In a recent post,
Professor Plum promised examples of logical fallacies in
eduwriting. No doubt Impatient Readers upped their consignment of Paxil to handle the unbearable strain of waiting.
Let's begin with a portion of palaver from the great British
philospher, Dave "Big Daddy" Hume. B. Diddy, as he was known on the
streets, was fed to the backteeth with arguments having no empirical
support--whose persuasive force derived, instead, from rhetorical
trickery.
"Principles
taken upon trust, consequences lamely deduced from them, want of coherence in the parts, and of
evidence in the whole, these are everywhere to be met in the systems of the most eminent
philosophers, and seem to have drawn disgrace upon
philosophy itself... Disputes are multiplied, as if everything was uncertain. Amidst all this bustle, it is not reason which carries the prize, but
eloquence: and no man needs ever despair of gaining proselytes to
the most extravagant hypothesis, who has art enough to represent it in
any favourable colours. The victory is not gained by the men at arms, who
manage the pike and the sword, but by the trumpeters, drummers, and
musicians of the army."
[David Hume. A treatise of human
nature. 1738]
Yup, B. Diddy about says it all...
After 35 years reading snappy stuff in education [35 years!! Seems
like only yesterday we were greasing our hair, then sculpting the
oleaginous mass into a fair replica of waves breaking off Waimea Bay.
And now?? So much beer. So little time! So little wave.]...well,
anyway, I've come to the firm conclusion that the really terrifying tripe is in the progressive camp.
Critical Readers are invited to check this assertion. Here, for example, are writings in the anti-progressive
camp ("instructivists," as labeled by Chester Finn and Dianne
Ravitch)--the good guys. See if you find many logical fallacies.
[They're also just plain great resources.]
J.E. Stone. "Developmentalism: An Obscure but Pervasive Restriction
on Educational Improvement." On-line at http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v4n8.html
Grossen, B. (1998). "What does it mean to be a research
based teaching profession?" On line at http://www.higherscores.org/
The case against teacher certification. See also Mike Podgursky's
critiques of NCATE, national boards, and teacher certification. At
http://www.missouri.edu/~econ4mp/Downloadable_Articles.htm
http://www.missouri.edu/~econ4mp/Downloadable_Papers
Eric Hanushek's critiques of the assertion that class size and advanced
teacher training make a difference in student achievement http://edpro.stanford.edu/eah/eah.htm
Lance Izumi's and K. Gwynne Coburn's critique of constructivist curricula in
schools of education, Facing the classroom challenge: Teacher quality and
teacher training in California's schools of education, at http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/sab/educat/facing_challenge/challenge.pdf
Pacific Research Institute at http://www.pacificresearch.org
Education Consumers at
http://www.education-consumers.com/ See articles by John Stone.
Fordham Foundation at http://www.edexcellence.net/
Hoover Institution at http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/research/k-12initiative/k12publications.html
National Council For Teacher Quality. Alternative certification
at http://www.nctq.org/
Education Leaders Council at http://www.educationleaders.org
No Excuses
Papers on effective instruction at
http://www.usu.edu/teachall
Ellis et al., "Research synthesis on effective teaching
principles and the design of quality tools for educators."
On-line at http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/techrep/tech06.html
and http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/techrep/tech05.pdf
Anderson, J.R., et al. Applications and Misapplications
of Cognitive Psychology to Mathematics. Department of Psychology,
Carnegie Mellon University.
On-line at http://act.psy.cmu.edu/personal/ja/misapplied.html
Dixon, R. "Review of High Quality Experimental Mathematics Research."
University of Oregon. National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators.
On-line at http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/math/math.html
Critiques of constructivist math. Mathematically Correct
at http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/
Heartland Institute: School Reform News at http://www.heartland.org/
Market Driven Schooling; e.g., vouchers "Understanding market-based
school reform." Walberg, H.J., & Bast, J.L. (1998). Heartland
Institute. Online at http://www.heartland.org
See? Told ya! Clearly written. Well-reasoned. Data.
In marked contrast, here are samples [emphases mine] of progressive
blather bursting with illogic. No doubt their authors are at this very
moment minding their own business--perhaps giving the family cat a
soothing ear bub or tummy rub. Then again, maybe not.
But this is not the time to dwell on bubbings and rubbings--feline or otherwise...
1. Our first sample is from a letter to the editor of Education Week.
It's the response made by Gerald Coles, a whole language advocate, to an
Education
Week article that discussed the effectiveness of direct instruction of reading skills.
"Is this 'war' really about skills and how to teach them? On the
surface it is, but adequately understanding the conflict requires addressing
deeper issues ingrained in the arguments about teaching method. One concerns
broad goals for children's development. Accompanying the call for the direct
instruction of skills is a managerial, minimally democratic, predetermined,
do-as-you're-told-because-it-will-be-good-for-you form of instruction.
Outcomes are narrowly instrumental, focusing on test scores of skills,
word identification, and delimited conceptions of reading comprehension.
It is a scripted pedagogy for producing compliant, conformist, competive
students and adults." (Gerald Coles. "No end to the reading wars."
Education
Week, December 2, 1998.)
[Mr. Coles's flamboyant rhetoric--which no doubt exerts strong
pressure on the glands of his many-headed whole language followers--is
an example of the fallacy of prejudicial
language. He's trying
to defend whole language against
explicit and systematic reading instruction. Unfortunately (for
persons who prefer evidence as a side dish to the main course of
infected flop), Mr. Coles's argument provides NO data that direct
instruction does not work as well as whole language, or that direct
instruction
on has any of the adverse effects Mr. Coles recites.
Instead, typical of self-styled progressives, Mr. Coles uses a string of negative
terms to demonize direct instruction. The bogus implication is that any
reader with children's interests at heart will reject direct instruction
and embrace whole language. If direct instruction is minimally democratic,
for example, then whole language must be maximally democratic. However,
Mr. Coles gives no evidence that supports his caricature of direct instruction
or the implied valorization of whole language.
The argument is also close to ad hominem, because Mr. Coles
not only tars direct instruction but also persons who advocate direct
instruction. For example, in the beginning of the excerpt, he asserts
that the reading "wars" are not merely about evidence and instruction;
the wars reflect "deeper" issues--namely the values and objectives of advocates.
The implication is that only those persons who are anti-democratic, managerial,
and want to tell children exactly what to do would be for direct instruction.]
2. This sample is part of an argument in favor of constructivist
teaching. I believe it won a prize for Most Nonsense Packed Into One
Line.
"We cannot understand an individual's cognitive structure without
observing it interacting in a context, within a culture." (Fosnot,
1996, p. 24)
[The fallacy here is a "category mistake"--in this case treating an intellectual fiction (cognitive structure)
as if it were a physical object. "Cognitive structure"
is NOT an object. It can't
be observed because it's not an it. By treating the loose
aggregation of beliefs, skills, and ways of doing things (that is called
"cognitive structure") as if it were object, and then by saying
that this cognitive structure can only be observed as it interacts
in a context, the author lays the groundwork for constructivist methods
of loose assessment and instruction.
In other words, ed professors, teachers, and ed students (well-trained
in airy "edspeak") can talk at length and with great confidence about children's
cognitive structures--how these fictitious entities are developed via constructivist
"practices" ("My children's cognitive structures are so much more open
and complex since we began using inquiry methods.")--without having any
idea at all what they are talking about.
3. This sample of constructivst argumentation sets up a false dilemma.
By vilifying one curriculum (behavioral), the writers try to persuade
readers to accept the other (the writers') constructivist curriculum.
"We see two major assumptions of the behaviorist approach that contrast
with the assumptions of the constructivist approach. The first broad assumption
of the behaviorist approach is that environmental stimuli shape and control
individual behavior responses. This assumption reflects the view that the
child's interests and purposes are irrelevant and leads to teacher-centered
power assertion in relation to children. This is in contrast to the constuctivist
view that the individual must actively construct knowledge, including stimuli
and responses. The reader will recognize the practical implications of
this behaviorist assumption as contradictory to constructivist cooperation
in relation to children." (DeVries and Zan, 1994: p. 267)
[This argument commits the fallacy of false dilemma. The argument
is that there are only two alternatives:
(1) If a person believes the environment shapes behavior, then the person will view children's interests
and purposes as irrelevant and will use his or her power to control children. But
(2) If a person believes children "construct" stimuli and responses,
then the person will view children's interests and purposes as relevant,
and will cooperate with children, rather than dominate them.
This false
dilemma is supposed to get readers to reject "behaviorism" and embrace
"the constructivist" classroom. The flaw is--there is no dilemma,
and so a person does not have to choose one or the other position.
The above passage also verges on ad hominem; it implies that
any "behaviorist" is a coercive teacher, and that is a bad thing; therefore,
we should not pay attention to what behaviorists have to say. In addition,
there is no evidence that any of the writers' propositions are true. The
writers apparently hope readers will be swayed by provocative words--which
is the fallacy of predjucial language.
4. This sample suffers from
an intellectual disorder that might be called "acute drivel
syndrome." The writing is so stupendously infected with
reification, tautology, bad grammar, and over-statement, that inattentive
readers might assume the writing is profound when in fact the argument
is grotesque nonsense.
"From this perspective, learning is a constructive building process
of meaning-making that results in reflective abstractions, producing symbols
within a medium." (Fosnot, 1996, p. 27). "Reflective abstraction
is the driving force of learning." (Fosnot, 1996, p. 29).
[First, notice the circularity in the line, "learning is a constructive
building process of meaning-making that results in reflective abstractions,
producing
symbols
within a medium," followed by "Reflective abstraction is the driving
force of learning." One moment reflective abstraction is the result
of learning (meaning construction). The next moment reflective abstraction
is the driving force behind learning. Well, which is it?
Second, the excerpt contains examples of reification: learning is
not said to be like a building process; it is a building
process. Likewise, reflection is said to be a driving force.
But what is reflection? Reflection means talking to yourself.
What kind of force is that? How can talking to yourself drive learning?
Do you talk first and then learn? Nonsense! [But in the field
of education, this sort of piffle is commonly seen as wisdom.]
Third, notice how the author connects phrases into what comes off
sounding profound, but means nothing. What, after all, is "meaning-making"?
Is it something persons do alongside acting? "I'm writing
a paper. Occasionally I stop to make meaning." And the phrase
"producing symbols in a medium" is simply incomprehensible. What
medium? A dish of agar?
5. This sample tries to make the case, "It's right for us; therefore, it's right for everyone."
"Reform...is not easy, but how we conceptualize things makes a difference.
The viable alternative we have been exploring involves reconceptualizing
the whole
of education as inquiry. For us and the teachers with whom we
work, education-as-inquiry represents a real shift in how
we think
about education...We want to see reading as inquiry, writing as
inquiry, classroom discipline as inquiry, and both teaching and learning
as inquiry. Instead of organizing curriculum around disciplines,
we
want to organize curriculum around the personal and social inquiry
questions of learners...Inquiry as we see it is about unpacking
issues for purposes of creating a more just, a more equitable, a more thoughtful
world...Theoretically, education-as-inquiry finds its roots in whole language,
sociopsycholinguistic, or, these days what we prefer to call socio-semiotic
theory or what others call cultural studies." (Harste & Leland, 1998.
p. 192-3)
[This excerpt has several fallacies. One is the fallacy of hasty
generalization, or converse accident--which means generalizing
from a unique circumstance to other settings. The writers admit that their
education-as-inquiry perspective is "how we think about education" and
that it is about "unpacking issues for purposes of creating a more just,
a more equitable, a more thoughtful world." Perhaps this works well for
them
in their special circumstances. However, they propose to go well beyond
their
experiences. They wish to prescribe a conception of education, aims
of education, and a curriculum for everyone. (The Right-thinking Citizen says, "Thanks, but No Thanks, Comrade.")
A second fallacy is fallacy is prejudicial language. The writers are trying
to make a case for their education-as-inquiry conception and curriculum.
But do they offer any good reasons for these innovations? All they offer
is gaudy visions of a just, thoughtful and equitable world. These words
appeal to many readers' sentiments and hopes. But these words are hardly
a good reason for accepting the authors' proposed innovations. After all,
the world's graveyards are filled with millions of individuals who died
for someone else's notion of justice--just as schools and prisons are filled
with persons who had been subjected to ed professors' nutty notions of
what constitutes good teaching.
6. This sample contains wonderful examples of circular reasoning. Caution. If you are prone to vertigo, don't read it. [I had vertigo once, for about 10 seconds. Now THAT is scary!]
"...when parents and teachers plan children's environment and activities
carefully so that literacy is an integral part of everything they
do, then literacy learning becomes a natural and meaningful part of
children's everyday lives. When you create this kind of environment, there
is no need to set aside time to teach formal lessons to children about
reading and writing. Children will learn about written language because
it is a part of their life." (Schickendanz, 1986. p. 125)
Feel dizzy? The argument goes round and round without
saying much. That's because the entire argument is a big circle. The first sentence asserts a proposition about the relationship
between the literature richness of a child's environment (independent variable)
and the extent to which literacy learning becomes a natural and meaningful
part of everyday life (dependent variable). On the surface, this
seems plausible. But that's because the proposition is asserting
nothing more than "X is X." Read the sentence carefully. The phrase
"literacy is an integral part of everything they do" means the same thing
as "literacy learning becomes a natural and meaningful part of children's
everyday lives." Therefore, of course the proposition seems intuitively
reasonable; because an "integral part of everything" IS "a natural and
meaningful part."
The second circularity is in the second to last
sentence, which asserts that when a child has a literature rich environment
(independent variable), there is no need for formal reading instruction
(dependent variable). The next sentence ("Children will learn about written
language because it is a part of their life.") appears to explain
why this might be so--i.e., why a literature rich envirionment makes formal
instruction unnecessary. But instead, of asserting that some new sort
of thing happens in a literature rich envinment that does the
teaching, the next sentence ("Children will learn about written language
because it is a part of their life.") merely repeats the gist of
the first sentence, but in reverse order.
[Give me a minute and I'll write something long-winded!]
So, the argument boils down to
this. (1) A literature rich environment teaches children to read, because...
(2) Children learn to read in a literature rich environment.
Wow! How informative!
What a sane person wants to know is, HOW does a literature rich environment teach children to read without formal instruction? Unfortunately,
the authors don't have anything to say about this. (But we didn't think
they would.)
Well, that's all we have time for--and no doubt I exhausted your tolerance long ago.
But what accounts for arguments that are so illogical?
In my humble op, it's that progressivist writers really DON'T know what they are talking about. In fact, they are often talking about nothing at all. Therefore, anything they have to say about nothing has to come out pretty drippy.
The other reason is that they have no credible data to support their
teaching methods and no credible data to support their criticisms of
their opponents who offer effective (more traditional) instruction.
Therefore, they have to make something up--something that sounds good--but is (and can only be) all rot.
DeVries, R., & Zan, B. (1994). Moral classrooms, moral children.
New York: Teachers College Press. Downes, S (1996).
Fosnot, C.T. (Ed.) (1996). Constructivism :
theory, perspectives, and practice. New York : Teachers College Press.
Harste, J.C., & Leland, C.H. (1998). No quick fix: Education
as inquiry. Reading Research and Instruction, 37, 3, 191-205. Kauffman,
J.M., & Hallahan, D.P. (1995).
Schickendanz, J.A. (1986). More than the ABC's: The early stages
of reading and writing. Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Recent Comments