Essay talk:The Perry Theory is a pile of bunk

I think you've completely misunderstood this, although I should point out that what I know of the theory comes entirely from the main article and the source you've provided, which from the fact that it endorses Myers-Briggs seems to be bullshit, although the summary it gives of the Perry theory makes it seem sound enough.

Yes, it's easy to say "Creationism is a pile of bunk," but it's just as easy to say "evolution is a pile of bunk." One is right and the other is wrong, but while in the "dualistic mode of thought," you'll treat whichever is "right" as an axiom, and if that's the latter, you'll ignore evidence to the contrary. ("Stephen, what part of 'there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is his prophet' don't you understand? Look, let's assume for the sake of argument that your god is the One True God. That would mean Allah is not the One True God, which we know he is.") There's hardly any value to believing that evolution is the strongest theory for the origin of modern life - or any other fact not immediately needed - on the word of some authority, because at every stage of your life, some, sometimes even most, authorities will be objectively wrong. This is why it is the lowest rung of thought.

Multiplicity is little better, for just the reason you've said: "The challenges of this stage include an inability to grasp the 'idea that some opinions are better than others.'" That's why it's the second-lowest rung. However, your next sentence is the problem: "If you will remember, this idea was easily grasped when the student was in the 'Received Knowledge' phase." Yes, the concept that some opinions were better than others was reasonably grasped, but which opinions? The ones you'd learned from the people you'd most trusted. If you were raised an atheist and educated by trained and practicing scientists, that's all well and good. Most people, though, were raised Christian or Muslim, and in the US, educated through majority by teachers trained only in how to teach, most having learned their material in their first year teaching and more often than not garbled it. So while the idea of opinions being "right" or "wrong" may no longer come to you as easily, that's better than assigning the labels arbitrarily.

This is why relativism is an improvement. Distrust of the information you're given, and having a reason for whom to trust other than upbringing, is as much key to a scientific worldview as to the humanities. You do have to have some basic rules for what facts can be accepted without argument, but in science, these really ought to be minimized; that's the idea behind reproducibility. So "a range of paleontological, historical, and cultural factors" do need to be considered, and considering them thoroughly, one ought to come to the obvious conclusion! Some will see them all and come to the wrong conclusion, but which do you think is more likely: that someone raised creationist will examine the paleontological evidence, the history of "intelligent design," the cultural stake in promoting creationism, and come into the light, or that someone who had all his life held "creation is bunk" will, having learned to seek a full understanding of what one is told, thoroughly consider the arguments for it and accept them? It will happen, sure. However, that most should gain a better understanding of reality than being beaten over the head with a textbook, it's worth it. Sake Fueled (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

As far as science goes, the best way to compensate for incorrect received knowledge is most often to get correct received knowledge. Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny; similarly, a scientist has to stand on the shoulders of giants at some point. But in any event, relativism is certainly not the solution to the problem of incorrect received knowledge in the scientific sphere; it is that sort of thinking that let creationists get their foot in the door. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Why should a person believe correct received knowledge over incorrect received knowledge if that person has no ability to analyze it on a deeper level? Look at a creationist video, and you can see the gears turning - they've seen all the evidence we have, but they interpret it, its truth or falsehood, how it interconnects, through the lens of the knowledge they initially received. If that were the knowledge you'd initially received, if your rejection of "relativism" is genuine, you'd do the same. Yes, it is "relativistic" thinking that lets creationists get their foot in the door, but it's also that kind of thinking that got them on their side of the door in the first place. It isn't the recapitulation fallacy because it is not recapitulation, but continuation: the distinction between the progress of the past hundred years and that of the next hundred only comes from our limited perspective. If pure received knowledge were of value, why would the scientific community insist on reproducibility? "Relativism" does not appear to be used here in the sense of "all perspectives must be accepted," only that they should be not dismissed without reason (and there are ample reasons to dismiss creationism). But the fact that not all who who are laughed at are geniuses does not mean that no geniuses are laughed at. No, I want creationists to have their foot in the door, just one tiny foot in the door, and naturopaths, and ufologists, and every other loon, because some day, some loon is going to be right. When that happens, as little as anyone in it would anticipate it today, there's going to be a faction fighting for an orthodoxy whose time will have long ended, as there always has been, always, because it's the knowledge they received. Sake Fueled (talk) 18:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Why should a person believe correct received knowledge over incorrect received knowledge if that person has no ability to analyze it on a deeper level? Because the correct received knowledge is correct, even if each person does not have the wherewithal to verify that himself. As to cases when the scientific establishment is incorrect, one should not let the iron law of institutions get into one's thinking; just because the people who were correct were once on the fringes of science, does not mean that the division between correct and incorrect should be discarded to get them into the mainstream (which is what the Perry Theory advocates, with the belief that "one theory or opinion is as good as another").

The view of teaching in the final phase, "challenging and encouraging students to explore complexities fully and then to take a stand," is what all the shysters in liberal arts disciplines pretend they are doing, but it is not an accurate description of teaching in science. It is, however, in close agreement with the dreck excreted by the presuppositional creationists to the effect that the differences between creationists and scientists are down solely to "interpretation of the evidence." Most creationists' work instead involves spieling massive amounts of bullshit in an attempt to explain why they are ignoring most of the evidence. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Correct received knowledge is correct" is no argument for it at all when the knowledge you've received tells you it's incorrect; it can the only be seen as an instance of that concept you've so easily come to grasp, "wrong." A person who has only been versed in received knowledge, correct or incorrect, not only does not have the wherewithal to verify, but does not really have a concept of truth itself, since in a vacuum, a modern physics text is equal in value to Aristotle's, likely the same ink, on the same paper, and just as easily taught, the only difference coming from evaluating them vis-à-vis other information. All received knowledge is is knowledge taught out of a textbook, any textbook, not just the ones that can be found in a more thorough examination to be right. To learn alternative viewpoints can confuse the mind, but to examine these as they relate to one another and the world itself, to honestly "explore complexities fully and then take a stand," is at the heart of science; there is, of course, much more settled information to be taught, initially, largely by fiat than in those disciplines with only the most tenuous connections positive or negative to reality, but once this is learned, if your ambitions lie above writing for high schoolers, what's required is an open and thorough examinations of the complexities of available evidence and of competing hypotheses and paradigms. To examine the evidence in light of information already "understood," on the other hand, is at the heart of creationist methodology. And tangentially, is your reading comprehension really terrible enough that you think the Perry theory is advocating the idea that "one theory or opinion is as good as another," when it specifically advocates learning the opposite after having come to this misapprehension? Sake Fueled (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

One can yammer about "verifiability" all one wants; but as Galileo was supposed to have said, E pur si muove. Someone who has learned the heliocentric model at the feet of the master is still right where Ptolemy, with all his observation, was wrong.

The level of innovation actually going on in science is greatly overblown by the popular press, and much use is actually made of received knowledge by the rank and file (not all physicists are rethinking or actively testing the law of gravity all the time). This is not, of course, to say that scientists are operating strictly within the "Received Knowledge" phase as set forth in the Perry Theory — but they have not made the step required to progress to the "Subjective Knowledge" phase, namely the jettisoning of any concept of absolute truth.

This brings us to the "tangential" point: You will note that the idea that "one theory or opinion is as good as another" is not actually abandoned as the pilgrim progresses to higher levels of understanding; despite the introduction of personal positions and preferences on top of the relativistic basis, the student is still certain in the knowledge that knowledge is uncertain, and is unable to state definitively that certain theories are false, as is done extensively in science. He can be mealy-mouthed and say, in the relativistic manner, that "there are ample reasons to dismiss creationism," and dismiss it in his own opinion; but he cannot make the factual judgment that creationism is patently false. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can say that there is overwhelming reason to dismiss something, to me, this is the definition of falsehood. Any stronger definition, outside pure logic, would require other ways of knowing. It is possible to conceive of a world in which a form of creationism would be stronger than evolution, and the same can be said of any two internally consistent hypotheses. The only reason evolution is "better" is that we don't live in that world.

Furthermore, you shoot yourself in the foot with Galileo - Galileo was taught to view the skies in epicycles, as was Copernicus, by the great thinkers of the day. They rejected Ptolemy's model based on evaluating it in light of the available evidence regarding how the universe worked. Copernicus did not simply decide one day that it was the Earth that moved rather than the sun, but found that it fit the simple universe he saw better to posit a heliocentric system rather than such a bizarrely, inexplicably complex celestial sphere, and Galileo chose his model for the same reason. Indeed, this is the reason for a dialogue as a tool of learning - teaching by fiat, without a willingness to reexamine one's own ideas given sufficient reason, is all but the definition of sophistry.

"High school teacher" was hyperbole, but as complexly divided as modern science is, it is not unheard of even in recent times for large groups (consider tectophysics) to find they've wasted years of their lives. While it does suffice for many, even most, scientists to only base their observation on a received framework, these frameworks would be as worthless as alchemy without those who examine them more deeply, and without prejudice, reexamine them perpetually. Sake Fueled (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you have not grappled with creationists much, if you think that pure logic is not what is used against them; besides the logical spaghetti they prefer to call their "arguments," there is the issue that they refuse to accept the distortions of natural law necessary to make their theories fit the evidence — this is not a matter of different worlds, since the corpus of evidence used by scientists and creationists is (in theory) the same, and thus the whole debate is taking place within a single world. The only world in which creationism is plausible is an impossible world, and that makes things really messy in the theodicy department.

Again, I am not disputing that scientists utilize other forms than pure received knowledge. However, "dialogue as a tool of education" is worth squat in science, since people rarely know enough to engage in that kind of dialogue until after they are educated. Experimentation is the primary way of questioning and testing scientific theories, not engaging in persiflage with other scientists. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

My point is that creationism is not in general tautologically false, but logic is used only as a tool to shed light on the ample reasons to reject creationism. They make their theories fit the evidence because it is their axiom, because they have not let go of their axiom. The dialogue is, to an extent, standard classroom protocol even in science, especially math, and the ancestor of peer review itself; it's certainly better than the alternative of "come to a hypothesis unilaterally and have others pay you to explain it, valuing reputation and livelihood above accuracy." This does not address the basic point that anything can be taught, and what the fundamental observation here appears to be (again, what I know of this theory is this page, the main page, and that article), that after understanding that what's learned from authority figures isn't necessarily true, there's a transitional period before one comes to a deeper understanding of what "correct" and "incorrect" actually mean.

Oh, and now you're stalking me. Thanks. Sake Fueled (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

They make their theories fit the evidence because it is their axiom... But their theories do not fit the evidence, even the evidence that they accept the validity of and try to deal with. One example of this is Russell Humphreys's attempt to explain the evidence from radiocarbon dating by saying that radioactive decay sped up during the Deluge, but he fails to consider that this, according to laws that creationists accept, would have vaporized the Earth. Although scientific results are being utilized here as premises, when you get down to the nuts and bolts it is plain logic.

The dialogue is, to an extent, standard classroom protocol even in science... Are you a scientist?

Oh, and now you're stalking me. Thanks. Huh? ListenerX^TalkerX 23:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(I'd noticed a lot of my recent edits were followed by one of yours. Never mind.) I'm a burnout, but a burnout with a physics degree, and I'd say that, at the schools I attended, there was fair emphasis, especially in math, on making sure a student could independently reach each step of the reasoning with prodding, blindly accepting as little as possible within scope - in short, an interactive protocol not unlike a dialogue. "They make their theories fit the evidence" was very poor phrasing in retrospect - this was a reference to the "logical spaghetti" created as creationists build on new evidence, necessitated by their unassailable acceptance of the Bible. Sake Fueled (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I was talking about the sort of "dialogue" that is currently fashionable among the educational experts, the ideal form of which involves eliminating lectures altogether and turning the professor into a "guide on the side."

I did go through a similar kind of training as what you describe, although my instructors did not cast it as a "dialogue;" what they said was that besides the facts you learn by rote, they were also teaching us the scientific method and the nuts-and-bolts of reasoning. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Neophyte's take

I'll have to draw quite a bit on personal experience here, but this is my two coppers. The theory seems correct in one place, which is that many students (and many not versed in basic science/statistics/philosophy in general) have a naive sort of epistemology in which claims are either true or false. After that, it does look like bunk to me. Is there any empirical evidence for this? I'm not versed in educational theory, but I've seen enough junk, pop psychology filter down into education that I'm highly skeptical of this "theory" (especially considering MBTI is heavily invoked, which puts my bullshit detector on high alert). As I've climbed the academic ladder, Shunryu Suzuki's words have rung true to me: "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few." There are many disagreements possible in any field, but they are esoteric and somewhat limited when compared to the folk science that surrounds said field. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I was acquainted with the theory at what was politely called an "education seminar" at my alma mater. My own bullshit detector went off almost before the theory's proponent started talking, but the examples that she gave of each stage were what really cemented that view of it in my head.

I think that it represents certain Educational Experts' wishes for students more than any reality, and also that the students who do follow this path are almost invariably in the more intellectually vacuous fields of liberal arts, not the hard sciences. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

If I think about it, I could probably break my own progression up into roughly three or four stages:

1. Binary. Claims are either true/false.
2. Bayesian. Claims are ascribed a degree of probability.
3. Emergent. Differing claims are not necessarily opposed, but may be describing the same phenomenon at different levels (e.g., arguments made by someone who studies the neural correlates of emotion x vs. someone who describes the social effects of emotion x).
4. Kuhnian. Claims are limited by the historical, social, and technological boundaries built into the current paradigm. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

5... Profit? ^sshole 22:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Summing up

So, am I reading it correctly to say that the stages seem to be as follows:

1. Assuming everything is completely True or completely False. Reasoning be damned.
2. Hey, anything could be right. Everything is right! Relativism rules all.
3. Because of relativism, everything could be right, therefore I'm right.

Effectively going back to the same position again but avoiding actual reason along the way. ^postate 17:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

In practice, usually, I'm sure. In theory, it's supposed to bring you to a different position, and if you go to the main page, studies show that it sometimes does, mostly for the better. Sake Fueled (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)