The Place of Reason in Education

THE PLACE OF REASON IN EDUCATION By Bertram Bondman OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS THE PLACE OF REASON IN EDUCATION By Bertram Bandman Educational philosophies frequently col lide with some violence but without mak ing much impact on the educational com munity and on its practices and policies. That such collisions are inconclusive is seen to result from the absence of accept able criteria for rationally judging be tween conflicting educational proposals. Mr. Bandman seeks to demonstrate the relevance of philosophy to education by undertaking a philosophical examination of the crucial question in education "What should be taught?" His purpose is to de termine what, if anything, qualifies as a rational argument in helping us to answer this fundamental question. In his examination of the scope and limits of reason in education, Mr. Band- man attempts to locate pertinent canons of criticism by which an educational argu ment may be assessed, on the assumption that it is quite possible to deal rationally with arguments that are employed in edu cational controversy. He imposes no single philosophical standard for making such an assessment, and though he offers criti cism of metaphysical and moral assump tions in education, he neither accepts nor rejects any philosophical doctrine in toto. An evaluative argument in education, Mr. Bandman finds, is one that may be used either as a quarrel or debate, as a proof or demonstration, or as a set of (Continued on back flap) Studies in Educational Theory of the John Dewey Society NUMBER 4 The Place of Reason in Education The Commission on Studies in Educational Theory Appointed by the John Dewey Society Frederick Ellis Western Washington State College Ward Madden Brooklyn College, The City University of New York Israel Scheffler Harvard University Robert Mason, Chairman University of Pittsburgh The Place of Reason in Education by BERTRAM BANDMAN OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY PRESS Copyright © 1967 by the Ohio State University Press All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Catalogue Card Number: 66-25169 To Elsie Foreword In sponsoring the "Studies in Educational Theory,'' the John Dewey Society has had as its major objective to bring to the attention of thoughtful educators, hard at work in classrooms and administrative offices, and in the preparation of teachers, technical scholarly works that apply relevant philosophical tenets to current educational problems and concerns. Readers who have not followed recent developments in formal academic philosophy will find that some parts of this book are devoted to what seem to be the purely technical and special concerns of formal philosophy, and that others belabor, elaborately and unduly, what at first appear to be quite obvious matters. The book is vulnerable to both charges inasmuch as the answer to the fundamental question, What should be taught?, is at once patently obvious and anguishingly complex. For even when we are certain of what it is exactly that we believe is right and true, we continue to face questions that relate, in a complex network of interconnections, to the prob lem of what, indeed, should be taught. It is to these disturbing questions that Professor Bandman addresses himself by apply ing some of the techniques of modern analytical philosophy to the study of education. Foreword Professor Bandman's position is that what we believe about reality, knowledge, and goodness can make a good deal of difference in education, and that a carefully reasoned educa tional program will draw, quite properly, on both moral and metaphysical notions. He insists, however, at the same time, that pedagogical conditions must also be satisfied; for, he argues, the problem of whether a subject can be taught meaningfully—that is, so that it is genuinely learned and not merely memorized—is a consideration as important as whether the subject itself is true and valuable. And this is really a most remarkable argument to emerge from an investigation such as we have here, for it dignifies pedagogy by maintaining that its findings are necessary and crucial in educational decision-making. Professor Bandman's investigation into the place of reason in education is in the grand tradition of philosophy as a search for measure or principle. To those who respond to the question, What should be taught?, capriciously and according to the prevailing fashion of the day, it will seem a thoroughly unnecessary and precious enterprise. For those educators who suffer in the search for a just measure by which judgment can be rendered, however, it will prove to have profound meaning. Important questions, such as What should be taught?, need to be given reasoned answers if we are to maintain a modicum of freedom; for decisions involving the public good that are based on capricious adherence to fashionable theories that are widely held rest solely upon power; and justice, in this instance, becomes merely service to the interests of the stronger. The Commission on Studies in Educational Theory of the John Dewey Society, which recommended publication of The Place of Reason in Education to the Society's Executive Board, xi Foreword has played a considerable part in the critical evaluation of the manuscript during its final revision for publication. With the author, the members of the Commission are grateful to other consultants who evaluated the work in progress and made suggestions for its improvement. Of particular value has been the advice of Professor Arno Bellack, of Teachers College, Columbia University; Professor James McClellan, of Temple University; and Professor Joe Burnett, of the University of Illinois and president of the John Dewey Society. ROBERT E. MASON University of Pittsburgh June 24, 1966 Preface I tried to write this book in the conviction that reason has a role to play in human affairs and that the way of all flesh is not the only one for the schools to follow. The world of Orwell's 1984 approaches, and Big Brother's approving chants of Doublethink threaten to make a mockery of schooling. The schools have a role to play and a chance in the struggle if teachers (and others into whose hands the young are brought) are themselves taught to use reason in education. By way of acknowledgment, I wish to thank the members of the Commission on Publication of the Studies in Educa tional Theory of the John Dewey Society for their help and encouragement. Specifically, to Professor Robert E. Mason, its chairman, for laboring over the manuscript, offering sug gestions, and encouraging me with unusual steadfastness. Professors Frederick Ellis and Ward Madden, also of the Commission, commented critically on the entire manuscript; and the latter, in particular, helped me to qualify my criticisms of Dewey and Raup (in Chapter III). My thanks also to Professor Israel Scheffler, of the Commission, for encourage ment and enlightening criticisms, particularly on one of my Preface sample arguments (early in Chapter I); and to Professor Joe Burnett, president of the Society, for continuing encourage ment and helpful criticism of my argument in Chapter II. Deep personal gratitude goes to Professor James E. Mc Clellan, true friend and philosopher, who more than anyone else, I believe, taught me—if it can be taught at all—what it means to do a little philosophy. I am indebted to Professor Philip Phenix who, besides teaching me the importance of Vision'7 in philosophy of education, ingeniously showed me in an earlier version of this work why it is that not even truth-telling is under all conditions sacrosanct. Professor Arno Bellack, friend and mentor, drew my attention to actual prob lems of teaching and tried to keep me from the philosopher's trick of speculating too much about education in general. My gratitude to Professor Judith Jarvis Thomson for her most helpful comments on an earlier version (especially Chapters III, IV, and V), and, in particular, for suggesting a telling example of an overriding reason in education; and to Pro fessor Sidney Morgenbesser, also for his comments on an earlier version and particularly for suggesting the rebuttal notion used in Chapter VI. I am grateful to the following publishers and authors: The editors of the Journal of Philosophy for permission to quote from H. Broudy, "How Philosophical Can a Philosophy of Education Be?" Volume LII, No. 22 (October 27, 1955); J. E. McClellan, "Why Should the Humanities Be Taught?" Vol. 55 (November 6, 1958); and B. Othanel Smith, 'Views on the Role of Philosophy in Teacher Education," Vol. LIX (October 25, 1962), and to these authors for granting per mission to quote. To Professor William R. Frankena for permission to quote excerpts from an unpublished paper, "McMurrin and Smith on xv Preface the Philosophy of Education," read at the 1962 meeting of the Eastern Division of the American Philosophical Association. To the University of Chicago Press for permission to quote excerpts from W. J. McGucken, "A Catholic Philosophy of Education," and H. Home, "An Idealist Philosophy of Edu cation," in the Forty-first Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 1942. To Rand McNally and Company for permission to quote excerpts from Smith and Ennis, Language and Concepts in Education, 1961. To the Syracuse University Press for permission to quote excerpts from Othanel Smith, "Basic Issues in American Secondary Education," in I. P. Halverson (ed.), Frontiers of Secondary Education, 1956. To Prentice-Hall for permission to quote excerpts from H. Broudy, Building a Philosophy of Education (2nd ed., 1961). To the editors of the Harvard Educational Review for permission to quote excerpts from S. Hook, "The Scope of Philosophy of Education", Vol. XXVI (Spring, 1956). In writing this book, I benefited also from discussions with colleagues in the Department of Philosophy, both at the C.

Load more