Talk:John Dewey
From Academic Kids
| Contents |
copyright issue?
I noticed when looking for a source for the lincoln school failure thing, that some of this page appears to be plagurized. look at http://www.informationheadquarters.com/Philosophy/John_Dewey.shtml and then look at the second paragraph of the Dewey article here.
Recent edits
Added lincoln school bit back. Source on the web is at http://www.informationheadquarters.com/Philosophy/John_Dewey.shtml and can also be found in John Gatto Taylor's book titled 'underground history of education in america' or something very similar to that.
I'm in the midst of some tweaking, moving the mention of the fall of the lab school to a section on progressive education rather than educational philosophy, deleting the attribution of Foxfire to Dewey, as that seems (a) unimportant and (b) wrong, judging by the link provided in the article, deleting the Ayn Rand widget, as it seems more appropriate to, I don't know, a discussion of Ayn Rand, and deleting the lincoln school bit until we have some historical information about it...
Also killed the Alexander drop-in in the "pragmatism" section, since it wasn't clear how that related to Deweyan pragmatism.
To-do
Obviously the reading list is incomplete; please add. Also, at some point I may get around to a more detailed list of some of the principle Deweyan concepts, particularly from Experience and Nature, but this may take a while...
We need a much more thorough analysis of Dewey's philosophy, particularly his early hegelian days, his mature social philosophy as expressed in works like D+E and Freedom and Culture, his complicated relationship to religion (from Early Works through to A Common Faith, Dewey's concept of science as an ideal, and perhaps a glossary of key Deweyan terms, many of which are often misunderstood.कुक्कुरोवाच
"The Unknown Dewey"
-oOo-
For the Nth time, where N is getting to be a large number, some enemy of Voltaire has deleted the following link: The Unknown Dewey (http://www.geocities.com/agarap/dewey)
That Dewey's defenders must resort to deleting his critics only points up the weakness of their position.
-oOo-
^ I find it unclear why you feel that this link is of import here. It is true that it does deal directly with John Dewey, but it is not encyclopedic, as it cannot be said to be one of the chief or most important cricisms of Dewey. While the requirement to be encyclopedic is lesser in the discussion of the page, it is logical that you be required to justify your link as a discussion of the encyclopedic article, rather than a discussion of everything related to John Dewey. -- j1000
-oOo-
^ Whether it is encyclopedic or not, "The Unkown Dewey" has no business being linked from this page as it is completely inaccurate and uninformed. The author shows no knowledge of the History of Philosophy or Dewey's place in it, so the opinions presented have little or no value from the perspective of illuminating Dewey's life or work.
Were the points expressed as arguments engaging Dewey's thought, it could be considered as "criticism," but there are no arguments there, only rants by someone who is using their misreading of Dewey to attack the Alexander Technique.
-oOo-
The site referred to above contains many quotes from Dewey's books, some quite long. These quotes are exact.
The typical response to this is: "Well, he's quoted out of context." Yet for many of the quotes you may wonder if any context could make them other than contemptible.
Okay, could someone explain what exactly this debate is all about? I've been trying to ignore it and occasionally to make actual contributions to the article, but hey, maybe that's crazy talk.
Is it just someone who doesn't like Dewey trying to add a link to their private website summarizing their views? Becuase if so, that's completely inappopropriate on WP, even if the views were were informed and accurate (which, glancing very briefly at the site, I am inclined to doubt somewhat). And, indeed, it would be inappropriate if someone had a private site talking about how cool Dewey is, and for the same reasons.
Also, what the hell does it have to do with Voltaire? -- कुक्कुरोवाच 17:31, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Attributed as Voltaire's remarks to Helvétius, but in fact a later paraphrasing of his attitude. In any case, this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand - the anon user has the perfect right to say whatever he likes about Dewey, but not here (or linked from here), not unless he can NPOV it. sjorford 23:14, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, delightful! Thanks.कुक्कुरोवाच
Hmm. I see that Anon user 128.143.197.36 has restored the Unknown Dewey link, but has not offered any explanation for doing so, or responded to my concerns here. This seems problematic.कुक्कुरोवाच 20:16, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
To the UVA anon user
You out there? I'd still like to have a discussion of the link issue. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 17:59, May 28, 2004 (UTC)
The article lacks info on his contributions to psychology. I'll add it eventually if no one gets around to it before I do. 172 23:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ban 128.143.193.144?
Should the anon user from 128.143.193.144 be banned? He or she has repeatedly added the same disputed external link without discussion, and completely ignores any attempts to talk about the topic. It's happened more than 3 times without discussion, which as I understand things is grounds for banning. --Wclark 17:26, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)
- ::shrug:: The "Unknown Dewey" guy? There was some discussion in the distant past, but the user has declined to engage in much discussion for a while now. I've just been reverting him, as I'm too lazy to figure out the procedure for getting higher authorities involved. Just so you know, he has several different IPs, all in Virginia, all used almost exclusively for this article. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 02:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and ban the "Unknown Dewey" guy if he returns, if that's alright with everyone here. 172 09:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I just blocked 128.143.193.144. 172 20:03, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
just added to the page
I am a Wiki newbie and just have added to the article, here: an additional "secondary sources" cite, to Alan Ryan's very good book on Dewey. I am unsure of the degree of democracy, or not, which prevails on Wiki tho, so pls stomp hard if I've overstepped? It's a pretty interesting and I think useful addition...
--Kessler 19:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) (found it...)
- Well, welcome, and while I haven't read Ryan's book I've certainly encountered many references to it, and I have the impression it's respected. Basically, as long as a source isn't fraudulent, partisan (and presented as objectively factual--it's fine to include a partisan source if you identify it as a partisan source), or really, really stupid, you shouldn't worry about including it, and the degree of democracy around here (and around most wikis, I think) is quite high.216.27.184.98 19:44, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Discussion Questions?
I have just finished reading "Experience and Education," and am scheduled to participate in a discussion group this Thursday. I am supposed to contribute three discussion questions, but I am a bit overwhelmed and not sure what the focus of the questions should be. Any suggestions or ideas would be greatly appreciated. :)
transactional
What is meant by 'The term, "transactional," may better describe his views.'? I'll browse a bit more for this term and if I find something relevant I'll write a stub. If not - can this sentence be deleted? — Sebastian 03:31, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
Falll of the Lab School?
The Laboratory School is still in existence today, so some clarification is required as to what you mean when you say it failed within three years.
Lab School
I can find no corroborating evidence for the statement that the Lab School failed within three years...nor for the statement that Dewey was forced to leave Chicago because it failed (see Menand)apart from other web encyclopedia listings that are more or less identical to this one. Indeed Dewey was director of the school for eight years, and as noted in the previous comment the school continues today. For a full account of the administrative disputes that led to Dewey's resignation from the University of Chicago, see Menand.
Lincoln School
The Lincoln School was widely criticised for not teaching fundamentals, and, unlike the U of Chicago Lab school, may ultimately be judged a failure; however (according to one source)it lasted from 1916 to at least 1939, when (according to one web source)it merged with the Horace Mann School, and according to another source, lasted until the1940's so the description as short-lived is subjective and somewhat misleading. A more balanced, factually correct description of the history of the Lab School and Linoln School is required in this text.
