Logical Fallacies in Edubabble
December, 2004
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
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
On-line at http://act.psy.cmu.edu/personal/ja/misapplied.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
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,
[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 prejudicial 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 environment makes formal
instruction unnecessary. But instead, of asserting that some new
sort of thing happens in a literature rich environment 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.
Fosnot, C.T. (Ed.)
(1996). Constructivism :
theory, perspectives, and practice.
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.