific beliefs
about the process by which the soul incarnates into the body as
the child develops?
The main problem with the teacher training, as I see it, is that it
may violate the rights of the teachers. If public school teachers are
taught that Steiner had these beliefs about reincarnation, the
etheric body, the astral body, and so on, and that these beliefs led
him to formulate this methodology, that would probably be fine.
On the other hand, if the teaching is in the nature of religious
indoctrination, e.g., if reincarnation and these other concepts are
presented to the teachers as the factual basis which underlies the
pedagogy, that would violate the rights of the teachers. I'm not
going to research this right now, but it seems evident that public
employees cannot be compelled to undergo religious indoctrination
as a condition of employment.
) If a teacher doesn't have the background to the method, there's
) necessarily going to be a deficiency in the ability to apply that method.
) Again, a case of the "business judgment" rule.
By "business judgment" rule, I assume you are referring to the
traditional reluctance of the court to substitute its judgment for that
of the agency under review. But that applies only to the extent that
the decision in question is within the discretion of the agency. I
have never seen it applied where the agency's action is alleged to
be a violation of the first amendment because the issues involved
are legal issues, and not discretionary matters.
) Query: In the facts of this case, if a teacher doesn't meet the
) requirements for a Waldorf-type teacher job, does that mean that there are
) no other employment opportunities for that teacher?
I don't know.
) Does AWSNA (I don't even know what the
) acronym stands for) hold a trademark on the name "Waldorf"?
AWSNA stands for Association of Waldorf Schools of North
America. I don't know whether they have registered "Waldorf" as a
trademark.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n824.10 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Cults
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 02:17:31 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807141405.HAA03588 lists1.best.com)
Ezra, you wrote,
)Which reminds me, I was thinking the other day (when I had a wee bit too
)much time on my hands) that Dan needs to come up with a working
)hypothesis for his WE cult theory. Without a working hypothesis, or
)really any hypothesis, how on earth could such a theory be falsifiable.
)And well, if it isn't falsifiable, then it ain't science (unless your a
)proponent of supersymmetry or steady state, or various other
)non-falsifiable branches of modern science). And if it ain't science it
)must be a CULT!
We discuss the philosophy of science here because Steiner's pseudoscience
appears in Waldorf schools. But PLANS main interests, the appropriateness
of publicly funded Waldorf and the competence of the Waldorf educational
system, are not science but questions of public policy and ethics.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n824 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n825 --------------
001 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - electronics and Ahriman
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: children who are racially different from Europeans
003 - "David E. Gower" (dgower - RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
004 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
005 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n824
006 - RSSNYC aol.com - Re: I thought I'd heard it all...
007 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Cults
008 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: children who are racially different from Europeans
009 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Re: children who are racially different from Europeans
010 - Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra. - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n825.1 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: electronics and Ahriman
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 02:35:29 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807151210.FAA01940 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807151553.IAA17546 lists1.best.com)
Robert Tolz, you wrote,
) There is in my experience, however, one dogma of an almost "religious"
)theme that carries through Waldorf education: the almost satanic
)quality that television seems to hold. The idea of avoiding media for
)the kids is stressed again and again, and if there is the smallest
)deficiency in attention, behavior or ability of a child, the "usual
)suspect" which is rounded up by the teachers is the television set and
)the movie theater. This is the *only* dogma of Waldorf education (I'm
)not sure whether or not it has anything at all to do with Anthroposophy)
)as to which I have sensed any kind of conscious or unconscious pattern
)of proselytization.
)
) I could very well be in the minority of Waldorf parents by not
)completely accepting this view. But if ever there were a tenet of
)Waldorf education that could be said to be "religious" (in one of the
)standard Oxford definitions) it would be this idea about the media. I
)wonder if this idea is carried over into the public Waldorf experience.
One reason for this "religious" dedication is that there -is- a religious
reason.
Like so many things in Waldorf, there are layers. There's a public layer,
where we're talking about brain research and child development, and under
that there's an Anthroposophical layer, that is the -real- concern for the
devotees in the secret College of Teachers meeting.
Television, computers, and all electronic media are said to be incarnations
of Ahriman, the "adversary spirit" who tries to harden and materialize all
thought. Children must be protected from contact with them. It's ok for
adults to use Ahrimanic devices when they understand what they are doing
and are forcing the spirits to do good work.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n825.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: children who are racially different from Europeans
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 02:02:07 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199806221229.FAA27004 lists1.best.com)
John Calkins, in response to my quoting von Heydebrand about following
Steiner's advice in dealing with students of different races, you wrote,
)I would like to relate what is taught about race and cultural issues at the
)Waldorf teacher training institute at Sunbridge College. I will do my best
)to keep my opinions separate from what is taught by putting my comments in
)parentheses. Forgive me if this is redundant with other postings that
)have appeared on this list.
)
)Rudolf Steiner was a human being, not an all-knowing god, living in Central
)Europe around the turn of the century, and he made some statements which to
)the modern ear are regrettable. Some of them may be explained by the
)context of his time: for example in "Cosmic Memory" he makes a reference
)to something like the "uneducated savage" at a time when philosophers were
)heralding the noble savage. Others are not so easily explained away.
)However, if one takes a look at his work as a whole, he is in fact far
)ahead of his time when compared to the prevailing opinion with regard race
)of Central Europeans of his day.
Could you back this up with some quotes, from Steiner, and from
contemporary philosophers? Ray McDermott said:
"Steiner (1923) exacerbates the difficulty with the claim that racial
history is the key to understanding the different modes of thought
available to peole, and worse, he traces the various ways of thinking right
down to the propensity of members of different races to rely on different
parts of the brain. His speculations on the importance of skin color are
uninformed, racist, and far behind the intellectual developments even of
his own time.
***
"Steiner's account of the mental capacities and habits of different peoples
around the world is insensitive. His speculations are surprising in
comparison to the riches evident in other inquiries by German intellectuals
interested in nonwestern ways of thinking..."
[McDermott, Ray. "Racism and Waldorf Education." Research Bulletin. Waldorf
Education Research Institute, Sunbridge College: Vol. 1 No. 2 June, 1996,
p. 5]
)Virtually everything Steiner said in his
)thousands of lectures has been written down. Who among us would like to be
)held accountable for everything he or she has said? (I know I certainly
)would not). Steiner is not infallible. He also said that elephants die in
)caves. (I simply do not believe this is true.)
I commend your healthy attitude. Steiner claimed to have made "exact
scientific observation" of the "spirit world." He said that errors crept in
only because spiritual experiences had to be translated to ordinary
sense-perceptible language.
)Now the question arises today: what do we do about these admittedly
)embarrassing statements that Steiner made? One could edit them out, but if
)this were done it may be looked upon unfavorably as a cover-up. The fact
)that they still appear in reprints and translations shows the courage of
)people working with anthroposophy to allow Steiner's work _as_a_whole_ to
)stand for itself even though some of his statements they wish he would not
)have said.
I suspect covering up has already been done in some of the English
translations, and definitely in the choice of what is and is not
translated. I don't think it's courage, I think the Anthroposophists have
let some racist things leak through because they didn't expect anybody
would object. It's gratifying that the dialogue that critics have forced in
the last few years has encouraged a few individuals to disown Steiner's
racism in Internet discussions, but we're still waiting to see a
significant shift toward reality in Anthroposophical publications.
)Dealing with racial and cultural issues in a Waldorf school or any other
)school is a delicate balance that must be approached with thoughtfulness
)and sensitivity. On the one hand, we want to recognize the culture(s) of
)the students and parents while at the same time not offending anyone in the
)process. At a multicultural school, this is an on going, living process
)that must constantly be attended to with open communication. One can see
)the difficulties when trying to serve parents of a school who are
)Christian, Jewish, and atheistic, ethnic differences aside.
Yes, all schools are facing this in our increasingly diverse society. I
believe in the concept of the American melting pot too much to be
comfortable with the pandering to African-American nationalism that I see
in Harriet Tubman Village School, though. The few Hispanic, Asian, and
Caucasian kids there must feel as left out as Blacks have been elsewhere
where the numbers are reversed.
)Another issue
)arises with what to do at a Waldorf school in Kenya or Thailand? Certainly
)it is not appropriate to have the same festivals that are celebrated in
)schools in Germany. This situation illustrates the challenge to take the
)core, the very essence of Waldorf education and applying it in a different
)culture. There are no formulas. The teachers must contemplate on how they
)can fulfil the developmental needs of the children within the richness of
)their culture.
I agree completely, but this means departing from Steiner, doesn't it? From
him, you only get -the festivals-, which he claims are universal. Like,
everybody should celebrate Michaelmas because Michael is the Ruler of the
Earth. American kids in Nevada City were celebrating Michaelmas while their
neighbors were celebrating Veterans Day. That's really cult-like.
)-Again, I have related as best I can what is taught to future Waldorf
)teachers.
You've related your attitude, which I appreciate, but without any detail or
documentation of what is taught at Sunbridge. Could we see course syllabi
and reading lists, please?
)Judge it as you will, but personally I see it as a healthy
)well-balanced approach to this issue compared to that appearing on the
)PLANS web site. The skill and thoughtfulness that different teachers apply
)this teaching certainly varies (if they get the training at all). While
)Waldorf education has its problems, it is not the monster that Dan would
)have you believe.
I always say "they don't eat babies." So if Steiner is frequently wrong,
what is this reformed Waldorf education? Can you define it independently
from Anthroposophy?
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n825.3 ---------------
From: "David E. Gower" (dgower interhop.net)
Subject: RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:26:39 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199807161719.KAA05591 lists1.best.com)
) -----Original Message-----
) From: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
) [mailto:waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com]On Behalf Of
) 469593N knotes.kodak.com
) Sent: 16-Jul-98 13:22
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
)
)
) From: John Calkins
)
) )) From: John Calkins
) )
) )
) )
) )) Looking at it the other way around, the argument becomes absurd.
) Galileo
) )) through the spiritual activity of thinking comes to the scientific
) method
) )) of investigation. Others don't even try not understand his thinking,
) but
) )) they see that it "works" so they accept it on faith.
) )
) David E. Gower:
) )Please define " "works" " in this context.
)
) What I mean is that the theories accurately predict the behaviour
) within the
) realm of their validity. For instance, the vertical position of a falling
) body is proportional to the time from when it was released. This is a
) hypothesis Galileo arrived at using his method, and one can verify that it
) is reasonably accurate for objects falling close enough to the surface of
) the earth.
Does this mean that anthroposophic theories can accurately predict behaviour
outside of scientific validity? Does this demonstrate that they "work".
What are some examples?
)
) )) (This is a better distinction than the quantitative/qualitative one I
) )) previously used). Knowledge of the more human side of phenomena is
) )) accessible to normal consciousness (a smile for instance), but science
) )) does not know how to deal with it.
) )
) )What is this knowledge of the smile that science does not know
) how to deal
) )with?
)
) The material scientific view would say something like "a smile is formed
) when certain muscles contract or relax opening the oral aperture in such
) and such away..."
Upon what definition of scientific view do you base this explanation as ALL
that science would have to say about a smile?
This type of explanation, while meaningful from one
) perspective, is far penetrating the real human meaning of the smile.
What is the anthroposophic meaning of a smile.
)
) This subject was recently discussed in more detail than I think
) most on the
) list would want repeated. I may have deleted some of the postings, so it
) may lack continuity. I can forward you what I do have if you are
) interested.
I would like these specific questions answered in this more public forum if
you would be so kind.
**************************************************************************
Opinions, comments, etc. are my own and all original material is:
Copyright 1998 by David E. Gower. All Rights Reserved.
Contact: dgower interhop.net
_!_
_______(_)_______
"Old pilots never die, they just move on to a different plane"
**************************************************************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n825.4 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 15:42:37 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807161905.MAA13711 lists1.best.com)
Michael Hirsch wrote:
)
) Robert Tolz writes:
) )
) ) There is in my experience, however, one dogma of an almost "religious"
) ) theme that carries through Waldorf education: the almost satanic
) ) quality that television seems to hold.
)
) Funny. This is one belief that I am in accord with them pretty
) strongly.
I can't disagree that too much television rots the mind, and we do
severely limit TV. What I have some problem with is the thinking I've
seen which implies that the first thing to suspect if a child has any
difficulties whatsoever is the TV. I remember one class parents'
meeting where I had the sense that some of the parents were afraid their
children might be tainted by association with any other child who was
allowed to watch any TV.
)
) The "religious" practice (which they deny) that bothers me is the
) wearing of long skirts and dresses by the women. I have never seen
) any woman who is associated with Waldorf in any way other than just as
) a parent wear pants or a skirt that wasn't long and flowing. I've
) also heard them explicitly say that this isn't a requirement, but, I
) believe there is strong peer pressure to do so. I know several people
) who have been very turned off by this. It made them feel that Waldorf
) was too "cultlike".
I've never actually noticed that myself, but I'll keep a lookout.
Bob
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n825.5 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n824
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:16:06 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807161905.MAA13711 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) I don't know much about Montessori. Does the philosophical
) background involve the existence of angels, and specific beliefs
) about the process by which the soul incarnates into the body as
) the child develops?
I really have no idea about the answer to your question, though I
suspect the answer is no. But that does not detract from my point,
which is that there are theories behind any applied method. If someone
does not understand the theoretical underpinning, they are not likely to
apply the method well.
I was just about to let go of this thought when I realized that this
wisp of an idea has a bearing on the general discussion in this list.
Theories in any discipline evolve over time, whether we're talking
about astrophysics, health, economics, education or just the way we
human beings all individually create our own private theories about how
life works and how we're going to live it. Did you ever see Woody
Allen's "Sleeper," where he wakes up in the distant future and is
offered a cigarette by a doctor who explains that it has now been
determined that tobacco is the best thing for human health?
Sometimes theories are not provable or even easily testable, but we
seek to apply the methods which are suggested by those theories.
As far as I am concerned, Waldorf education is an educational method
which is based on a theory, or a model of child development, just as any
other educational method. Is the essential complaint by those who decry
Waldorf education in a public school that this theory is tainted with
spiritual mumbo-jumbo? The fact that a theory is infused with spiritual
ideas does not invalidate it.
The Waldorf detractors would say: validate it. Is it perhaps not a
form of (unscientific and anecdotal) validation that over the course of
decades a huge number of parents have happily sent their children to
Waldorf schools convinced of its appropriateness and efficacy, and that
a huge number of graduates are extremely happy with their experience.
[Please, nobody ask for the data. I'm making a presumption. Otherwise
the Waldorf system would have died out.] It is probably this form of
validation which has some educators analyzing whether or not this form
of education is appropriate for their own public school systems.
)
) The main problem with the teacher training, as I see it, is that it
) may violate the rights of the teachers. If public school teachers are
) taught that Steiner had these beliefs about reincarnation, the
) etheric body, the astral body, and so on, and that these beliefs led
) him to formulate this methodology, that would probably be fine.
)
) On the other hand, if the teaching is in the nature of religious
) indoctrination, e.g., if reincarnation and these other concepts are
) presented to the teachers as the factual basis which underlies the
) pedagogy, that would violate the rights of the teachers. I'm not
) going to research this right now, but it seems evident that public
) employees cannot be compelled to undergo religious indoctrination
) as a condition of employment.
Frankly, I agree with your analysis. I wonder what the facts are.
) By "business judgment" rule, I assume you are referring to the
) traditional reluctance of the court to substitute its judgment for that
) of the agency under review. But that applies only to the extent that
) the decision in question is within the discretion of the agency. I
) have never seen it applied where the agency's action is alleged to
) be a violation of the first amendment because the issues involved
) are legal issues, and not discretionary matters.
I guess it comes down to a question whether the court, at the gut
level, believes this just the implementation of a methodology of
education or whether its an indoctrination. Indoctrination is not
discretionary, but the choice of methodology *is* discretionary and
probably protected action of the school district.
) ) Does AWSNA (I don't even know what the
) ) acronym stands for) hold a trademark on the name "Waldorf"?
)
) AWSNA stands for Association of Waldorf Schools of North
) America. I don't know whether they have registered "Waldorf" as a
) trademark.
If they don't, then obviously they can't insist that a "de-clawed"
version of Waldorf for the public schools be described as
"Waldorf-inspired."
Bob
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n825.6 ---------------
From: RSSNYC aol.com
Subject: Re: I thought I'd heard it all...
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 16:17:28 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear List Members:
One of my favorite parts of the week is sitting back to read the postings to
this list. I've learned a lot, and I consider the probing criticisms here to
be most helpful. I've resisted joining in the conversations, as I think some
of you perpetuate a nasty environment, but when I read about the notion of
cult-like uniforms in Atlanta, I couldn't keep quiet.
If any of you were to come to the school here in New York City, you'd see
teachers wearing all kinds of clothing. As is the case in New York, it is not
uncommon to see the women who work here in skirts above the knee, even _black_
skirts (the favorite "uniform" for our City). Are we less of a Waldorf school
because our teachers don't wear prairie dresses and Birkenstocks? This
perceived Waldorf teacher uniform seems to me to be more reflective of a
local, cultural preference than a dictum from the holy master.
One of the most important aspects of Waldorf education that this list points
out so well is that not all Waldorf schools are the same. To make sweeping
criticisms of anything from dress codes to the way all subjects are taught is
tricky business, and it is also unfair. Reports on this list might lead some
readers to believe that Waldorf schools prefer female teachers to male
teachers, yet our faculty is nearly half male. Some have suggested that
Waldorf graduates are poor writers, yet a significant number of our graduates
have gone to become university English professors, journalists and authors.
These graduates tell me they found themselves to be better writers than most
of their college classmates.
Yes, we suffer from a lack of quantifiable statistics on Waldorf education,
but heresay from list members on unfortunate instances in what appear to be
developing schools should not be the basis for general characterization. Our
school is fortunate in that we have had 70 years to build a base of
experience. Judging by conventional measures, I would say we are a successful
school. In the past two years, graduating seniors have gone on to colleges
like Princeton, Stanford, University of Chicago, Bryn Mawr, Mt. Holyoke, West
Point (yes, a Waldorf grads do go into the military), and many other top
schools. Most importantly, we hear from our alumni that they have a strong
sense of themselves and a desire to make a difference in the world. Does this
mean that younger schools cannot produce these kind of results? Of course
not. Prospective parents should be encouraged to look very closely at any
school and base their decisions on that school's own strengths and weaknesses.
And it is the task of that school to be as forthcoming about the source of its
pedagogy as is possible. (Suggestions from this list have actually been very
helpful to us.)
The suggestion by some on this list that the goal of Waldorf teachers in this
country is to produce anthroposophists is pure hog wash. The assertation is,
unfortunately, as destructive as it is laughable.
I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with all of you.
Best regards.
Robert W. Dandrew, Director of Development
Rudolf Steiner School, NYC
rssnyc aol.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n825.7 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Cults
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:51:09 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807161905.MAA13710 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
) We discuss the philosophy of science here because Steiner's pseudoscience
) appears in Waldorf schools. But PLANS main interests, the appropriateness
) of publicly funded Waldorf and the competence of the Waldorf educational
) system, are not science but questions of public policy and ethics.
)
My point was that PLANS says that WE is religious. That is the working
hypothesis. My experience thus far has been that PLANS hypothesis is indeed
non-falsifiable. What you have then, is unchecked speculation and opinion.e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n825.8 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: children who are racially different from Europeans
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 1998 17:47:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807161905.MAA13762 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
) Could you back this up with some quotes, from Steiner, and from
) contemporary philosophers? Ray McDermott said:
I think that politcal philosophy of the time can be equally misleading. The
likes of Heideggar, Nietzche and others can easily be thought of as racists.
But in fact, all deconstructionalism (and hence derivitive concepts of relative
equality) owes its roots to Nietzche's philosophy of factionalism. Because
Nietzche's philosophy paved the way for our modern conceptualizations of
equality I would assert that none before him could possibly be egalitarian with
regard to culture or political faction. Even the likes of Locke and others who
paved the way for 'self evident truths' did so only with white, male, land
owners in mind.Let's not forget that the de facto medical establishment was
enamored with Gall's phrenology at the time.
) "Steiner's account of the mental capacities and habits of different peoples
) around the world is insensitive. His speculations are surprising in
) comparison to the riches evident in other inquiries by German intellectuals
) interested in nonwestern ways of thinking..."
Could someone please elaborate on what he is talking about here? Confuscianism,
Buddhism etc all are very rigid in their class structures. And I haven't the
foggiest notion as to the identity of these German intellectuals.
) American kids in Nevada City were celebrating Michaelmas while their
) neighbors were celebrating Veterans Day. That's really cult-like.
Celebrating Veterans Day? You mean staying home from school and watching tv.
Furthermore your example is non sequitor. When people celebrates something
other than Christmas this makes them cult-like?e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n825.9 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Re: children who are racially different from Europeans
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 98 22:17:19 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi,
Mr. Calkins wrote:
)However, if one takes a look at his work as a whole, he is in fact far
))ahead of his time when compared to the prevailing opinion with regard race
))of Central Europeans of his day.
Mr. Dugan wrote:
)Could you back this up with some quotes, from Steiner, and from
)contemporary philosophers?
Mr. Steiner said, in 1916 in a lecture entitled "How can the Soul Needs
of the Time be Met?":
"What sort of judgement do we form when we meet another human being? We
like him or we do not like him. Go about in the world, and you will see
that in most cases this is the only judgement, or when several judgements
are made, they are still governed by the same point of view: I like him,
I do not like him, I do not like that quality in him. All a matter of
prejudice! One thinks: man ought to be like this- and if one then sees
that he is different in this or that way, one condemns him. UNLESS THIS
WAY OF LIKING OR DISLIKING A MAN BECAUSE OF ONE'S PREJUDICES, AND ONE'S
SPECIAL PREFERENCES FOR THIS OR THAT KIND OF CHARACTER, IS OVERCOME-AND
UNLESS THE MOOD IS DEVELOPED WHICH TAKES A MAN AS HE IS, NO PROGRESS CAN
BE MADE IN REAL PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE OF MAN(capitals mine)....
Likes and dislikes are the great enemies of real social interests. This
is often not considered. One who knows how necessary is real social
understanding for the future development of mankind, often observes with
a heavy heart those teachers in a school, who because of particular
prejudices, straight away find one of their pupils likeable or not.
That is terrible! It is nesessary to take each one as he is and make the
best of what he is."
In my experience with reading RS, this kind of longing for all people to
accept and understand each other is positively central to his vision of
what our society can be.
Yes, there are times when I say 'Damn, I wish he hadn't said that, this
is just the kind of stuff Dugan loves to sink his teeth into! ;)" But he
did say these things, and I will not attempt to make excuses for him; but
I will say that every rose has thorns, and there are probably some who
dislike them for it---but not many.
Love on y'all,
Charlie Frey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n825.10 ---------------
From: Michael Kopp (mkopp xtra.co.nz)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 21:26:27 +1200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807161505.IAA09058 lists1.best.com)
IMNSHO:
The topic of this mailing list is not abstruse argument about whether
science or spiritualism is better for understanding the Universe, but --
1. whether the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthropsophical educators do or do not use
spiritualist pedagogy throughout their curriculum;
2.if so, what is the effect and effectiveness of it; and
3. whether that is appropriate (particularly in public or public- funded
schools).
This list should also focus on whether Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical
people and institutions are, in advance, fully and properly informing
parents who may enrol children in such an education, of the true nature of
this education, and whether, for that matter, public school authorities who
may adopt the pedagogy are so informed.
That IMNSHO said, let me apologise in advance for the length of this post.
I'd like to once again focus the discussion _about_ science _on_ science,
rather than spiritualism, if I can do so without once againg being
patronised by defenders of the SWA faith who believe they know more about
science from the spiritualist point of view than I do from my materialist
point of view.
John Calkins said:
[Some blah blah blah nada nada nada snipped ...]
)Looking at it the other way around, the argument becomes absurd. Galileo
)through the spiritual activity of thinking comes to the scientific method
)of investigation. Others don't even try not understand his thinking, but
)they see that it "works" so they accept it on faith. Clearly, this
)particular activity of Galileo is not religious, but the acceptance of the
)others is (though this alone is not enough upon which to base a religion).
)I should point out this is not a hypothetical situation.
Michael KOPP says:
Mr Calkins' remarks above are epistemological wanking. (*)
And a continued attempt to present science as a belief system, when it's
just the opposite.
What is your EVIDENCE, Mr Calking, that thinking is [impliedly _only_]
spiritual? There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that it is a
_physical_ activity of the human brain. Or do you know something about
Gallileo's brain that we don't that indicates his thinking was spiritual,
whereas mine, for instance, is not, in my view. And don't tell me that you
know better than I do what the activity inside my own brain is, please.
People accepted modern rationalist science not just because it "worked",
but because enough of them _could_ understand it. More than could
understand superstition. Enough people could follow the rationale of the
method and agree that it and the evidence it produced was real and valid in
their corporeal existence. They further found that it was no longer
necessary to use systems of authority such as religious belief to make some
middling sense of their world.
This is not accepting science "on faith", it is the opposite: accepting the
scientific method for its ability to use skepticism and reason to winnow
out the rubbish (as Carl Sagan said before someone on this list
patronisingly belittled him) from the truth.
If this is "faith", then everything in life has to be taken on faith.
Nothing can be known really.
Which, of course, is just what Mr Calkins and all the other new-age
malcontents want: to believe in nothing real, but rather to believe in six
improbable fantasies before the Age of Aquarius(**) actually comes upon us
(it's some time off yet, astrologically).
Further, these malcontents want to force _all the rest of us_ into
epistemological purgatory where we spend the rest of _our_ days wanking.
They'll tell us that it's up to us to come to this wonderful state of
blissful knowledge of these "higher truths", and they can only be known by
each and every individual coming to their own inner understanding. Which is
to say that you, too, brother, can believe six improbably fantasies before
the Age of Aquarius.
But if we _don't_ agree to their method, and don't see these higher truths,
we're just not trying hard enough, or we just haven't "studied" the
"method" of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy enough, or we just aren't
receptive enough to the "possibilities" of alternate truths. Thusly is
reason dismissed.
And their missionary arm is Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education,
which is, in my experience, designed to make children anti-reasoning. That
is to say, to _avoid_ the use of reason, and favour instead the
conveniently untestable, unsharable, _intuition_.
))) I was recently reminded that materialism, atheism, and other beliefs in
))) the strictly non-spirit nature of the universe often have the same
))) "religious" qualities that you mention above. To name what they often
))) believe: there are no spiritual entities in nature, there is no journey
))) of the soul after death. These are non-objective, faith-based
))) convictions, and these doctrines of faith are often practiced more
))) like a religion than anthroposophy. Does it follow that we should not
))) present the material viewpoint in public schools?
))
))Yes.
KOPP:
NO. It doesn't "follow".
This is another misrepresentation of science and reason. Neither say that
there _are no_ spiritual entities in nature, or that their is no journey of
the soul after death -- and you epistemological bullies know it.
What science and reason say is that there is no _evidence_ for such things,
and that they are beyond the purview of science and reason.
What secular culture, social contract, and law say is that these subjects
are a personal matter, not a matter for the state, and especially *not*
matters for public education.
))If public schools taught that there are no spiritual entities in nature,
)or that there is no journey of the soul after )death, I think that would
)be a violation of the establishment clause.
)
)I agree Steve, but that is not what I am talking about.
)
))Generally speaking, science does not answer spiritual questions one way or
)the other. To answer questions )about the material world with an
)explanation of physical phenomena does not promote atheism or deny the
))existence of spiritual entities. The argument that public schools
)promote the "religion" of materialism is a red )herring.
)
)The fish swims for me. Increasingly so, we have been losing conviction in
)ourselves and have been relying on the "experts" of science to make
)judgments for us.
KOPP:
Maybe for you, Mr Calkins. I don't think that's a supportable -- scientific
-- allegation about the population in general. In fact, it's just the
opposite: new- age mumbo jumbo (everything from Steiner to crystal rubbing
and channeling) is ascendent, and we are (to quote my favourite source on
science, Carl Sagan, yet again) entering a new dark age. Only the fact that
enough erudite people who are in public life accept reason and science as
human goods manages to stave off the constant attacks of the [usually
fundamentalist religious] nutters who are so anti-science that
"creationism", for instance, is gaining equality in "science" teaching. Now
you want us to go the whole hog, and adopt spiritualism!
)Faith that was placed in religion has largely been
)displaced by faith in scientific materialism. Even when we know in our gut
)that something is wrong, often we do not know how to respond to the
)arguments of science. Science has become a religious-like authority to the
)extent that we doubt the validity of any other way of gaining knowledge. I
)think this a fair appraisal of a significant element in today's society, at
)least in the U.S.
KOPP:
Mr Calkins has a new moral instrument: his gut.
I think this is the nub of it for Mr Calkins (a scientist by trade) and
others who keep saying "there must be more to our existence that what meets
the eye": science has become a fall-guy for all the world's ills, the
personal bogeyman of people who never grew out of the child's garden of
fantasy, and formerly rational people become haters of science and reason.
Scientists don't doubt the validity of other ways of "gaining knowledge".
In fact, many of them study, or involve themselves in, art, music,
philosophy, literature, poetry, and even religion. All they ask is that if
someone who uses those methods claims to have found some *truth* about the
world, that it be demonstrable by evidence. Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthropsophy
says that's not possible, that such truths can only be known within us. How
sad that such infinite wisdom is so evanescent that it cannot even be
communicated, much less demonstrated or evidenced. How convenient for the
believer, not to have to prove anything.
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education is certainly anti-science.
And that's fine by me -- as long as it walks, talks and quacks like the
duck that it is, instead of using false advertising, deception of parents,
and duplicity in its curriculum to make it seem like a peacock.
Within the boundaries of state educational requirements -- laws that even
religious people have to live by -- people can send their children to any
kind of loony school they want to. And that's also fine by me.
But Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy should be kept out of the secular arena.
)You are probably right that a court would not recognize
)materialism as a religion (I'm assuming this is your red herring?), but the
)limited view of our legal system should not blind us from the reality of
)the situation we face.
)
)The problem I have is when scientific materialists insist that science be
)taught from the orthodox "scientific" view and none other. (I don't want
)to rehash this too much for the sake of the others, Steve. Since you've
)been on vacation, we can discuss by private e-mail if you don't understand
)my brevity. ) Our "objective" science is in reality _subjectively_ limited
)to that part of reality that exists independent of human consciousness
)(This is a better distinction than the quantitative/qualitative one I
)previously used). Knowledge of the more human side of phenomena is
)accessible to normal consciousness (a smile for instance), but science does
)not know how to deal with it.
KOPP:
All fundamental educational practice relies on orthodoxy, at least in state
school systems. In fact, all disciplines -- including religious ones --
rely on the teaching of orthodoxy first. Even Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposphical religion has its orthodoxy (one part of which is the
guru-trick denial that any orthodoxy exists).
Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical dogma insists that children incarnate in
stages and that their tender young minds and spirits can only be exposed to
ideas in a carefully controlled dribble culminating in the introduction of
abstract reasoning at about age 14. (That's rubbish to me and just about
every other educator and parent who observes children -- but that's another
topic.) In fact this is essentially the spiritual (religious) dogma of
Steiner's world view.
So why is it that Mr Calkins -- and other defenders of the faith -- believe
that something that eminent scholars and scientists usually come to only
late in life or career, after much study of philosophy and other subjects
gives them an adequate erudition for such thinking, should be taught to
_children_?
Why indeed? Because it's a religious missionary zeal to save their souls,
not to teach them better techniques for knowing the world.
Just as science cannot treat of the spiritual (not even to understand a
smile, according to Mr Calkins -- rubbish) the spiritual cannot treat of
the rational -- that is to say, the real world of existence. To argue that
it can is undemonstrable -- there is no evidence.
The difference, again, is that science, for all the hubris people
demonstrate in its employment, admits it cannot, and does not try, to
explain things outside of nature. But spiritualism, which came before
science by a few tens of millennia, and has been largely superceded as a
method of understanding, _still_ claims that it knows better than science
about not just super-nature, but the real world of nature as well!
When even the Church of Rome has given up burning scientists, the new-age
spiritualisms -- like Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophy -- are gathering the
faggots and pounding the stakes into the ground.
Traditionally, all systems of introspection in search of these "higher
realms" are taught only to initiates who sometimes follow the path for
years, going through stages of understanding. Tibetan Buddhism, for
instance, takes up to 40 years of monastic education (notice I said
education, not introspection).
This is the crux of the problem of why Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical/
"pedagogy" cannot be allowed in the secular school system (and why it
should often be sued for false advertising or breach of contract where it
operates private schools).
)In short, there are other ways of knowing
)the world than through the limited scope of science. There is a semantic
)problem here, because I am advocating teaching a subject called 'science'
)from a scientific view in addition to traditionally non-scientific views.
)Please correct me if I am wrong: the view of some critics is to censor
)this way of teaching from a publicly funded school.
KOPP:
It's not a semantic problem, it's a problem of reasoning. You can't turn
spiritualism into science by saying the two are really alike, just somehow
slightly problemmatic "semantically".
In my experience, (***) Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education does
NOT teach science from a scientific view: it teaches pseudo- and
anti-science. I and others have given enough examples here (aside from the
"heart is not a pump") which have *never been refuted* by defenders of the
faith. The most recent was the use of the "*feeling* of a musical" note to
in some way better understand the *physics* of sound, a proper scientific
explanation of which was never offered by the lecturer.
What you are recommending, Mr Calkins, is the teaching that "science" *must
be more than* science, and that religion (spiritualism, knowing "higher
realms, mysticism, esotericism -- mumbo jumbo) can actually tell us
something about the world that is as acceptable to reason as is science.
In fact, the whole purpose of Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical "science"
teaching is to inculcate in children _belief_ that science is _wrong_, and
that intuition -- spiritualism by another name -- is a credible, concrete
method of value in knowing the REAL world.
I doubt that there's a single "critic" on this list who would want "this
way of teaching" in a public school.
NOTES:
(*) In New Zealand, intellectual masturbation. Note that I am applying it
to Mr Calkins' arguments, especially those he gets from Steiner/ Waldorf/
Anthroposophy, not to him personally.
(**) Here's a laugh for all you astrologically-inclined folk: my birthday
is 9 February -- and I'm sure you know what that means. (I don't.)
(***) As opposed to that related by a Waldorf science teacher for whom I
have some respect, Stephen Tonkin, who says his experience as a teacher is
otherwise. I have to take his word for it. But many more people on this
list have said they have had problems with the science, and it is
fundamental to the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical debate. Empirical
educational research is called for.
(In fact, one of the problems with the whole discussion at the moment is
that so few people have a clear picture of just exactly what the Steiner/
Waldorf/ Anthroposophical curriculum consists of, what is the true nature
of its "special character" [as it's called here] and just what is behind it
Anthroposophically. Neither I nor the state Educaional Review Office have
obtained from our former Steiner school a comprehensive answer to these
questions. Who is hiding what?)
Cheers from Godzone,
Michael Kopp
Wellington, New Zealand
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n825 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n826 --------------
001 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: electronics and Ahriman
002 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n823
003 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
004 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
005 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - TV
006 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: children who are racially different from Europeans
007 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: I thought I'd heard it all...
008 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
009 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n825
010 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n826.1 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: electronics and Ahriman
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 08:14:01 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
)Television, computers, and all electronic media are said to be
incarnations
)of Ahriman, the "adversary spirit" who tries to harden and materialize all
)thought. Children must be protected from contact with them. It's ok for
)adults to use Ahrimanic devices when they understand what they are doing
)and are forcing the spirits to do good work.
)
)-Dan Dugan
Said by whom? None of these existed in Steiner's lifetime. If we grant
Steiner's terminology of Ahrimanic being the more earthly, physical
influences and Luciferic being the more lofty, dreamy influences, I cannot
come to this conclusion. I think the Ahrimanic influences of these are
obvious. The abstract theory that goes into the designing of these devices
is far removed from physicality. One can conceive a computer program of
abstract one's and zero's purely mentally. In fact if you look inside a
computer there are no one's and zero's, only electrical, magnetic, and
physical _representations_ of one's and zero's. These are clearly
Luciferic influences. There probably are some people who have the opinion
you cite, but it is not universally accepted within anthroposophy.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n826.2 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n823
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:12:20 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807161505.IAA09060 lists1.best.com) (199807161809.LAA09227 lists1.best.com)
It seems to me that most of this is silly. Take a look at our one dollar bill and tell
me there is no 'religious significance.' Depending on how paranoid someone is, they
will find significance to one degree or another.
e
Robert Tolz wrote:
) However, a recent California case offers some insight. In Alvarado v.
) City of San Jose, 94 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1996), a complaint was brought
) against the City commissioning a 25' high statue of a coiled serpent
) alluding to the Aztec deity of Quetzalcoatl. The District Court granted
) summary judgment to the City, and the District Court's judgment was
) affirmed on appeal.
)
) Let me quote parts of the decision. I'm not going to comment on it,
) but most readers will see how it applies to the PLANS case.
)
) {{{"The district court found at the hearing that the statue had "some
) religious significance," but not enough to prove a constitutional
) violation. In its written order, the court stated that "religious
) significance [by itself] is . . . insufficient to prove a
) constitutional violation." }}}
)
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n826.3 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:17:33 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807161905.MAA13711 lists1.best.com) (199807161943.MAA03266 lists1.best.com)
I think there is some basis in fact for the difference in play between kids that
watch tv and those who do not. Teenage mutant ninja turtles and warbots would not
spring to a child's mind that has been deprived of television. Acting out scenes
from television is much more pantomime than from one's imagination (although one
might argue that the imagination is seeded as well). I could go on, but the
insinuation that parents who don't want their kids around tv babies makes them cult
like is absurd. Just say no.(grin)
e
Robert Tolz wrote:
) Michael Hirsch wrote:
) )
) ) Robert Tolz writes:
) ) )
) ) ) There is in my experience, however, one dogma of an almost "religious"
) ) ) theme that carries through Waldorf education: the almost satanic
) ) ) quality that television seems to hold.
) )
) ) Funny. This is one belief that I am in accord with them pretty
) ) strongly.
)
) I can't disagree that too much television rots the mind, and we do
) severely limit TV. What I have some problem with is the thinking I've
) seen which implies that the first thing to suspect if a child has any
) difficulties whatsoever is the TV. I remember one class parents'
) meeting where I had the sense that some of the parents were afraid their
) children might be tainted by association with any other child who was
) allowed to watch any TV.
) )
) ) The "religious" practice (which they deny) that bothers me is the
) ) wearing of long skirts and dresses by the women. I have never seen
) ) any woman who is associated with Waldorf in any way other than just as
) ) a parent wear pants or a skirt that wasn't long and flowing. I've
) ) also heard them explicitly say that this isn't a requirement, but, I
) ) believe there is strong peer pressure to do so. I know several people
) ) who have been very turned off by this. It made them feel that Waldorf
) ) was too "cultlike".
)
) I've never actually noticed that myself, but I'll keep a lookout.
)
) Bob
)
) --
) Robert Tolz
) Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
) Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
) Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n826.4 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 10:17:52 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Mr. Kopp,
I don't know where you are getting all this new age rubbish from. I don't
even know what "new age" means, so to characterize me as a new ager is not
representative. I agree that many of the things you describe are rubbish.
I don't understand how you ever came to associate them with me. It would
be pointless to go through your posting point by point. I will focus on
the key misunderstandings you have about my thinking.
Kopp:
)The topic of this mailing list is not abstruse argument about whether
)science or spiritualism is better for understanding the Universe, but --
)
)1. whether the Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthropsophical educators do or do not
use
)spiritualist pedagogy throughout their curriculum;
)
)2.if so, what is the effect and effectiveness of it; and
)
)3. whether that is appropriate (particularly in public or public- funded
)schools).
)
)This list should also focus on whether Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical
)people and institutions are, in advance, fully and properly informing
)parents who may enrol children in such an education, of the true nature of
)this education, and whether, for that matter, public school authorities
who
)may adopt the pedagogy are so informed.
In you, D. Dugan, and others actively criticize what you call
"pseudo-science", you have de facto made it a legitimate issue for the
list. It has been used in the argument against public funding of Waldorf
or Waldorf-inspired schools.
)What is your EVIDENCE, Mr Calking, that thinking is [impliedly _only_]
)spiritual? There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that it is a
)_physical_ activity of the human brain. Or do you know something about
)Gallileo's brain that we don't that indicates his thinking was spiritual,
)whereas mine, for instance, is not, in my view. And don't tell me that you
)know better than I do what the activity inside my own brain is, please.
It is not a matter of evidence but of definition. Steiner defines thinking
and other observable yet intangible things as spiritual. I do not dispute
that there is a physical activity in the brain associated with thinking.
There is no conclusive physical evidence to determine whether
1.) thinking is a result of physical processes,
2.) whether the two arise simultaneously, or
3.) whether the physical activity is a result of thinking.
)This is not accepting science "on faith", it is the opposite: accepting
the
)scientific method for its ability to use skepticism and reason to winnow
)out the rubbish (as Carl Sagan said before someone on this list
)patronisingly belittled him) from the truth.
As I have said, if someone accepts science
_without_trying_to_think_it_through_for_themselves_ (without going through
a process similar to the one you describe above), then I call this an
acceptance "on faith". I do not criticize anyone on this list for doing
so, but I have met many people who do accept science on faith.
)In my experience, (***) Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education does
)NOT teach science from a scientific view: it teaches pseudo- and
)anti-science. I and others have given enough examples here (aside from the
)"heart is not a pump") which have *never been refuted* by defenders of the
)faith. The most recent was the use of the "*feeling* of a musical" note to
)in some way better understand the *physics* of sound, a proper scientific
)explanation of which was never offered by the lecturer.
I am not anti-science. In fact more than likely I will teach science from
a scientific view (as well as others). I don't know what this particular
lecturer had in mind, but I can tell you how I see it. I agree that the
feeling is not part of the physics of sound waves, but it is part of the
phenomenon of humans hearing sounds. Do you disagree? Who has not
experienced these feelings?
)Just as science cannot treat of the spiritual (not even to understand a
)smile, according to Mr Calkins -- rubbish) the spiritual cannot treat of
)the rational -- that is to say, the real world of existence. To argue that
)it can is undemonstrable -- there is no evidence.
)
)The difference, again, is that science, for all the hubris people
)demonstrate in its employment, admits it cannot, and does not try, to
)explain things outside of nature. But spiritualism, which came before
)science by a few tens of millennia, and has been largely superceded as a
)method of understanding, _still_ claims that it knows better than science
)about not just super-nature, but the real world of nature as well!
I never said that a spiritual (again using Steiner's definition)
understanding is better, it is only different from the physical view. One
can only speak with authority of only those things that one can observe or
experience for oneself, physical or non-physical. For me and most other
people, among these things are our thoughts, feelings, sensations, and
other intangibles observable from normal consciousness. Why would you want
to exclude these realities from the understanding of phenomena? To
emphasize, I can only know about those things I can observe for myself.
This is the approach I would advocate for teaching the sciences, everything
starts from the direct observations of the students (of course in a
developmentally appropriate manner).
To illustrate my point Michael, can you to show me in a rigorously
scientific way, including _direct_physical_evidence_, that within a shadow
of a doubt you see colors in the specific way that you do, and similarly
demonstrate that you see them in a same or different manner than another
person. To help you get started on this, even though two people may agree
that red is red and blue is blue, it is very possible they experience the
colors in different manners.
You may view these epistemological arguments as far removed from reality,
but I have demonstrated here (the above example relates to colorblindedness
and color imaging) and elsewhere that they have practical everyday
significance.
As a final request, I would ask that you don't try to pin these mystical
superstitions on me. It is not how I am.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n826.5 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: TV
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 98 10:17:24 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Hiya,
Somebody wrote(Sorry for not giving credit, the snips get pretty deep!) :
) I remember one class parents'
)) meeting where I had the sense that some of the parents were afraid their
)) children might be tainted by association with any other child who was
)) allowed to watch any TV.
This is absurd IM-sometimes-HO. It seems to me that none of the problems
associated with TV
(physical, spiritual or otherwise) can be passed from one child to the
next and I seriously doubt that even the most hard-core dogmatic
Anthroposophist(yes, it happens) would think so.
Much of the purpose of limiting/eliminating TV is to allow a child to
create her own mental pictures during play--imagination is hindered when
a child uses pre-formatted "imaginations".
This is not contagious.
If a Waldorf parent or teacher uses Waldorf,Anthroposophy, or Steiner to
somehow remove their children or themselves from society at large, they
have failed to understand some of the most basic tenets of Anthroposophy
and Waldorf education.
Peace,
Charlie Frey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n826.6 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: children who are racially different from Europeans
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 12:02:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Dugan:
)Could you back this up with some quotes, from Steiner, and from
)contemporary philosophers?
See the posting of my good friend Charlie Frey. Thanks for the backup,
Charlie!
)Calkins:
))Virtually everything Steiner said in his
))thousands of lectures has been written down. Who among us would like to
be
))held accountable for everything he or she has said? (I know I certainly
))would not). Steiner is not infallible. He also said that elephants die
in
))caves. (I simply do not believe this is true.)
Dugan:
)I commend your healthy attitude. Steiner claimed to have made "exact
)scientific observation" of the "spirit world." He said that errors crept
in
)only because spiritual experiences had to be translated to ordinary
)sense-perceptible language.
I agree with your statement except perhaps the use of the word "only".
Steiner also said that all human observation (the observation itself, not
the translation), spiritual or otherwise, is subject to error. We all make
errors. If Steiner actually used "only" in this context, I would see it as
either Steiner's error or a lack of understanding of the context on my
part. This is why it is important to look at one's work as a whole before
making a judgment.
)I suspect covering up has already been done in some of the English
)translations, and definitely in the choice of what is and is not
)translated. I don't think it's courage, I think the Anthroposophists have
)let some racist things leak through because they didn't expect anybody
)would object.
This is all pure speculation. It is a simple enough matter to check
Steiner's original texts. I don't know for certain, but I imagine
Steiner's work exists in its original form. If you are so concerned with a
particular book or lecture that has not been translated, you can always go
back to the German. There is a practical matter too. Steiner's work is so
voluminous, it is a great task to skilfully translate (meaning to convey
his original meaning) everything he wrote and said.
))Another issue
))arises with what to do at a Waldorf school in Kenya or Thailand?
Certainly
))it is not appropriate to have the same festivals that are celebrated in
))schools in Germany. This situation illustrates the challenge to take the
))core, the very essence of Waldorf education and applying it in a
different
))culture. There are no formulas. The teachers must contemplate on how
they
))can fulfil the developmental needs of the children within the richness of
))their culture.
)I agree completely, but this means departing from Steiner, doesn't it?
From
)him, you only get -the festivals-, which he claims are universal. Like,
)everybody should celebrate Michaelmas because Michael is the Ruler of the
)Earth. American kids in Nevada City were celebrating Michaelmas while
their
)neighbors were celebrating Veterans Day. That's really cult-like.
I am only half way through my training, but I will try to help you
understand this essence. I'm sure more experienced Waldorf teachers can
give you a better description. In another culture, one still begins with
the image of the child incarnating into the body (as a whole). For me I
can only observe this incarnation indirectly in the physical, artistic, and
intellectual development of the human being, though I find Steiner's image
useful. Steiner gave much more than the festivals. All the subjects,
music, art, literature, etc. can be taught drawing from the cultural
resources of a given place. The challenge is to do so in a manner
consistent with the child's development.
))-Again, I have related as best I can what is taught to future Waldorf
))teachers.
)
)You've related your attitude, which I appreciate, but without any detail
or
)documentation of what is taught at Sunbridge. Could we see course syllabi
)and reading lists, please?
I cannot document much of what is taught, because much of it is orally
presented. This is why we have teachers. The best book cannot anticipate
all questions or sense the immediate mood or need of the student. You will
have to take my word for it. The reading list for the first year includes
the standard books, "Theosophy", "Philosophy of Freedom", "How to Know
Higher Worlds", are the primary ones. The range of courses for the first
year is quite extensive; I'll try to remember as many as I can:
Theosophy, Philosophy of Freedom, eurythmy, painting, sculpture, music,
bio-dynamic gardening, evolution of consciousness, projective geometry,
Shakespeare, Parzival, Greek philosophy, drama, speech formation,
astronomy, observation, handwork, and many others. The second year has a
strong pedagogical emphasis balanced with artistic work, but I cannot list
those courses in detail.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n826.7 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: I thought I'd heard it all...
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 12:05:32 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (78332612 toto.iv)
RSSNYC aol.com writes:
) If any of you were to come to the school here in New York City, you'd see
) teachers wearing all kinds of clothing. As is the case in New York, it is not
) uncommon to see the women who work here in skirts above the knee, even _black_
) skirts (the favorite "uniform" for our City). Are we less of a Waldorf school
) because our teachers don't wear prairie dresses and Birkenstocks? This
) perceived Waldorf teacher uniform seems to me to be more reflective of a
) local, cultural preference than a dictum from the holy master.
That's very interesting. Both of the list members (including myself)
who have commented the "long skirt" cult are from Atlanta. I'd be
interested in the experiences of others from other places. How about
it folks? Is the Atlanta school, or the NYC school more
representative of the clothing worn by teachers at Waldorf schools?
I do find it interesting that when we met the new teacher (her first
teaching job) she was dressed that way, too.
) One of the most important aspects of Waldorf education that this list points
) out so well is that not all Waldorf schools are the same. To make sweeping
) criticisms of anything from dress codes to the way all subjects are taught is
) tricky business, and it is also unfair.
True. And thank you for pointing out that it isn't universal. That's
why we subscribe to lists like this, to get views and opinions from
around the world.
) Yes, we suffer from a lack of quantifiable statistics on Waldorf education,
) but heresay from list members on unfortunate instances in what appear to be
) developing schools should not be the basis for general characterization. Our
) school is fortunate in that we have had 70 years to build a base of
) experience.
Well, that brings up an interesting question: Why is it that you don't
have quantifiable statistics? I would think that after 70 years you
would have a large enough population to have done some meaningful
follow up on your graduates. Every school I know at least tries to
keep track of where their students go immediately after graduation.
Don't you? What percentage to to college? What kind of college to
they go to? How does it compare to other private schools from NYC?
As Director of Development for your school I expect you would have the
answers to all these questions at you fingertips.
More difficult are the even more interesting questions of what majors
they chose, how far they went in their education and what careers they
ended up in. After 70 years I would think you would have done this
study once or twice.
Since Waldorf students bond so closely with their schools, I imagine
you would have a very high response rate if you sent our
questionnaires.
And even if your school hasn't done such a study, why hasn't the
umbrella organization done one? These questions are standard
questions asked by almost every concerned parent at orientation.
Surely there is utility in them for recruitment purposes.
) I appreciate the opportunity to share these thoughts with all of you.
)
) Best regards.
)
) Robert W. Dandrew, Director of Development
) Rudolf Steiner School, NYC
) rssnyc aol.com
And I appreciate you taking the time to respond. It is good to know
that we have people on this list that can speak with some authority on
some of these issues. I hope you will not hesitate to give us your
perspective.
Regards,
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n826.8 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 09:13:34 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199807171415.HAA21365 lists1.best.com)
On 17 Jul 98, at 10:17, John Calkins wrote:
) Kopp:
) )What is your EVIDENCE, Mr Calking, that thinking is [impliedly _only_]
) )spiritual? There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that it is a
) )_physical_ activity of the human brain. Or do you know something about
) )Gallileo's brain that we don't that indicates his thinking was spiritual,
) )whereas mine, for instance, is not, in my view. And don't tell me that
) )you know better than I do what the activity inside my own brain is,
) )please.
)
) It is not a matter of evidence but of definition. Steiner defines
) thinking and other observable yet intangible things as spiritual.
But to most people, "spiritual" means relating to matters of the
spirit which are separate from physical reality. If "spiritual" is
defined in anthroposophy to include thinking, emotion, and
perception, regardless of whether they are essentially physical
activities, then communication between anthroposophists and non-
anthroposophists becomes more difficult.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n826.9 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n825
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 12:53:19 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807170927.CAA12236 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Television, computers, and all electronic media are said to be incarnations
) of Ahriman, the "adversary spirit" who tries to harden and materialize all
) thought. Children must be protected from contact with them. It's ok for
) adults to use Ahrimanic devices when they understand what they are doing
) and are forcing the spirits to do good work.
Except that television, computers and all electronic media did not
exist in Steiner's time.
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n826.10 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 13:33:16 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Steve Premo:
)But to most people, "spiritual" means relating to matters of the
)spirit which are separate from physical reality. If "spiritual" is
)defined in anthroposophy to include thinking, emotion, and
)perception, regardless of whether they are essentially physical
)activities, then communication between anthroposophists and non-
)anthroposophists becomes more difficult.
I acknowledge the difficulty, but to me it is fundamental to anthroposophy
that the spiritual are not necessarily far-off mystical entities that we
cannot perceive. This is why I have tried to be clear about Steiner's
definition. Perhaps there are words we can agree upon as modifiers to
"spiritual" to distinguish between those parts which are and are not
observable through normal consciousness. Personally, I think anthroposophy
is more approachable once one realizes "spiritual" can refer to these
ordinary experiences. Consequently once this initial hurdle is overcome,
it makes further communication that much easier.
John Calkins
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n826 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n827 --------------
001 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
002 - Gary Meier (meierg pt.Cya - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n826
003 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n826
004 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
005 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
006 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
007 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n827.1 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:05:29 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
David Gower:
)Does this mean that anthroposophic theories can accurately predict
behaviour
)outside of scientific validity?
)What is the anthroposophic meaning of a smile.
)From my point of view, there are no anthroposophic theories or
anthroposophical meanings, only individual ones or collective individual
ones. You probably would get ten different answers from ten
anthroposophists.
David, the reason this topic has arisen is because Waldorf education has
been criticized for not being scientific in the sciences. I will forward
you the recent postings related to this topic. Personally I don't have the
desire to rehash this subject in the way you would like to.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n827.2 ---------------
From: Gary Meier (meierg pt.Cyanamid.COM)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n826
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 98 14:35:34 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807171729.KAA21420 lists1.best.com)
)That's very interesting. Both of the list members (including myself)
)who have commented the "long skirt" cult are from Atlanta. I'd be
)interested in the experiences of others from other places. How about
)it folks? Is the Atlanta school, or the NYC school more
)representative of the clothing worn by teachers at Waldorf schools?
)
)I do find it interesting that when we met the new teacher (her first
)teaching job) she was dressed that way, too.
)
)) One of the most important aspects of Waldorf education that this list points
)) out so well is that not all Waldorf schools are the same.
I'll add my observations about three Waldorf schools my son has visited or
attended in the Princeton, NJ area. I've met about 10 teachers and
assistants at the three locations (all women), and all wear the "uniform"
whenever I've seen them, at school, at the end-of-year picnic, at the
endless fundraising events, and from a couple of observations, at home.
I've never observed an exception. For that matter, a "uniform" was
specified for my son. No clothes or personal items with words, logos,
pictures, or insignias on them.
Ever try to find a lunch box for a 4-year old without a picture on it?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n827.3 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n826
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 14:42:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807171729.KAA21420 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman wrote:
)
) It seems to me that most of this is silly. Take a look at our one dollar bill and tell
) me there is no 'religious significance.' Depending on how paranoid someone is, they
) will find significance to one degree or another.
) e
)
) Robert Tolz wrote:
)
) ) However, a recent California case offers some insight. In Alvarado v.
) ) City of San Jose, 94 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 1996), a complaint was brought
) ) against the City commissioning a 25' high statue of a coiled serpent
) ) alluding to the Aztec deity of Quetzalcoatl. The District Court granted
) ) summary judgment to the City, and the District Court's judgment was
) ) affirmed on appeal.
I think the Court thought the plaintiff was being silly, too:
{{{ We are hard put to imagine a more unworkable definition of
religion or religious symbol or believer for purposes of the
Establishment Clause or Free Exercise n6 than that which is offered
here. Few governmental activities could escape censure under a
constitutional definition of "religion" which includes any symbol or
belief to which an individual ascribes "serious or almost-serious"
spiritual significance. "If anything can be religion, then anything the
government does can be construed as favoring one religion over another,
and . . . the government is paralyzed. . }}}
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n827.4 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: 17 Jul 1998 18:07:43 -0400
The main problem with the teacher training, as I see it, is that it
may violate the rights of the teachers. If public school teachers are
taught that Steiner had these beliefs about reincarnation, the
etheric body, the astral body, and so on, and that these beliefs led
him to formulate this methodology, that would probably be fine.
On the other hand, if the teaching is in the nature of religious
indoctrination, e.g., if reincarnation and these other concepts are
presented to the teachers as the factual basis which underlies the
pedagogy, that would violate the rights of the teachers.
Steve
Could you explain how the presenting of ideas that are the factual basis of a
pedagogy (and I read that to mean that it is a fact that they are ideas that
underlie the pedagogy) violates the rights of teachers?
I can see how you might mean something, else but that is not the way i read
it.
If I say that the ideas of supply and demand are the "factual basis for a
pedagogy" about economics, am I also violating teachers rights?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n827.5 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 15:33:57 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199807172208.PAA25708 lists1.best.com)
On 17 Jul 98, at 18:07, Luke Schelly wrote:
)Steve Premo wrote:
)) The main problem with the teacher training, as I see it, is that it
)) may violate the rights of the teachers. If public school teachers are
)) taught that Steiner had these beliefs about reincarnation, the etheric
)) body, the astral body, and so on, and that these beliefs led him to
)) formulate this methodology, that would probably be fine.
))
)) On the other hand, if the teaching is in the nature of religious
)) indoctrination, e.g., if reincarnation and these other concepts are
)) presented to the teachers as the factual basis which underlies the
)) pedagogy, that would violate the rights of the teachers.
)
) Could you explain how the presenting of ideas that are the factual basis
) of a pedagogy (and I read that to mean that it is a fact that they are
) ideas that underlie the pedagogy) violates the rights of teachers?
No, that's not what I mean. I'm saying that if the teachers are
instructed, say, that reading should not be taught before third grade
because the etheric body is not yet sufficiently developed, and that
teaching reading in first grade will interfere with the incarnation of
the child's soul and have repercussions in subsequent incarnations
of the child's soul, that is religious indoctrination. Public
employees cannot be compelled to undergo religious indoctrination
as a condition of employment.
If, on the other hand, the teachers are instructed that in the Waldorf
system, reading is taught in third grade, and that the underlying
reason for this is that Steiner had these beliefs about reincarnation,
that would be fine.
(I do not claim this to be an accurate representation of either the
views of Steiner, the age at which reading is taught, or the
instruction that is presented to public school teachers in the
Waldorf method.)
Sorry if I was unclear.
) If I say that the ideas of supply and demand are the "factual basis for a
) pedagogy" about economics, am I also violating teachers rights?
Of course not.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n827.6 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 01:05:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807161715.KAA02881 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807161857.LAA10652 lists1.best.com)
)AWSNA stands for Association of Waldorf Schools of North
)America. I don't know whether they have registered "Waldorf" as a
)trademark.
They have, but they don't seem to be pursuing violations.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n827.7 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 01:14:21 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (77374598 toto.iv) (199807151210.FAA01940 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807161615.JAA19554 lists1.best.com)
Michael, you wrote,
)The "religious" practice (which they deny) that bothers me is the
)wearing of long skirts and dresses by the women. I have never seen
)any woman who is associated with Waldorf in any way other than just as
)a parent wear pants or a skirt that wasn't long and flowing. I've
)also heard them explicitly say that this isn't a requirement, but, I
)believe there is strong peer pressure to do so. I know several people
)who have been very turned off by this. It made them feel that Waldorf
)was too "cultlike".
"The clothing of the kindergarten teacher is also of great importance. The
draping of Greek garments or the robes still worn in the Middle East by men
are all a picture of the etheric body. This is also why angels are always
portrayed with robes."
[Almon, Joan. "Understanding Imitation through a Deeper Look at Human
Development: A Lecture by Joop van Dam (summary of lecture by Joan Almon)"
Waldorf Kindergarten Newsletter. Fall 1994. Silver Spring, MD: Waldorf
Kindergarten Association of North America, p. 6]
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n827 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n828 --------------
001 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n827
002 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n827
003 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Quantifying Waldorf
004 - "Luke Schelly" (lschelly -
005 - "David E. Gower" (dgower - RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
006 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n828.1 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n827
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 12:03:44 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807181810.LAA10843 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
) No, that's not what I mean. I'm saying that if the teachers are
) instructed, say, that reading should not be taught before third grade
) because the etheric body is not yet sufficiently developed, and that
) teaching reading in first grade will interfere with the incarnation of
) the child's soul and have repercussions in subsequent incarnations
) of the child's soul, that is religious indoctrination. Public
) employees cannot be compelled to undergo religious indoctrination
) as a condition of employment.
)
) If, on the other hand, the teachers are instructed that in the Waldorf
) system, reading is taught in third grade, and that the underlying
) reason for this is that Steiner had these beliefs about reincarnation,
) that would be fine.
)
) (I do not claim this to be an accurate representation of either the
) views of Steiner, the age at which reading is taught, or the
) instruction that is presented to public school teachers in the
) Waldorf method.)
)
) Sorry if I was unclear.
Steve,
I understand your distinction and agree with it. Taking the discussion
out of the realm of the speculative, do you have any idea which approach
is actually used in training public school teachers for the Waldorf
method?
Bob
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n828.2 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Digest waldorf-critics.v001.n827
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 10:55:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199807191606.JAA18018 lists1.best.com)
On 19 Jul 98,, Robert Tolz wrote:
) Taking the discussion
) out of the realm of the speculative, do you have any idea which approach
) is actually used in training public school teachers for the Waldorf
) method?
Not directly. I have the impression from reading Kathy's posts that she felt she
was being compelled to submit to indoctrination, but I don't recall what she said
specifically about the training she received.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n828.3 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Quantifying Waldorf
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 98 22:10:43 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Michael Hirsch wrote:
)
)
)Well, that brings up an interesting question: Why is it that you don't
)have quantifiable statistics? I would think that after 70 years you
)would have a large enough population to have done some meaningful
)follow up on your graduates. Every school I know at least tries to
)keep track of where their students go immediately after graduation.
)Don't you? What percentage to to college? What kind of college to
)they go to? How does it compare to other private schools from NYC?
)
)As Director of Development for your school I expect you would have the
)answers to all these questions at you fingertips.
)
)More difficult are the even more interesting questions of what majors
)they chose, how far they went in their education and what careers they
)ended up in. After 70 years I would think you would have done this
)study once or twice.
)
)Since Waldorf students bond so closely with their schools, I imagine
)you would have a very high response rate if you sent our
)questionnaires.
)
)And even if your school hasn't done such a study, why hasn't the
)umbrella organization done one? These questions are standard
)questions asked by almost every concerned parent at orientation.
)Surely there is utility in them for recruitment purposes.
)
Before I start, please take fully into account that I am not a Waldorf
teacher, nor am I an expert in Waldorf education; I do, though, have a
certain amount of experience and training in these matters that posesses
me with just enough knowledge to get myself in trouble ;) .
O.K....so I know this may sound a little "airey-fairy", as one of my
friends calls me,
but I do not feel that Waldorf education is about "quantifiable
statistics" as*our*educational*establishment*have*set*up.
Waldorf education has been referred to as "education for freedom", and
for better or worse, there is just no quantifiable 'freedom quotient'.
Quantifiable statistics have given us examinations and competition and
led us to place some children over(and under) others, and it can be a
tragedy. Things like 'percentiles' serve only to turn children into bar
graphs and pie charts.
If someone wants to put their children in the"right" pre-school and the
"right" kindergarten, etc. so they can get the "right" job and live in
the right house and drive the right car....if these are the yardsticks
for success; these are things that depend on 'quantifiable statistics"; I
would say that they would not be pleased with the methods of education at
a Waldorf school where testing and homework are kept to a bare minimum.
If parents think they may be interested in Waldorf shcooling for their
children, I would suggest that they visit a school, visit some classes,
see and hear the incredible art that virtually ALL kids are capable of,
look through some main lesson books, talk to some students and
parents(there are always many willing to help) and decide whether or not
this is what you want for your child's education.
Yes, this takes a LOT of time and effort, but SAT scores and 'who went
to which college'
say nothing about what kind of PEOPLE are emerging from a school.
I think that statistics may even take the place of careful research and
lead to hasty decisions when choosing a school. We can't rule out the
possibility of a bunch of really unhappy, overworked kids with really
high SAT scores who went on to be really unhappy, overworked surgeons and
law partners. I really don't mean to sound so one-sided, nor do I mean to
demonize the wealthy or intelligent, I'm just trying to illustrate that
we are all first and foremost PEOPLE--- husbands and wives and sons and
daughters, and there is *nothing in this world* that a school can show
anyone to prove how successful their students are at being these things.
I have long suspected that many parents take more time reading the
manual for their new car or VCR than they have researching the school
they are sending their kids to. And don't get me wrong, Waldorf parents
are not immune to this. We *all* need to be very awake to ourselves and
our children when we make such huge decisions for them.
Hopefully forums such as this help us make clear decisions while we keep
an open mind and neither blindly condemn nor follow any movement.
Peace,
Charlie Frey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n828.4 ---------------
From: "Luke Schelly" (lschelly JackRouse.com)
Subject:
Date: 19 Jul 1998 22:12:10 -0400
)That's very interesting. Both of the list members (including myself)
)who have commented the "long skirt" cult are from Atlanta. I'd be
)interested in the experiences of others from other places. How about
)it folks? Is the Atlanta school, or the NYC school more
)representative of the clothing worn by teachers at Waldorf schools?
)
At the Cincinnati Waldorf School, all the grade school teachers wear/wore
slacks and vests and sweaters as well as dresses. (This past year, N through
3/4 grades, all the lead teachers were female, except for the extended care
lead. Next year, the new first grade teacher is male.) The school brochure,
which was put together by a parent/graphic artist three years ago years, shows
two of the teachers, one in green jeans(gasp!) and a vest and one in nicer
slacks. In the Nursery and Kindergarten, I mostly notice the teachers wearing
smocks or aprons; probably with a dress underneath, but not always.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n828.5 ---------------
From: "David E. Gower" (dgower interhop.net)
Subject: RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 23:26:37 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (199807171801.LAA17765 lists1.best.com)
) -----Original Message-----
) From: waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com
) [mailto:waldorf-critics-errors lists.best.com]On Behalf Of
) 469593N knotes.kodak.com
) Sent: 17-Jul-98 14:05
) To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
) Subject: RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
)
)
) From: John Calkins
)
) David Gower:
) )Does this mean that anthroposophic theories can accurately predict
) behaviour
) )outside of scientific validity?
So from what follows below, the answer to this question is - No.
)
) )What is the anthroposophic meaning of a smile.
)
) )From my point of view, there are no anthroposophic theories or
) anthroposophical meanings, only individual ones or collective individual
) ones. You probably would get ten different answers from ten
) anthroposophists.
OK, give me your answer and that of nine other anthroposophists.
)
) David, the reason this topic has arisen is because Waldorf education has
) been criticised for not being scientific in the sciences. I will forward
) you the recent postings related to this topic. Personally I
) don't have the
) desire to rehash this subject in the way you would like to.
I read them the first time (have been on this list for about 1 year) and
found that he didn't "hash" the subject in question at all. Please
enlighten me by answering the above two queries.
**************************************************************************
Opinions, comments, etc. are my own and all original material is:
Copyright 1998 by David E. Gower. All Rights Reserved.
Contact: dgower interhop.net
_!_
_______(_)_______
"Old pilots never die, they just move on to a different plane"
**************************************************************************
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n828.6 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: RE: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 08:25:05 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
))
)) David Gower:
)) )Does this mean that anthroposophic theories can accurately predict
)) behaviour
)) )outside of scientific validity?
)
)So from what follows below, the answer to this question is - No.
In my opinion the question is meaningless, since I do not believe an
anthroposophical theory can exist. Now if you ask whether theories derived
from methods similar to Goethe's can predict behavior, the short answer is
yes, they can. However to understand Goethe's way of seeing the world is
not a short process (it is not possible within the context of this list),
and this query and response do not even begin to capture his ideas. If you
are really interested in learning about ways of looking at the world
outside of the scientific one, read one of the many books on Goethean
science. The one I would recommend is "Goethe's Way of Science" edited by
Seamon and Zajonc, a collection of essays offering the views of many
individuals. It is published by a non-anthroposophical press (SUNY Press,
that is State University of New York), and as far as I can see, many of the
authors appear to have little to no connection with anthroposophy, though
some are directly connected.
))
)) )What is the anthroposophic meaning of a smile.
))
)) )From my point of view, there are no anthroposophic theories or
)) anthroposophical meanings, only individual ones or collective individual
)) ones. You probably would get ten different answers from ten
)) anthroposophists.
)
)OK, give me your answer and that of nine other anthroposophists.
We would have to agree on a particular, living smile for me to do so,
otherwise the answer would be hypothetical. Here is my answer: "My nephew
was smiling this weekend because he enjoyed it when I was swinging him
around." I cannot give you a scientific explanation for why he smiles or
why he likes it, but nothing anyone can say can convince me that this is
not true. In fact I am more confident of its truth than any theory of
science.
)Please
)enlighten me by answering the above two queries.
I suspect that you may not be satisfied with these responses. Part of the
difficulty is in overcoming our habits of thought so that we can look at
things from a different perspective. If one tries to understand Goethe's
view of the world from the usual scientific viewpoint, he is not going to
get very far.
I don't know if there is much more I can say to help you to understand
within this context. Again, the best I can recommend is to read one of the
books if you are serious about understanding this issue.
John Calkins
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n828 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n829 --------------
001 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Quantifying Waldorf
002 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Quantifying Waldorf
003 - RSSNYC aol.com - Re: More Statistics on Waldorf
004 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Everyone needs a thneed
005 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: More Statistics on Waldorf
006 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Everyone needs a thneed
007 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - teachers' clothing
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n829.1 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Quantifying Waldorf
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 13:52:11 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (75501144 toto.iv)
ckzfrey writes:
) Michael Hirsch wrote:
) )
) )Well, that brings up an interesting question: Why is it that you don't
) )have quantifiable statistics? I would think that after 70 years you
) )would have a large enough population to have done some meaningful
) )follow up on your graduates. Every school I know at least tries to
) )keep track of where their students go immediately after graduation.
) )Don't you? What percentage to to college? What kind of college to
) )they go to? How does it compare to other private schools from NYC?
)
) O.K....so I know this may sound a little "airey-fairy", as one of my
) friends calls me,
) but I do not feel that Waldorf education is about "quantifiable
) statistics" as*our*educational*establishment*have*set*up.
) Waldorf education has been referred to as "education for freedom", and
) for better or worse, there is just no quantifiable 'freedom quotient'.
)
) Quantifiable statistics have given us examinations and competition and
) led us to place some children over(and under) others, and it can be a
) tragedy. Things like 'percentiles' serve only to turn children into bar
) graphs and pie charts.
Well, sure. I think any parent seriously looking at Waldorf education
for their child is or ought to be aware of that. If Waldorf is really
as good as claimed as I would expect the results to show:
1) Many students do go on to good elite competitive colleges, but
2) Fewer go on to elite competitive colleges than from other high
quality, but standard, private high schools
3) Many student go to non-traditional schools such as the New School,
Reed, U.C. Santa Cruz) or more artistic institutions like
art/music colleges.
4) Some don't go to post-secondary institutions.
In a 10 year followup I would expect
5) A significant number in professional positions (probably fewer than
from the other private high schools)
6) A significant number in less financially rewarding positions that
are more emotionally/intellectually rewarding such as artist/teacher/
social worker/gardener/etc.
IMHO, if these results were true Waldorf could point to them and say
"See, our education really does work." As it is, it can only say "If
it seems like a good school to you, then it must be a good school."
) If parents think they may be interested in Waldorf shcooling for their
) children, I would suggest that they visit a school, visit some classes,
) see and hear the incredible art that virtually ALL kids are capable of,
) look through some main lesson books, talk to some students and
) parents(there are always many willing to help) and decide whether or not
) this is what you want for your child's education.
I don't think you can completely ignore the outside world. What if it
turned out that most Waldorf students ended up unemployed,
unemployable, and unhappy (not something I consider likely). Wouldn't
this mean that the school is inadequate, no matter how wonderful the
children's artwork?
Heck, it would be easy to stick in some good non-quantifiable
non-scientific questions in a survey like "Are you happy?" and "Are
you glad you have a Waldorf education?". If it turns out that 90% are
bitter about it 10 years later, would you want to send your kids
there? As it is, we have to rely on anecdotal evidence. At my
orientation we certainly had teachers and Waldorf grads claiming that
lots of students go on to good colleges and that colleges love Waldorf
students. If they are going to make the claim anyway, why not
quantify it?
) Yes, this takes a LOT of time and effort, but SAT scores and 'who went
) to which college'
) say nothing about what kind of PEOPLE are emerging from a school.
Well, I would say it says _something_ but maybe not what some people
would have us believe. It says little about quality of life.
) I think that statistics may even take the place of careful research and
) lead to hasty decisions when choosing a school.
And yet, I find it impossible to do the kind of research I want to do.
Suppose I asked for a list of all the graduates in the last 10 years.
Do they even have this? Do they make it public? Furthermore, the
next person would also have to do this.
) We can't rule out the
) possibility of a bunch of really unhappy, overworked kids with really
) high SAT scores who went on to be really unhappy, overworked surgeons and
) law partners.
So why not do a survey that covers these issues? Ask people if they
are overworked (or at least how much they work). Every young lawyer I
know would say they work too much, but fewer of the artists would say
this. A good survey would cover some questions that the elite private
schools might be afraid to ask.
By not doing even rudimentary surveying of their students it appears
that either
a) Waldorf is afraid of the results looking bad,
b) Waldorf doesn't really care what happens to its students,
c) Waldorf is opposed to any attempt to pigeonhole its student and
feels that this would do so,
d) Waldorf has a kneejerk reaction against any use of
scientific/objective techniques.
a) is the most obvious. I'm sure it would be denied whether it is
true or not.
b) I'm sure is not true. I think the teachers are probably the most
caring people I've ever met.
c) is my attempt to paraphrase your thoughts. It may well be true,
but I think that it is misguided. By doing a thoughtful study they
could probably come up with some very interesting results.
d) is in some ways just a nasty way of phrasing c)--they differ only
in degree, not kind. It would be nice to have some examples
demonstrating that it is false.
I think a well thought out study that asks both factual and spiritual
questions would be a real service to the parents, and probably serve
as a good recruitment tool for Waldorf, without dehumanizing the
students.
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n829.2 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Quantifying Waldorf
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 15:30:08 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Michael Hirsch:
)By not doing even rudimentary surveying of their students it appears
)that either
)a) Waldorf is afraid of the results looking bad,
)b) Waldorf doesn't really care what happens to its students,
)c) Waldorf is opposed to any attempt to pigeonhole its student and
) feels that this would do so,
)d) Waldorf has a kneejerk reaction against any use of
) scientific/objective techniques.
e) A lack of funding,
f) Waldorf schools question the usefulness of such an effort since
it is difficult to infer individual motives from the
results of a survey
I specifically listed f) because I believe that in good faith Michael
attempted to attribute motives to why such a survey has not been done, yet
he missed two credible possibilities. No doubt there are others I too have
missed. When analyzing the results of a survey, how can we be certain not
to misinterpret the motives behind the responses? This is especially
relevant when dealing with a group of individuals that has been trained to
look at the world in an unconventional manner.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n829.3 ---------------
From: RSSNYC aol.com
Subject: Re: More Statistics on Waldorf
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 15:27:58 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
As Michael pointed out, in my last (and first!) posting, I stated that "we
suffer from a lack of quantifiable statistics on Waldorf education." I did not
mean to suggest that the New York City Steiner School keeps no statistics on
its graduates. Rather, I was referring to the lack of academic research
studies on the results of Waldorf education in this country - the kind of
certifiable "proof" that so many list members have asked for.
On a formal basis, our school keeps track of all its graduating seniors the
first year after graduation. We have also conducted surveys of reunion
classes at various anniversaries of their graduations. On a more informal
basis, our college guidance counselor also keeps up with graduates and
produces periodic reports on classes' progress.
I'd like to do my best to respond to Michael's questions about colleges,
majors and careers. If my assistant weren't on vacation, I could get her to
scan in the reports I'm about to type; it would save me a lot of time and you
all a lot of frustration in trying to read my jumbled attempt at report
layout. I'd like to frame this response with the following: college
acceptances and SAT scores are but one layer of assessment for us. There are
some within the Waldorf network who shun an emphasis on test scores, etc. as a
measure of success, but our school likes to report both "the hard facts" and
the wonderful stories of happy, accomplished alumni. Personally, I feel that,
while we all want to see our graduates turn into happy 40-year olds, Waldorf
education has to stand on its merits on all fronts.
Private schools in Manhattan place a strong focus on college preparation, and
we are no exception. Fortunately, our school is on par with our neighboring
schools with respect to college placement. I'd like to add that most schools
I have encountered are no further along than we are in their efforts to
collect alumni data. Our school is relatively new to the building of an
alumni data base, so we are a few years away from broad based surveys that
actually reach all our graduates. We have big plans, though, and I'll be
happy to keep you posted as research progresses.
We have had a 100% college placement rate for at least the last decade.
Wanting to stay specific and current, I'll use data from the last two years.
Remember that our classes tend to be small, and that we have not kept track of
those who left Steiner after 8th grade (something we plan to begin this year).
Here's what I can report from recent history:
College Matriculation for Recent Classes
Class of 1998: Anna Maria College, Babson College, Boston University, Goshen
College, Hampshire College, Hunter College (2), Manhattanville College, Mt.
Holyoke College, New York University, Pace University, Stanford University,
University of Chicago, Wellesley College, Wells College.
Class of 1997: Bryn Mawr College, Colorado College, Mt. Hoyoke (2), Princeton
University, Sarah Lawrence College, Swarthmore College, Syracuse University,
U.S. Military Academy (West Point), University of Chicago.
You can see that our graduates go on mostly to either small, liberal arts
colleges or large universities. Most of the schools are in the top or second
tier of colleges and universities.
For a longer term picture, I can share with you a report that was done for the
Class of 1986 after a recent reunion. It includes colleges, academic degrees
and current employment:
1. U. of Massachusetts/Amherst, BS in Mathematics. U of CA/Berkeley, MS in
Statistics. Statistician for Kaiser HMO.
2. New York University, BA in Economics and Russian. Social worker with the
elderly.
3. Manhattan College, BS in Mechanical Engineering. MIT, MS in Mechanical
Engineering. Mechanical Engineer.
4. Hunter College, BA in Child Psychology. Free-lance writer.
5. University of Alaska, BA in Geography and MS in Anthropology. Computer
programmer.
6. Princeton University, BA with Honors in History. University of AZ, MA in
Sociology. Ph.D. candidate in Sociology.
7. St. John's University, BS. Officer in US Air Force.
8. U. of North Carolina, BA in Biology & German. Phi Beta Kappa, graduated
with highest honors. U. of N. Carolina School of Medicine, MD. Pediatrician.
9. Fordham University, BA in Film Studies & Art. Specialist in computer
graphics.
10. Skidmore College, BA in Education. Bank Street College, MA in Education.
Elementary school teacher.
11. Skidmore College, BA in English & Writing. Columbia U., graduate study in
Fiction. Novelist and video producer.
12. Clark University, BA in African, European History. Columbia University, MA
in Education. Ph.D. candidate in Education .
13. Columbia University, BA in French.
14. Boston University, BA in History. Designer of educational materials for
the learning disabled.
15. Georgetown University, BA in English. Phi Beta Kappa, graduated with high
honors. Editor of books for children.
16. State U. of NY/Binghamton, BS in Finance. Businesswoman.
17. U. of Chicago, BS in Biology. U. of Chicago School of Medicine, MD.
Physician.
Hope this helps. Now I'm leaving for vacation in a few days, and I need to
rest my fingers after typing all of this. Hope to be back in touch when I
return.
Cheers,
Robert W. Dandrew
Director of Development
Rudolf Steiner School, NYC
Rssnyc aol.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n829.4 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Everyone needs a thneed
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 10:46:33 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807171834.LAA08794 lists1.best.com)
This is an equally silly line of thought to religious 'significance.'
If every single teacher I ever met wore the same thing, so what? Does PLANS intend
on going after McDonalds or say, the corporate class for their adherence to certain
protocols (if they exist?) My lower school teacher dressed in skirts and what not,
with a great deal of taste and refinement. She even wore jeans (I think) when we
were on camping trips. I always thought her stylish ways were more evidence of
European influences than anything else.
So far as the shirts with logos on them go, if you take a nanosecond to think
through the policy it makes some sense. What are logos but pop culture's way of
imprinting consumerism. More than that, they go a long way to describe one's
social class and belief system. If you want (especially young) children to
develop without the retarding (collective) influences of Operation Ivy, Travis
Trit, Primus, Microsoft, The Beastie Boys or whatever consumer or pop culture icon,
then asking that kids not wear such advertisements to school is a noble ideal. I
say noble ideal because they will fall into some consumer clique soon enough,
hopefully after a solid foundation of identity has been laid.
Back to the topic of uninspired attire. I think, perhaps, that the teaching
profession in general goes for the long skirt thing because it looks respectable in
a headmaster sort of way.
e
Gary Meier wrote:
) )That's very interesting. Both of the list members (including myself)
) )who have commented the "long skirt" cult are from Atlanta. I'd be
) )interested in the experiences of others from other places. How about
) )it folks? Is the Atlanta school, or the NYC school more
) )representative of the clothing worn by teachers at Waldorf schools?
) )
) )I do find it interesting that when we met the new teacher (her first
) )teaching job) she was dressed that way, too.
) )
) )) One of the most important aspects of Waldorf education that this list points
) )) out so well is that not all Waldorf schools are the same.
)
) I'll add my observations about three Waldorf schools my son has visited or
) attended in the Princeton, NJ area. I've met about 10 teachers and
) assistants at the three locations (all women), and all wear the "uniform"
) whenever I've seen them, at school, at the end-of-year picnic, at the
) endless fundraising events, and from a couple of observations, at home.
) I've never observed an exception. For that matter, a "uniform" was
) specified for my son. No clothes or personal items with words, logos,
) pictures, or insignias on them.
)
) Ever try to find a lunch box for a 4-year old without a picture on it?
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n829.5 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: More Statistics on Waldorf
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 10:58:59 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807201929.MAA14149 lists1.best.com)
These are first rate graduates. So what do the cynics have to say?
e
RSSNYC aol.com wrote:
) As Michael pointed out, in my last (and first!) posting, I stated that "we
) suffer from a lack of quantifiable statistics on Waldorf education." I did not
) mean to suggest that the New York City Steiner School keeps no statistics on
) its graduates. Rather, I was referring to the lack of academic research
) studies on the results of Waldorf education in this country - the kind of
) certifiable "proof" that so many list members have asked for.
)
) On a formal basis, our school keeps track of all its graduating seniors the
) first year after graduation. We have also conducted surveys of reunion
) classes at various anniversaries of their graduations. On a more informal
) basis, our college guidance counselor also keeps up with graduates and
) produces periodic reports on classes' progress.
)
) I'd like to do my best to respond to Michael's questions about colleges,
) majors and careers. If my assistant weren't on vacation, I could get her to
) scan in the reports I'm about to type; it would save me a lot of time and you
) all a lot of frustration in trying to read my jumbled attempt at report
) layout. I'd like to frame this response with the following: college
) acceptances and SAT scores are but one layer of assessment for us. There are
) some within the Waldorf network who shun an emphasis on test scores, etc. as a
) measure of success, but our school likes to report both "the hard facts" and
) the wonderful stories of happy, accomplished alumni. Personally, I feel that,
) while we all want to see our graduates turn into happy 40-year olds, Waldorf
) education has to stand on its merits on all fronts.
)
) Private schools in Manhattan place a strong focus on college preparation, and
) we are no exception. Fortunately, our school is on par with our neighboring
) schools with respect to college placement. I'd like to add that most schools
) I have encountered are no further along than we are in their efforts to
) collect alumni data. Our school is relatively new to the building of an
) alumni data base, so we are a few years away from broad based surveys that
) actually reach all our graduates. We have big plans, though, and I'll be
) happy to keep you posted as research progresses.
)
) We have had a 100% college placement rate for at least the last decade.
) Wanting to stay specific and current, I'll use data from the last two years.
) Remember that our classes tend to be small, and that we have not kept track of
) those who left Steiner after 8th grade (something we plan to begin this year).
) Here's what I can report from recent history:
)
) College Matriculation for Recent Classes
)
) Class of 1998: Anna Maria College, Babson College, Boston University, Goshen
) College, Hampshire College, Hunter College (2), Manhattanville College, Mt.
) Holyoke College, New York University, Pace University, Stanford University,
) University of Chicago, Wellesley College, Wells College.
)
) Class of 1997: Bryn Mawr College, Colorado College, Mt. Hoyoke (2), Princeton
) University, Sarah Lawrence College, Swarthmore College, Syracuse University,
) U.S. Military Academy (West Point), University of Chicago.
)
) You can see that our graduates go on mostly to either small, liberal arts
) colleges or large universities. Most of the schools are in the top or second
) tier of colleges and universities.
)
) For a longer term picture, I can share with you a report that was done for the
) Class of 1986 after a recent reunion. It includes colleges, academic degrees
) and current employment:
)
) 1. U. of Massachusetts/Amherst, BS in Mathematics. U of CA/Berkeley, MS in
) Statistics. Statistician for Kaiser HMO.
) 2. New York University, BA in Economics and Russian. Social worker with the
) elderly.
) 3. Manhattan College, BS in Mechanical Engineering. MIT, MS in Mechanical
) Engineering. Mechanical Engineer.
) 4. Hunter College, BA in Child Psychology. Free-lance writer.
) 5. University of Alaska, BA in Geography and MS in Anthropology. Computer
) programmer.
) 6. Princeton University, BA with Honors in History. University of AZ, MA in
) Sociology. Ph.D. candidate in Sociology.
) 7. St. John's University, BS. Officer in US Air Force.
) 8. U. of North Carolina, BA in Biology & German. Phi Beta Kappa, graduated
) with highest honors. U. of N. Carolina School of Medicine, MD. Pediatrician.
) 9. Fordham University, BA in Film Studies & Art. Specialist in computer
) graphics.
) 10. Skidmore College, BA in Education. Bank Street College, MA in Education.
) Elementary school teacher.
) 11. Skidmore College, BA in English & Writing. Columbia U., graduate study in
) Fiction. Novelist and video producer.
) 12. Clark University, BA in African, European History. Columbia University, MA
) in Education. Ph.D. candidate in Education .
) 13. Columbia University, BA in French.
) 14. Boston University, BA in History. Designer of educational materials for
) the learning disabled.
) 15. Georgetown University, BA in English. Phi Beta Kappa, graduated with high
) honors. Editor of books for children.
) 16. State U. of NY/Binghamton, BS in Finance. Businesswoman.
) 17. U. of Chicago, BS in Biology. U. of Chicago School of Medicine, MD.
) Physician.
)
) Hope this helps. Now I'm leaving for vacation in a few days, and I need to
) rest my fingers after typing all of this. Hope to be back in touch when I
) return.
)
) Cheers,
)
) Robert W. Dandrew
) Director of Development
) Rudolf Steiner School, NYC
) Rssnyc aol.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n829.6 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Everyone needs a thneed
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 08:27:03 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199807211447.HAA13059 lists1.best.com)
On 21 Jul 98, at 10:46, Ezra Beeman wrote:
) This is an equally silly line of thought to religious 'significance.' If
) every single teacher I ever met wore the same thing, so what? Does PLANS
) intend on going after McDonalds or say, the corporate class for their
) adherence to certain protocols (if they exist?)
I don't recall reading any criticism of the way teachers dress from
PLANS people. The comments were from Waldorf parents.
For what it's worth, I've never noticed the teachers at our school
wearing anything different from what teachers might wear at any
other school. One of the kindergarten teachers does wear soft,
flowing dresses, but I figured that was more of a "hippy earth
mother" thing than a particularly Waldorf thing.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n829.7 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: teachers' clothing
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 02:54:30 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807200212.TAA24216 lists1.best.com)
At the San Francisco Waldorf school, my son's teacher told me that all the
women teachers were required to call themselves "Mrs."
-Dan Dugan
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n829 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n830 --------------
001 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
002 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: teachers' clothing
003 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: More Statistics on Waldorf
004 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: Quantifying Waldorf
005 - Luna457954 aol.com - Re: Re: teachers' clothing
006 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
007 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: Waldorf clothing
008 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
009 - ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netco - Fwd: Re: Waldorf clothing
010 - Gary Meier (meierg pt.Cya - Waldorf "Uniforms"
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n830.1 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 14:09:31 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807170927.CAA12234 lists1.best.com)
Even though I am loath to legitimize almost any facet of the post with a reply.
it seems I've poor impulse control. It seems Mr. Kopp has stuck his neck in the
sand for much of the 'abstruse' dialectic. May I also point out that it wasn't
'abstruse' to those people with some scientific and philosophical learning. Be
that as it may, Mr. Kopp's puerile diction leaves me with some questions as to
his other faculties.
Michael Kopp wrote:
) Mr Calkins' remarks above are epistemological wanking. (*)
)
) And a continued attempt to present science as a belief system, when it's
) just the opposite.
You are so misinformed when it comes to this subject (philosophy of science).
If you take a gander beyond the enormously successful (now rustic) theories of
physics, you will find the cosmologists and the particle theorists steeped in
more occult symbolism and convention than you might want to believe. Theories
of steady state, inflation, super symmetry, strings, holographic universes and
24 dimensioned space (which rolls up in to 10 or 11 dimensions you will be
relieved to know) are so far beyond your cognitive capabilities, that you have
no choice but to believe them on faith. Faith in scientists (mathematics,
really). I won't even bother going into the various quandaries presented by the
empiricists or logical positivists. Suffice it to say that righteous
indignation, though it may move you, has no actual effect on the truth.
) What is your EVIDENCE, Mr Calking, that thinking is [impliedly _only_]
) spiritual? There is plenty of scientific evidence to show that it is a
) _physical_ activity of the human brain.
You must not read a great deal. For if you did, surely you would be aware of
such mind/body classics as 'The Mind's I', or 'The Three Pound Universe.' I
suspect that due to the complexities of the brain (similar to those particle
physics), that it will be a very long while before there are cogent theories to
explain the mechanism. In the meanwhile, there will be a preponderance of
mystical properties and particles (neuropeptides, receptors, neural network)
seeking to shed some light on the field (compare these to the gravitinos and
tensors of theoretical physics). And again I would ask what your evidence is
for the mechanistic viewpoint (aside from the obvious complaint of begging the
question, again). If your evidence is 'the literature', I say it's time to hand
in your gun and badge.
) Or do you know something about
) Gallileo's brain that we don't that indicates his thinking was spiritual,
) whereas mine, for instance, is not, in my view. And don't tell me that you
) know better than I do what the activity inside my own brain is, please.
Subjectivity rules. Without 'the literature' to back up your claims to a brain,
I'm afraid we'll all have to take your word on it.
) People accepted modern rationalist science not just because it "worked",
) but because enough of them _could_ understand it. More than could
) understand superstition. Enough people could follow the rationale of the
) method and agree that it and the evidence it produced was real and valid in
) their corporeal existence. They further found that it was no longer
) necessary to use systems of authority such as religious belief to make some
) middling sense of their world.
Um, nope, wrong again. Even though you are vague in describing 'rationalistic
science' (Archemedes? Galilleo? Bacon? Descartes? ) you seem to be asserting
that the scientific method served as a beacon for those scientists lost in the
theoretical desert. Just be looking up into the night sky they knew for certain
which path to take. HA!
There are so many examples of great battles in science due to personal ego and
the scientific method's inadequacy when choosing between complex theories.
Think of the battle of the paleontologists at the beginning of the century, the
battle of the cosmologists of this decade. There are more, but I leave you to
read a few historical texts that would educate you on the FACTS and then you can
SPECULATE on them to your heart's content.
) This is not accepting science "on faith", it is the opposite: accepting the
) scientific method for its ability to use skepticism and reason to winnow
) out the rubbish (as Carl Sagan said before someone on this list
) patronisingly belittled him) from the truth.
You talk as if the scientific method was an entity, which it is not.
Furthermore, it it the scientists ability, not that of the method, that may or
may not winnow whatever. There are good experiments and there are poor
experiments and there is not a lot of direction for choosing between them when
setting them up. The scientific method, like any process, can be abused and
misguided. Logically, this is the same method and one must be vigilant
(skeptical) going forward.
) If this is "faith", then everything in life has to be taken on faith.
) Nothing can be known really.
Some people would say this, but it is not useful.
) Further, these malcontents want to force _all the rest of us_ into
) epistemological purgatory where we spend the rest of _our_ days wanking.
You seem to know these malcontents pretty well, speaking for ALL of them. How
do you suppose they will compel everyone? (Lust?)
) And their missionary arm is Steiner/ Waldorf/ Anthroposophical education,
) which is, in my experience, designed to make children anti-reasoning. That
) is to say, to _avoid_ the use of reason, and favour instead the
) conveniently untestable, unsharable, _intuition_.
The truly great rely on their intuition, for their reason presents limits beyond
which the mediocre are blind. If you need examples, I will be happy to comply.
Well, it seems that I grow bored of edifying Mr. Kopp. Thankfully, Mr. Kopp is
consistent if nothing else, and the rest of his post was equally shallow,
misguided, prejudiced and not worth the effort.
e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n830.2 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: teachers' clothing
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 11:26:51 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199807200212.TAA24216 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807211747.KAA22032 lists1.best.com)
On 21 Jul 98, at 2:54, Dan Dugan wrote:
) At the San Francisco Waldorf school, my son's teacher told me that all the
) women teachers were required to call themselves "Mrs."
Even if they weren't married? My son's teacher goes by "Miss."
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n830.3 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: More Statistics on Waldorf
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:24:52 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807201929.MAA14149 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (66000556 toto.iv)
Ezra Beeman writes:
) These are first rate graduates. So what do the cynics have to say?
Not being one of the 'cynics' I may not be qualified to respond, but I
will anyway. (I will admit at most to scepticism, but mostly to
idealism, and never cynicism.)
) RSSNYC aol.com wrote:
)
) ) As Michael pointed out, in my last (and first!) posting, I stated that "we
) ) suffer from a lack of quantifiable statistics on Waldorf education." I did not
) ) mean to suggest that the New York City Steiner School keeps no statistics on
) ) its graduates. Rather, I was referring to the lack of academic research
) ) studies on the results of Waldorf education in this country - the kind of
) ) certifiable "proof" that so many list members have asked for.
Robert, thank you for posting this. This is exactly the sort of thing
I had expected you to be able supply. I am pleased that you did and
please forgive me for having misunderstood you as saying that you did
not have such data. I certainly would not expect you (or your school)
to publish an academic study--that is not your job. (It is arguable
that the parent organization should. It should be a wonderful study
it if ever happened. I don't think any other organization has access
to so many people who were educated outside of the mainstream
educational movement.)
[many details clipped]
) ) Hope this helps. Now I'm leaving for vacation in a few days, and I need to
) ) rest my fingers after typing all of this. Hope to be back in touch when I
) ) return.
Indeed it does, thank you very much for all the typing. I feel much
better now knowing, not just that Waldorf educated students do well,
but that Waldorf educators to _not_ have a blind knee jerk reaction
against data. I hope that the good feeling you have given me (at
least--probably others too) helps you feel that the unpleasant
experience of typing all that in was worth it.
Once again let me say how pleased I am that we have someone with a lot
of experience in Waldorf on the list. I think the dialog does us all
a lot of good and it is why I joined this list.
Regards,
Michael
--
Michael D, Hirsch Work: (404) 727-4969
Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322 FAX: (404) 727-5611
email: hirsch mathcs.emory.edu http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~hirsch/
Public key for encrypted mail available upon request (or finger
hirsch cssun.mathcs.emory.edu).
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n830.4 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: Quantifying Waldorf
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:27:15 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: (79479988 toto.iv)
469593N knotes.kodak.com writes:
) From: John Calkins
)
) Michael Hirsch:
) )By not doing even rudimentary surveying of their students it appears
) )that either
) )a) Waldorf is afraid of the results looking bad,
) )b) Waldorf doesn't really care what happens to its students,
) )c) Waldorf is opposed to any attempt to pigeonhole its student and
) ) feels that this would do so,
) )d) Waldorf has a kneejerk reaction against any use of
) ) scientific/objective techniques.
)
) e) A lack of funding,
) f) Waldorf schools question the usefulness of such an effort since
) it is difficult to infer individual motives from the
) results of a survey
Hmm. We forgot
g) None of the above. Such data is collected, at least in some
schools.
I'd still like to see a system-wide study, though. That would be
fascinating.
--Michael
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n830.5 ---------------
From: Luna457954 aol.com
Subject: Re: Re: teachers' clothing
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 15:45:06 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In a message dated 7/21/98 2:40:53 PM, you wrote:
((Even if they weren't married? My son's teacher goes by "Miss."))
The unmarried women teachers at our school are either "Miss" or "Ms.",
Depending on their preference. There is only one married woman who teaches at
our school. She goes by "Mrs.", but i doubt that anyone would mind if she
used "Ms."
Which goes to show, I guess, that Waldorf schools aren't all the same....
Kelly Shinners
Parent, Meadowbrook Waldorf School
Rhode Island
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n830.6 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 07:01:26 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807211821.LAA16609 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org) wrote:
[...]
)If you take a gander beyond the enormously successful (now rustic) theories of
)physics, you will find the cosmologists and the particle theorists steeped in
)more occult symbolism and convention than you might want to believe.
Could you cite some examples, please.
[...]
MK
)) People accepted modern rationalist science not just because it "worked",
)) but because enough of them _could_ understand it.
[...]
EB
)Um, nope, wrong again. Even though you are vague in describing 'rationalistic
)science' (Archemedes? Galilleo? Bacon? Descartes? ) you seem to be asserting
)that the scientific method served as a beacon for those scientists lost in the
)theoretical desert.
I don't think Michael is asserting that (no doubt he will correct me if
that thought is erroneous).
Let me try to put it another way:
Whether or not Joe Public takes a statement on faith is not the issue;
the issue is how that statement was arrived at in the first place. One
of the things scientists try to do is find a rational basis for the
statement.
Let's try an example:
We observe that the daytime sky is blue. Freddie Faith tells us it is
because God surrounds us with a blue cloak to make us aware of His
protection. Robbie Reason has studied a bit of science and tells us it
is because of Rayleigh scattering *and* is able to understand the
principles behind Rayleigh scatter.
Whether or not you or I accept one or the other explanation on faith,
and whether or not either explanation is "true" is not the issue here.
There is a clear distinction in the way the two statements were arrived
at. (Yes, ultimately we may fall into an infinite regress if we examine
the ground of either statement, but that is yet another issue.)
What some of us object to are attempts to pass off Freddie Faith's
statements as thought they are those of Robbie Reason. This sort of
fraud infests modern society like a plague. Michael, I think, believes
that it is prevalent in Waldorf education. I don't see more of it there
than anywhere else; it exists wherever ignorance of scientific method
and logical exposition exist, and I can cite examples from my own
education, including that part of my science education which took place
at a reasonably prestigious UK university; in my state (public) school
days I was required to perpetuate some of it because it existed in
science examination syllabuses which I was teaching (complaints to the
examining board got nowhere and I had more than one reprimand from a
head-teacher for telling the pupils, "This is total rubbish, but it's
the answer you write if the question comes up in the exam.").
The challenge which faces parents and teachers is how one answers the
question "Why is the sky blue?" when it comes from a young child who is
not yet able to understand Rayleigh scattering. I don't think that there
are easy, unambiguously correct, answers to this challenge.
EB
) Just be looking up into the night sky they knew for certain
)which path to take. HA!
Can you explain (preferably with idiot-proof examples, for my benefit)
what you mean by that.
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n830.7 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: Waldorf clothing
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 00:15:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (01BDB4FD.8BCF8300 pm1-12.netshel.net)
Someone wrote,
) )That's very interesting. Both of the list members (including myself)
) )who have commented the "long skirt" cult are from Atlanta. I'd be
) )interested in the experiences of others from other places. How about
) )it folks? Is the Atlanta school, or the NYC school more
) )representative of the clothing worn by teachers at Waldorf schools?
At our local Waldorf school, the prairie look is a given.
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n830.8 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:09:16 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Stephen Tonkin:
)Let me try to put it another way:
)Whether or not Joe Public takes a statement on faith is not the issue;
)the issue is how that statement was arrived at in the first place. One
)of the things scientists try to do is find a rational basis for the
)statement. [...]
If find it interesting that Steve Premo's argument that it does not matter
if one comes to religion whether by faith or observation has been
transformed into how we should teach our children to know the world. If we
follow the path: Premo, Calkins, Kopp, Beeman, Tonkin, it seems each of
the four subsequent posts had its share in the transformation. I find it
useful to take a step back now and then to become more aware of how things
develop.
)The challenge which faces parents and teachers is how one answers the
)question "Why is the sky blue?" when it comes from a young child who is
)not yet able to understand Rayleigh scattering. I don't think that there
)are easy, unambiguously correct, answers to this challenge.
Thank you Stephen, I agree completely.
John Calkins
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n830.9 ---------------
From: ckzfrey (ckzfrey ix.netcom.com)
Subject: Fwd: Re: Waldorf clothing
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 98 09:35:52 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
---------------- Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
Date: 06/22 1:15 AM
Received: 07/22 9:04 AM
From: Debra Snell, snell netshel.net
Reply-To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
To: waldorf-critics lists.best.com
Someone wrote,
) )That's very interesting. Both of the list members (including myself)
) )who have commented the "long skirt" cult are from Atlanta. I'd be
) )interested in the experiences of others from other places. How about
) )it folks? Is the Atlanta school, or the NYC school more
) )representative of the clothing worn by teachers at Waldorf schools?
At our local Waldorf school, the prairie look is a given.
Debra
----------------- End Forwarded Message -----------------
It's strange...but I was in an office building the other day and ALL the
men were wearing suits--and TIES-- and ALL the women were wearing suits
too! All the women even had approximately the same length skirt!
That very same week I saw some hikers and they were ALL wearing the same
kind of shoes, short pants and--gasp--big packs on their backs!
Then..there was this WHOLE PACK of people on bicycles....well, you get
the idea.
I, of course, ruled out the possibility that these modes of dress were
comfortable, well suited to the task, appropriate to the situation, or
that sometimes people who spend a lot of time together sometimes just end
out dressing the same. I think that these people(especially the office
people) are probably in the thrall of some iron-fisted despot!
Has anybody out there noticed similar phenomena?
I, for one, am worried. (grin) ;}
Peace,
Charlie Frey
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n830.10 ---------------
From: Gary Meier (meierg pt.Cyanamid.COM)
Subject: Waldorf "Uniforms"
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 98 11:03:22 EDT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ezra Beeman Wrote:
)This is an equally silly line of thought to religious 'significance.'
)...
)So far as the shirts with logos on them go, if you take a nanosecond to think
)through the policy it makes some sense. What are logos but pop culture's
)way )of imprinting consumerism. More than that, they go a long way to
)describe )one's social class and belief system. If you want (especially
)young) children )to develop without the retarding (collective) influences
)of Operation Ivy, )Travis Trit, Primus, Microsoft, The Beastie Boys or
)whatever consumer or pop )culture icon,then asking that kids not wear such
)advertisements to school is a )noble ideal.
In response to Gary Meier's earlier posting:
) I've never observed an exception. For that matter, a "uniform" was
) specified for my son. No clothes or personal items with words, logos,
) pictures, or insignias on them.
)
) Ever try to find a lunch box for a 4-year old without a picture on it?
Gary responds:
I'll ignore the "nanosecond of thought" shot and remind you that Waldorf
teachings also describe a belief system and, at least in this area, a
social class, since the Princeton area Waldorf schools are extraordinarily
expensive. Further, those of us not impressed with Steinert's teachings may
not conceed that the influences of Travis Trit or Primus or Yo-Yo Ma are
retarding.
For the record, I wasn't talking about a Power Rangers lunchbox and
Godzilla t-shirt, either. My 4-year-old had to give up his Philadelphia
Zoo lunchbox with a reproduction of an "animals in harmony" jungle scene
(painted by a Waldorf grad, for all I know) and his Cornell University
t-shirt.
Gary
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n830 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n831 --------------
001 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
002 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: More Statistics on Waldorf
003 - Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.c - Re: teachers' clothing
004 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: teachers' clothing
005 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
006 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Re: Waldorf "Uniforms"
007 - Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
008 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n831.1 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 08:42:07 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199807221311.GAA10137 lists1.best.com)
On 22 Jul 98, at 9:09, 469593N knotes.kodak.com wrote:
) If find it interesting that Steve Premo's argument that it does not matter
) if one comes to religion whether by faith or observation has been
) transformed into how we should teach our children to know the world.
It is interesting, and perfectly appropriate.
Actually, my argument was not that it does not matter whether one
comes to religion by faith or observation, but rather that a definition
of religion as "something taken on faith" is not a useful definition for
purposes of the First Amendment. It may matter a great deal to
the individual how he comes by his beliefs.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n831.2 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: More Statistics on Waldorf
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 01:25:48 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199807201929.MAA14149 lists1.best.com)
Robert Dandrew, thanks for your thorough post on the graduates of the New
York City Steiner School. I have a couple of questions.
Regarding the 1986 class, were the 17 you listed the entire class?
What is the tuition of your high school?
Could you name a few of the neighboring schools that could be used for
comparison?
Thanks, Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n831.3 ---------------
From: Dan Dugan (dan dandugan.com)
Subject: Re: teachers' clothing
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 00:51:34 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807211747.KAA22032 lists1.best.com)
(199807200212.TAA24216 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807211829.LAA21794 lists1.best.com)
)) At the San Francisco Waldorf school, my son's teacher told me that all the
)) women teachers were required to call themselves "Mrs."
)
)Even if they weren't married? My son's teacher goes by "Miss."
Yes. Our College of Teachers was dominated by a teacher from the mother
school in Stuttgart.
-Dan Dugan
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n831.4 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: teachers' clothing
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 10:48:33 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199807211829.LAA21794 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (199807221725.KAA12797 lists1.best.com)
On 22 Jul 98, at 0:51, Dan Dugan wrote:
) )) At the San Francisco Waldorf school, my son's teacher told me that all
) )) the women teachers were required to call themselves "Mrs."
) )
) )Even if they weren't married? My son's teacher goes by "Miss."
)
) Yes. Our College of Teachers was dominated by a teacher from the mother
) school in Stuttgart.
That may explain why your school was so much more orthodox
than I have found the Santa Cruz Waldorf School to be. A teacher
there commented to me, "We are a long way from Stuttgart." He
wasn't just talking geography.
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n831.5 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:07:06 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807220607.XAA01157 lists1.best.com)
Perhaps the post was more caustic than substantive, but I stand by my efforts to point out the deeply held convictions (prejudices) of scientists, the limits of reason (the value of intuition) and the inaccessibility of modern science (to most).
Moreover, the (historical and ongoing) hubris of entrenched science is worth challenging, if only to keep it honest.
Stephen Tonkin wrote:
) Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org) wrote:
) [...]
) )If you take a gander beyond the enormously successful (now rustic) theories of
) )physics, you will find the cosmologists and the particle theorists steeped in
) )more occult symbolism and convention than you might want to believe.
)
) Could you cite some examples, please.
Have you read any theoretical journals lately? They contain Greek, Russian, Hebrew and other symbols, in addition to those peculiar to physics and logic. Only the indoctrinated are privy to their true meaning. Manifold space and other higher
dimensioned mathematics read like Cabalistic scripture (poetic license, please). I was not insinuating that they actually use traditionally occult symbols (though I wouldn't preclude them), but the effect is the same.
) [...]
)
) MK
) )) People accepted modern rationalist science not just because it "worked",
) )) but because enough of them _could_ understand it.
) [...]
)
) EB
) )Um, nope, wrong again. Even though you are vague in describing 'rationalistic
) )science' (Archemedes? Galilleo? Bacon? Descartes? ) you seem to be asserting
) )that the scientific method served as a beacon for those scientists lost in the
) )theoretical desert.
)
) I don't think Michael is asserting that (no doubt he will correct me if
) that thought is erroneous).
I may have been taking liberties, or Mr. Kopp might have been vague.
) EB
) ) Just be looking up into the night sky they knew for certain
) )which path to take. HA!
There is an obvious typo in that sentence. My point was that like logic, SM (scientific method) is a consistent methodology that is useful up to a point, but it cannot posit the truth. The framework is still very much a subjective process (setting
up the experiment, measuring the experiment [observation]). Einstein's discover of relativity was guided by his intuition and lack of scientific baggage. He looked at the observational evidence without the assumption of absolute, Newtonian space (a
very unreasonable thing to do at the time) and worked from there. Even though experiment subsequently proved him correct (there is controversy surrounding the first experiment, some say the results were fudged), it was Einstein vs. the scientific
establishment. It was Relativity's elegance as a theory that probably earned early conversion by some of the (progressive) scientists. I apologize that my example may not be 'idiot-proof', but they are not my specialty.
e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n831.6 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Re: Waldorf "Uniforms"
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 14:18:14 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807221501.IAA29799 lists1.best.com)
Fair enough.
Gary responds:
) I'll ignore the "nanosecond of thought" shot and remind you that Waldorf
) teachings also describe a belief system and, at least in this area, a
) social class, since the Princeton area Waldorf schools are extraordinarily
) expensive.
I think I agree, but I don't see how it follows that their wish to shield children from (their perceived) distraction by pop culture is occultist (which was the thread). The fact that WE is expensive is due to many factors, and not because it wishes
to be 'elitist.' If we did not have to pay twice for WE (taxes + tuition), it would not be so social exclusive (and they do have scholarships, but nothing like say Andover, or Exiter).
) Further, those of us not impressed with Steinert's teachings may
) not conceed that the influences of Travis Trit or Primus or Yo-Yo Ma are
) retarding.
These were flippant examples (some given were things I liked). If you don't think they are, let your kids have them. I think there is something to expressing oneself in class or social activity without such pop culture identity crutches. Even if
they are 'progressive', they are decidedly more 'collective.'
) For the record, I wasn't talking about a Power Rangers lunchbox and
) Godzilla t-shirt, either. My 4-year-old had to give up his Philadelphia
) Zoo lunchbox with a reproduction of an "animals in harmony" jungle scene
) (painted by a Waldorf grad, for all I know) and his Cornell University
) t-shirt.
Sounds fascist to me.e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n831.7 ---------------
From: Stephen Tonkin (sft aegis1.demon.co.uk)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 23:58:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: (199807222049.NAA20178 lists1.best.com)
Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org) wrote:
[...]
)Stephen Tonkin wrote:
)
)) Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org) wrote:
)) [...]
)) )If you take a gander beyond the enormously successful (now rustic) theories
)of
)) )physics, you will find the cosmologists and the particle theorists steeped in
)) )more occult symbolism and convention than you might want to believe.
))
)) Could you cite some examples, please.
)
)Have you read any theoretical journals lately?
No -- I don't have time at present -- life is remarkably (and
fulfillingly!) busy.
) They contain Greek, Russian,
)Hebrew and other symbols, in addition to those peculiar to physics and logic.
)Only the indoctrinated are privy to their true meaning.
At the risk of being boringly repetitive, may I ask that *please* could
you cite some actual examples. After your last sentence, I'd be most
interested in knowing the meaning of these symbols, particularly how the
"original" meanings relate to their use in scientific papers.
)I was not insinuating that they actually use traditionally occult symbols
)(though I wouldn't preclude them), but the effect is the same.
What is this effect?
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astronomy Books +
+ (N50.9105 W1.829) | (http://www.aegis1.demon.co.uk) +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n831.8 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 08:20:28 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Ezra Beeman:
)Perhaps the post was more caustic than substantive, but I stand by my
)efforts to point out the deeply held convictions (prejudices) of
)scientists, the limits of reason (the value of intuition) and the
)inaccessibility of modern science (to most). Moreover, the
)(historical and ongoing) hubris of entrenched science is worth
)challenging, if only to keep it honest.
Ezra, I think you need to be more careful about making blanket statements
about a particular group of people. There are already enough individuals
on this list making general claims based on the actions of particular
Waldorf teachers. Which deeply held convictions/prejudices of which
scientists are you referring to? It has been my experience that most of
the scientists I have met and worked with are rather altruistic,
thoughtful, and imaginative human beings. Any scientist worth his salt
knows the limitations of science and the value of intuition.
As far as the inaccessibility of modern science, there are very few (if
any) concepts in science that are so complex that they cannot understood at
a basic level by the general public. I believe such inaccessibility, when
it occurs, is generally the failure of particular scientists to effectively
communicate their ideas. I don't think this is a widespread problem
though. Those who are not so well skilled at communicating with the public
usually know that they are not, and they stick to the journals. A much
more significant problem lies with many "science" writers who do not
understand science. It is very common for me to read utter nonsense in
science related articles in newspapers and popular magazines. I don't see
how anyone could get a coherent picture based on the drivel in these
widely-circulated publications.
I do agree with the spirit of your last sentence quoted above. It is
important for us to be aware of what epistemological assumptions we make
when gathering knowledge (as a good scientist does), and to question
whether or not we should make a particular assumption (which does not
happen so often).
I would like to bring this back to education. Before I go any further, I
do not know specifically how one would present this notion in a classroom.
This is something I am working with. It is clear to me that it would not
be appropriate to, full-force, present this questioning of how we know the
world to 9th graders. They are struggling to find their own sense of
identity, and to further add to this uncertainty would simply be cruel. As
the young persons mature and begin to feel comfortable with themselves,
this questioning can be introduced. At the very least a 12th grader should
leave the school understanding the subjective limitations of science.
John Calkins
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n831 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n832 --------------
001 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
002 - Ezra Beeman (ezra save-am - Question
003 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: Faith or Observation
004 - Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmow - Re: More Statistics on Waldorf
005 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
006 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: teachers' clothing
007 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: teachers' clothing
008 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Re: teachers' clothing
009 - "David S. Mitchell" (davi - Re: For what its worth
010 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n832.1 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 98 11:59:34 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199807231217.FAA13582 lists1.best.com); from "469593N knotes.kodak.com" at Jul 23, 98 8:20 am
)From what has been discussed about science and how it should be taught
at different levels, I perceive at least two different attitudes from
WE supporters:
1. Orthodox science should be taught, separate from any anthroposophic
concepts; so, for instance Steinerian biodynamics, levitational forces,
life forces, should not be taught as if they were science. In fact, there
have been some people in this list claiming that these topics were never
taught at their Waldorf schools.
2. On the other hand, it seems to me that others consider not only valid,
but desirable, to introduce those concepts as scientific. Some people in
this list have presented examples of this happening. Personally, I dislike
this idea.
The scientific method has consistently arrived to the conclusion that there
is no need to postulate the existence of any spiritual entity to describe
Nature. Even many processes in living organisms are amenable to this
non-spiritual description. There are quite interesting attempts to explain
consciousness in this same manner; there is even R&D in artificial intelligence.
All this leads to cast doubt on the existence of God, gods, angels, fairies,
etc. This is why I don't think it is a good idea to mix spiritual concepts with
a scientific approach.
Another issue is when should the scientific method be taught, related to
the age at which youngsters can understand what a scientific proof (or
disproof) is. In this same vein, when should the philosophical limitations
of science be taught. My viewpoint is similar to that expressed some time ago
by Ezra Beeman: to focus the teaching of science on how things happen and how
some phenomena are related to others, leaving aside the "why" questions.
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n832.2 ---------------
From: Ezra Beeman (ezra save-america.org)
Subject: Question
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 09:55:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
I was reading through the Sac Bee's story on the SAT scares for CA schools and I was wondering if anyone could give further information on the Nevada County (River) Charter School that did so well, and whether or not the Goethe Middle School has any
WE affiliation?
Thanks,
e
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n832.3 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: Faith or Observation
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 13:01:48 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807231610.JAA23819 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
)
) ) If find it interesting that Steve Premo's argument that it does not matter
) ) if one comes to religion whether by faith or observation has been
) ) transformed into how we should teach our children to know the world.
)
) It is interesting, and perfectly appropriate.
)
) Actually, my argument was not that it does not matter whether one
) comes to religion by faith or observation, but rather that a definition
) of religion as "something taken on faith" is not a useful definition for
) purposes of the First Amendment. It may matter a great deal to
) the individual how he comes by his beliefs.
Steve,
Though you and I disagree on whether or not anthroposophy is a religion
and whether WE in the public schools causes excessive entanglement with
religion, we do agree on several things, your comment above being one of
them.
One of the things that I've come to appreciate over my many years of
spiritual practice (not in anthroposophy for those who are lurking and
did not view earlier correspondence) is that, at least for me and many
of my friends, to take something purely on faith is an abdication of
one's own responsibility. Besides, if one's own rational mind does not
come along for the journey, we fragment ourselves when what we should be
doing is integrating ourselves. Then, the rational/logical mind stays
behind and continually inserts doubts into the work that the
non-rational aspects of our beings are engaged in. Sort of like having
each arm roped to a strong horse pulling in opposite directions.
Therefore, it's essential to me that the rational mind be involved.
This entails observation, reasoning, reflection, the assimilation of
experience and so forth.
I could probably go on for a long time on this subject, but it'd
probably be too off-topic for the list.
Bob
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n832.4 ---------------
From: Robert Tolz (rtolz cosmoweb.net)
Subject: Re: More Statistics on Waldorf
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 13:15:49 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807231610.JAA23819 lists1.best.com)
Dan Dugan wrote:
)
) Robert Dandrew, thanks for your thorough post on the graduates of the New
) York City Steiner School. I have a couple of questions.
)
) Regarding the 1986 class, were the 17 you listed the entire class?
)
) What is the tuition of your high school?
)
) Could you name a few of the neighboring schools that could be used for
) comparison?
)
) Thanks, Dan Dugan
I was thinking about similar follow-up questions this morning as I was
taking the train into New York City.
When my older son was languishing for 2 years on the waiting list for
Green Meadow Waldorf School, my wife and I inquired at the New York City
school for the possibility of sending both of our boys there. Now, I'm
not going to show you my tax return, but I live a relatively comfortable
life, being a partner in a Park Avenue law firm. However, I would not
have been able to afford sending my kids to the New York City school.
It's way out of reach for anyone below the upper middle-class.
So, in the context of this discussion, I suspect that a significant
contributing factor to the futures of the alumni of any school, public
or private, Waldorf or non-Waldorf, is the economic class and the home
environment of the family.
Here's an experiment that'll probably never be done. Take 2 twins from
the same family. Assume they have the same capabilities, upbringing,
and environment. Put one in Waldorf education and another in
non-Waldorf education, with both institutions having a group of students
from the same mixture of population. What does everyone think the
results would be?
My own guess is that their college and post-college potentialities are
probably about equal and that the most significant difference would be
that the Waldorf-educated child would be more inclined than the other to
point his or her life towards work which is other-directed rather than
self-directed.
Bob
--
Robert Tolz
Email: rtolz cosmoweb.net
Web: http://www.cosmoweb.net/~rtolz
Tel: (212) 754-9400
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n832.5 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 10:23:45 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
References: (199807231217.FAA13582 lists1.best.com); from "469593N knotes.kodak.com" at Jul 23, 98 8:20 am
In-Reply-To: (199807231653.JAA17224 lists1.best.com)
On 23 Jul 98, at 11:59, Humberto saint Martin wrote:
) )From what has been discussed about science and how it should be taught
) at different levels, I perceive at least two different attitudes from WE
) supporters:
)
) 1. Orthodox science should be taught, separate from any anthroposophic
) concepts; so, for instance Steinerian biodynamics, levitational forces,
) life forces, should not be taught as if they were science. In fact, there
) have been some people in this list claiming that these topics were never
) taught at their Waldorf schools.
I think most Waldorf teachers would agree that these
anthroposophic concepts should not be taught to the kids, either in
the context of science of otherwise. That has been expressed to
be as the policy at our school, and I believe it is a general policy in
Waldorf education.
The problem may be that some teachers have such weak
backgrounds in science that they can't tell the difference. This
could be corrected, to some extent at least, by making the
distinction more clear in teacher training.
) 2. On the other hand, it seems to me that others consider not only valid,
) but desirable, to introduce those concepts as scientific. Some people in
) this list have presented examples of this happening. Personally, I dislike
) this idea.
I have not seen that view expressed on this list, and as I said, I
think that would be contrary to the general policy of Waldorf
schools.
(I won't reiterate the rest of your post; suffice it to say that I
generally agree with it.)
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n832.6 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: teachers' clothing
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 12:06:36 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807211829.LAA21794 lists1.best.com) (199807221751.KAA27446 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
) That may explain why your school was so much more orthodox
) than I have found the Santa Cruz Waldorf School to be. A teacher
) there commented to me, "We are a long way from Stuttgart." He
) wasn't just talking geography.
Mariposa hired one of Santa Cruz's Waldorf teachers a few years back. He
is a very popular teacher whose class has remained full to the brim.
Do many teachers at Santa Cruz Waldorf school have duel teaching
credentials?
Deby
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n832.7 ---------------
From: "Steve Premo" (premo cruzio.com)
Subject: Re: teachers' clothing
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 13:27:52 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
In-Reply-To: (199807231909.MAA23643 lists1.best.com)
On 23 Jul 98, at 12:06, Debra Snell wrote:
) Do many teachers at Santa Cruz Waldorf school have duel teaching
) credentials?
I don't think dueling is taught there at all.
I don't know whether the teachers have dual teaching credentials.
(I know, it's tacky to comment on spelling errors, but I couldn't
resist.)
Steve Premo
Santa Cruz, California
http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n832.8 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Re: teachers' clothing
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 17:06:40 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807232029.NAA18508 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote:
) (I know, it's tacky to comment on spelling errors, but I couldn't
) resist.)
Just go for it, Steve. I deserved it - especially since I _know_ how
to spell dual...
Deby
) Steve Premo
) Santa Cruz, California
) http://www2.cruzio.com/~premo/steve.html
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n832.9 ---------------
From: "David S. Mitchell" (davidm igc.apc.org)
Subject: Re: For what its worth
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 00:18:05 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: (199705241738.KAA26041 lists1.best.com)
To add to the picture of Waldorf graduates from Robert Dandrew's
post I offer the Colleges/Universities listed below which prepresent the
acceptance list for the first graduating class of the Shining Mountain
Waldorf High School in Boulder, Colorado.The number of students
matriculating at each school is represented by an asterik. Note that not
all selected to attend college.
1 at EVERGREEN STATE UNIVERSITY
3 at HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE**
1 at NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY*
1 at SKIDMORE COLLEGE*
3 at OBERLIN UNIVERSITY***
12 at UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO******
1 at ST JOHN'S COLLEGE/Annapolis*
1 at SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY
1 at UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
1 at ANTIOCH COLLEGE*
2 at COLORADO COLLEGE*
1 at WARREN WILSON COLLEGE
5 at FORT LEWIS COLLEGE**
1 at WELLESLEY COLLEGE
1 at MARIN COLLEGE*
2 at COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY*
2 at UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN COLORADO
2 at COLBY COLLEGE
2 at WESTERN WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY
1 at BARD COLLEGE
1 at HUNTER COLLEGE
1 student went to Austria to apprentice with master
painter Michael Fuchs
1 student went to Bali to further study Batik
1 student took an INTERIM program to travel the
world doing service
projects. He has since enrolled in cooking
school to become a chef.
On a more personal note.
My own family represents 88 years of Waldorf education! My wife
went to the Waldorf school in Oslo, Norway. She now has her Masters Degree
in transpersonal counseling and is a therapist held in high esteem.
My oldest daughter went to Hampshire College and the University of
Massachusetts and graduated Magana cum Laude with a degree in Psychology.
My second daughter went to the California College of Arts and
Crafts in Oakland/Berkley and graduated Summa cum Laude with a dual major
in both drawing and painting. Professors from both colleges contacted my
wife and myself with praise for the preparation the girls had from their
Waldorf education.
My third daughter is currently at Friends World College. She has
just finished a semester working on a field project with the New York Youth
Partnership striving to bring peace to black gangs in the Bronx. In two
weeks she goes to Kenya for a year to study in Friends World's African
campus.
My son elected to go to the local public high school instead of the
Waldorf high school. He wanted to play sports at a higher level and he
sought a larger social environment. In February, as a high school senior,
he was selected, among many honors, as the top scholar/athlete in the
state of Colorado by the National Football Foundation and Hall of Fame. At
the press conference he credited his Waldorf elementary and kindergarten
education with setting the foundation for him to achieve such heights. He
was actively recruited by, and accepted into, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard,
Columbia, the Air Force Academy and the Naval Academy at Annapolis. He has
elected to spend the next four years at Dartmouth.
I have been a Waldorf teacher for 28 years. My preparation included
a degree from UMass, including an exchange to study philosophy at the
University of Heidelberg in Germany. I did graduate studies at the
Graduate School of Education at Harvard, and the University of Oslo
(Norway). I completed my Waldorf teacher training at Emerson College in
England. I played one year of professional sports and served as a combat
engineer demolition expert with the Green Berets in the mid 60's before
doing graduate work.
I wear normal clothes when I teach!!
Yes, I truly love Waldorf education!
David
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n832.10 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 10:50:49 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Please excuse me Michael Hirsch, for some reason I keep wanting to call you
David.
-John
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n832 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n833 --------------
001 - 469593N knotes.kodak.com - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
002 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
003 - Robert Flannery (litvas i - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
004 - Debra Snell (snell netshe - Rudolf Steiner Foundation loans money to public school
005 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n833.1 ---------------
From: 469593N knotes.kodak.com
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 09:41:30 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
From: John Calkins
Humberto Saint Martin:
)1. Orthodox science should be taught, separate from any anthroposophic
)concepts; so, for instance Steinerian biodynamics, levitational forces,
)life forces, should not be taught as if they were science. In fact, there
)have been some people in this list claiming that these topics were never
)taught at their Waldorf schools.
)
)2. On the other hand, it seems to me that others consider not only valid,
)but desirable, to introduce those concepts as scientific. Some people in
)this list have presented examples of this happening. Personally, I dislike
)this idea.
Humberto, could you be more specific, perhaps with a quote, about who on
this list would introduce these concepts as scientific? (personally, in the
sciences I do not approve of teaching biodynamics, levitational forces, or
anything else which is not directly observable by students). I am with
Steve Premo that I have never seen this view expressed on this list.
There is a big difference between what we discuss on this list as mature
adults and what is appropriate to teach young people. You referred to a
lecturer talking about those feelings (invoked presumably) of sounds. My
point was that I could see the truth of these feelings being part of the
phenomenon of humans hearing sounds, _nothing_more_. Just because
something is true does not mean that some particular teacher can or cannot
effectively integrate it into a lesson plan. For myself, I am not sure if
I would want to bring this truth into a lesson on sound(*). I would not
object to a teacher doing so if she can do so in an effective manner. It
is part of the art of teaching to know what serves the students best, and
this varies with every particular teacher and group of students.
On the other hand there are other subjective experiences (meaning dependent
on the observer) which I would have no problem including in a lesson plan.
There are phenomena of color such as after images and colored shadows that
can only be observed through human experience. No instrument aside from
the human being can capture the nature of these color experiences. The
human sense of warmth is yet another. I use "warmth" here, because we
cannot experience heat. In every physics class I have taken from high
school onward, heat has been treated as a physical reality, when in truth
it is an abstract, albeit very useful, concept that can only be inferred
indirectly (usually through calculation). It is possible with high school
students to go through the exercise of how the human sense of relative
temperature (among other experiences) leads to the concept of heat (using
some reasonable, yet abstract, assumptions). Furthermore, no instrument is
able to directly measure heat(**).
Perhaps I have not been specific enough in the past. My point here is that
the typical college student graduates without an _awareness_ of what is
observable and what is an abstract concept, even in the sciences and
engineering. This gets back to David Hirsch's post on the current paradigm
of science. If students are taught to assume its abstractions are real, it
is unlikely they will discover anything outside the limits of that
paradigm. If they are aware of the subjective limits of the paradigm,
through a heightened sense of attentiveness they will be able to begin
again from the direct observations, and perhaps see the world in a new
light.
John Calkins
(*)On second thought I think I could; being a musician I have an advantage.
To express a certain feeling in a note, the physics of the bow drawn across
the string of a violin dictate a certain amount of bow pressure, bow speed,
and distance of the bow from the bridge be used. Of course this would more
likely be taught in a violin lesson than a physics lesson, but it is
physics nonetheless. Who knows, in a Waldorf school where every student
plays an instrument, this might come into a physics class. An interesting
question is how a similar feeling of music is physically realized on
different instruments.
(**)For those who might object to this point with the example of
calorimeters, in various ways they measure temperature which is indirectly
converted to heat through a calculation.
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n833.2 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 98 12:28:12 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199807241447.HAA16134 lists1.best.com); from "469593N knotes.kodak.com" at Jul 24, 98 9:41 am
)From John Calkins:
)
) Humberto, could you be more specific, perhaps with a quote, about who on
) this list would introduce these concepts as scientific? (personally, in the
) sciences I do not approve of teaching biodynamics, levitational forces, or
) anything else which is not directly observable by students). I am with
) Steve Premo that I have never seen this view expressed on this list.
)
HSMP:
I agree that nobody has explicitly written that pseudo-science should be taught
as if it were science, and that is why I refer to my perception of an attitude.
Thank you for explicitly stating that is not your position. I arrived at this
conclusion gauguing from writings that pretended to justify levitational
forces in terms of the direct experience of watching plants grow (M. T.
Persona), for instance, and from talking with the parents of other kids at
the WS at Cuernavaca. My daughter Tamara was told about the effects that Moon
phases had on crops, and Michael Kopp had a list of what their children had
been taught in their science classes. Sorry to bring this back again, but there
is also the "heart-is-not-a-pump" issue previously discussed. Then Robert
Flannery mentioned that some Waldorf teachers who do not have an acceptable
background in science are likely to teach anthroposophical concepts. These
latter would be having the attitude I mentioned.
J. C.:
) There is a big difference between what we discuss on this list as mature
) adults and what is appropriate to teach young people. You referred to a
) lecturer talking about those feelings (invoked presumably) of sounds. My
) point was that I could see the truth of these feelings being part of the
) phenomenon of humans hearing sounds, _nothing_more_. Just because
) something is true does not mean that some particular teacher can or cannot
) effectively integrate it into a lesson plan. For myself, I am not sure if
) I would want to bring this truth into a lesson on sound(*). I would not
) object to a teacher doing so if she can do so in an effective manner. It
) is part of the art of teaching to know what serves the students best, and
) this varies with every particular teacher and group of students.
HSMP:
I talked to the teacher who gave that lesson, and he seems to have the same
reasons that you argue. My point here is that one thing is the phenomeon of
sound, and another one is the phenomenon of humans hearing sounds. I am
reluctant to adjudge anthropomorphic features to Nature because my experience
when I taught physics at HS level was that this anthropomorphization
hinders the understanding of basic physical concepts, such as force and
energy.
J. C.:
) On the other hand there are other subjective experiences (meaning dependent
) on the observer) which I would have no problem including in a lesson plan.
) There are phenomena of color such as after images and colored shadows that
) can only be observed through human experience. No instrument aside from
) the human being can capture the nature of these color experiences.
HSMP:
I have used this to talk about light, as an example of how easy it is to
arrive at wrong conclusions from pure empiricism. Then I talked about the
physiology of vision.
J. C.:
The
) human sense of warmth is yet another. I use "warmth" here, because we
) cannot experience heat. In every physics class I have taken from high
) school onward, heat has been treated as a physical reality, when in truth
) it is an abstract, albeit very useful, concept that can only be inferred
) indirectly (usually through calculation). It is possible with high school
) students to go through the exercise of how the human sense of relative
) temperature (among other experiences) leads to the concept of heat (using
) some reasonable, yet abstract, assumptions). Furthermore, no instrument is
) able to directly measure heat(**).
)
HSMP:
The experiment of having three buckets with water at three different
temperatures, ordered from lower to higher, then immersing one hand in the
coldest, and another hand in the hottest for a minute, after which both hands
are immersed in the bucket at middle temperature also illustrates that one
should think twice before saying that something is inherently cold, warm or
hot. The need for an "objective" temperature scale follows from there.
I agree that thermodynamics is a difficult subject, and that there are no
instruments to measure heat. I cannot resist the temptation to refer anybody
who might be interested to the book "The Refrigerator and the Universe", by
M. Goldstein and I. F. Goldstein.
J. C.:
) Perhaps I have not been specific enough in the past. My point here is that
) the typical college student graduates without an _awareness_ of what is
) observable and what is an abstract concept, even in the sciences and
) engineering. This gets back to David Hirsch's post on the current paradigm
) of science. If students are taught to assume its abstractions are real, it
) is unlikely they will discover anything outside the limits of that
) paradigm. If they are aware of the subjective limits of the paradigm,
) through a heightened sense of attentiveness they will be able to begin
) again from the direct observations, and perhaps see the world in a new
) light.
)
HSMP:
So we have to distinguish "subjective assumptions" from "objective experiences",
even from "subjective experiences". Therefore we need some definitions of
"objectivity", "subjectivity" and even "reality". I have trouble to reconcile
this last paragraph of yours with your former posts on the subjectivity of
science, though this last phrasing is more convincing to me.
However, it seems that we all agree that pseudo-science should not be taught
as if it were science. The next points are whether or not this happens at WS
more often than at other schools and whether or not this is a consequence of
the anthroposophical background of WE.
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n833.3 ---------------
From: Robert Flannery (litvas icu.com)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 20:02:42 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
References: (199807241447.HAA16134 lists1.best.com); from
"469593N knotes.kodak.com" at Jul 24, 98 9:41 am
In-Reply-To: (199807241749.KAA09382 lists1.best.com)
)Then Robert
)Flannery mentioned that some Waldorf teachers who do not have an acceptable
)background in science are likely to teach anthroposophical concepts. These
)latter would be having the attitude I mentioned.
I said that some waldorf teachers who were lacking a good foundation in the
sciences might confuse science and anthroposophy.
"Might" does not convey nearly the same meaning as "are likely to".
Robert Flannery
New York
litvas icu.com
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n833.4 ---------------
From: Debra Snell (snell netshel.net)
Subject: Rudolf Steiner Foundation loans money to public school
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 22:47:04 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In Rudolf Steiner Foundation's Quartery News (June 30, 1998), I note
with interest that a loan was made to a public high school in Detroit.
Err, could that be another public Waldorf school?
"Detroit Community High School: $ 380,000 to prefinance anticipated
tuition payments due from the State of Michigan, Department of Education
for the 1998-99 school year."
Debra
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n833.5 ---------------
From: Humberto saint Martin (humberto xibalba.ifisicam.unam.mx)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 98 10:04:55 CDT
In-Reply-To: (199807242352.QAA03066 lists1.best.com); from "Robert Flannery" at Jul 24, 98 8:02 pm
) I said that some waldorf teachers who were lacking a good foundation in the
) sciences might confuse science and anthroposophy.
)
) "Might" does not convey nearly the same meaning as "are likely to".
)
HSMP:
Sorry, my mistake. I meant to say that it is possible that they teach
anthroposophical concepts.
--
Humberto Saint Martin
__________________________________________________________________
Laboratorio de Cuernavaca, IFUNAM | Tel.: (52-73) 135688
Apartado Postal 48 - 3 | 175388
Calle Estrada Cajigal 510, | (52-5) 6227796
Colonia Tezontepec |
62251 Cuernavaca, Morelos | Fax: (52-73) 173077
MEXICO | 111603
| (52-5) 6227775
__________________________________________________________________
--------------- END waldorf-critics.v001.n833 ---------------
-------------- BEGIN waldorf-critics.v001.n834 --------------
001 - spike (spike netshel.net) - Teaching Reading
002 - Michael Hirsch (hirsch ma - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
003 - "Steve Premo" (premo cruz - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
004 - Humberto saint Martin (hu - Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n834.1 ---------------
From: spike (spike netshel.net)
Subject: Teaching Reading
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1998 20:55:37 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807201610.JAA13605 lists1.best.com)
Steve Premo wrote (some time ago),
)
)I have the impression from reading Kathy's posts that she felt she
) was being compelled to submit to indoctrination, but I don't recall what she said
) specifically about the training she received.
I was taught that the teaching of reading in the third grade and "after
the eyeteeth had emerged" was because the child's etheric body had
incarnated and this was, therefore, the appropriate time to teach this
skill. I received this information during a lecture by Betty Staley
during a public school teacher's training at Rudolf Steiner College.
Much of the religious indoctrination I was subjected to was at the hands
of Betty Staley.
My apologies for my delayed response. I just returned from Mexico
(Baja).
Kathy
--------------- MESSAGE waldorf-critics.v001.n834.2 ---------------
From: Michael Hirsch (hirsch mathcs.emory.edu)
Subject: Re: Anything like the good parts of Waldorf
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1998 12:44:33 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: (199807241447.HAA16134 lists1.best.com)
In-Reply-To: (48312511 toto.iv)
Humberto saint Martin writes:
) However, it seems that we all agree that pseudo-science should not be taught
) as if it were science. The next points are whether or not this happens at WS
) more often than at other schools and whether or not this is a consequence of
) the anthroposophical background of WE.
Actually, I think that these points are probably irrelevant (though,
IMHO, probably true) for the purposes of this list (or at least Dan
Dugan's purposes--and he is the list owner). The relevant question is
whether or not it is the _policy_ of the Waldo