How vs. Why

October 21, 2007

The discussion of contructivism as a religion got me thinking of parallels that I discuss in my classes between science and religion.
“How vs. why” is the key point that science and religion oppose on. Religion tells you why things occur and science tells you how things happen.

Stephen Jay Gould said it must more eloquently here.

But to get to my point, and my deterministic philosophy rears its ugly head, if you use sound research to support what you are doing the chances of getting learning to occur  increases. So lets get deterministic,  our ancestors learned by doing things in nature so that they may survive. Obviously from these origins humans are  predisposed  to learn in certain ways.  I am pretty sure that there weren’t that many blackboards in the savannas of Africa so why would we think that we will learn best in this way?

To paraphrase, we as humans learn in a certain matter based upon mechanisms at the molecular level. The best way to get the outcomes that you want is to take into account these predisposition. Sound theory proves that certain actions work better than others based upon the outcomes. And before anyone yells at me I am not a behaviorist I know there are some things that we teach that are not easily detected.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: