epistemology – Taking Children Seriously

Misconceptions about Taking Children Seriously

“What do you mean by ‘problem’?”

A problem is something which gives rise to human thought—such as a conflict between two theories, a paradox or anomaly. It does not only refer to ‘bad problems’—conflicts between people, problems that seem to make people miserable, things we would rather avoid. Anything sparking thinking, including enormously enjoyable thinking, like when you notice something and wonder about it, following your curiosity wherever it leads, is a ‘problem’ in this wide sense.

Free to learn: the immorality of compulsory schools

The school system isn’t wrong in the sense that it’s further from the truth than Karl Popper. It’s wrong like the Catholic Church was wrong in refusing to accept Galileo’s heliocentrism and in locking him up so as to protect their worldview.

“Isn’t taking children seriously a risky experiment with children? Is there any evidence that it works? Has it been studied?”

If you were in the American slave-holding South in the days of slavery, and a supporter of slavery was demanding studies and ‘evidence’ to justify your argument for ending slavery, would that not strike you as a highly immoral stance?

“Equal relationships with our children?! How are parents and children are equals?!”

Children are no less creative and rational than adults, whether or not they yet have the explicit language in which to express themselves.

“What is the relationship between Karl Popper’s epistemology, the ideas of David Deutsch and Taking Children Seriously?”

We really do learn from our mistakes, by trial and error. And at the same time we learn how little we know—as when, in climbing a mountain; every step upwards opens some new vista into the unknown, and new worlds unfold themselves of whose existence we knew nothing when we began our climb.

“Is the purpose of taking children seriously to avoid the harm coercion would do?”

Even if childhood coercion has virtually no effect, it would not change what it is right or wrong to do to people. And it is not right to do things to people that will impair the growth of knowledge.

“Is it necessary to reject authority?”

Knowledge is conjectural, and we are all fallible. When everything is open to question and we do not hold anything or anyone as an authority, we are free to correct errors that otherwise would have kept us stuck and miserable. Yay!

Taking Children Seriously: a new view of children

Taking Children Seriously is a new VIEW of children—a non-paternalistic view: children do not actually need to be controlled for their own good. An Oxford Karl Popper Society talk.

Against ego-centric epistemology

A discussion about Karl Popper’s epistemology, reason, the growth of knowledge, relativism and certainty.

An Objectivist’s assessment of Karl Popper

An Objectivist reevaluates Karl Popper after discussions with Popperian people taking children seriously.

Both coercion and “doing nothing” are mistakes

Children have to do what they themselves think is right, with no pressure whatsoever—that’s what non-coercion amounts to—but they also have a right to be told morality as best we see it.

Clarifying Karl Popper’s epistemology

Karl Popper’s theory prevails because it solves problems other theories of the growth of knowledge fail to solve, it is a better explanation than its rivals, and it unifies ideas previously thought to be unconnected.

Answering questions about Karl Popper’s epistemology

Once one begins to see how extremely general this notion of conjecture and refutation is, then it begins to seem much more likely that learning always follows that pattern.

Karl Popper on the growth of knowledge

Understanding that knowledge grows through creative conjecture and inner criticism facilitates noncoercive interactions.

Coercion is irrational

How (logically) coercion interferes with creativity in the mind.

Educational theory: science or philosophy?

One of our best theories (the framework theory of evolution) is not scientific, but that it is none the worse for that. And all scientific theories rely on a philosophical framework.

Why epistemology matters for parents

All interactions implicitly assume epistemological ideas, so it is worth considering what those ideas are and whether they are true or not.

Unschooling and Karl Popper

Popper’s work provides an epistemological critique of the teacher-directed learning model, although it appears that Popper himself never made this connection.

Philosophical theories are refuted by argument, not empirical tests

There is no point demanding testability of an educational theory. What one can do with philosophical theories, is refute them by argument. Empirical testing is just one of a number of types of intersubjective criticism, and the vast majority of all criticism is by argument, even in science. Most scientific theories are refuted before they even get to the stage of empirical testing.

Why bother with the philosophy?

How you think people learn informs all your interactions with your children. If you view learning as a creative act in a critical-rational process, you will value highly the idea of consent in decision-making. If you believe people learn through divine revelation or by having knowledge poured into them, that will inform your interactions in a different way from if you think that they learn through conjectures and refutations: you may well think coercion necessary.