...furthermore, He is behind the logical aspect of the world. In other words, He invented logic! We merely discovered / uncovered it!
Hmm. I really expected more than a bald statement to that effect; maybe some evidence, maybe a syllogism, maybe a logical argument. Something to back it up, as Occam's Razor dictates the opposite.
"the principle (attributed to William of Occam) that in explaining a thing, no more assumptions should be made than are necessary. The principle is often invoked to defend reductionism or nominalism. Compare with principle of parsimony at parsimony." Dictionary.
Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor from William of Ockham (c. 1287 – 1347), and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. Dictionary.
I think this is what I do best!
You got it! The simplest explanation is probably the right explanation.
FACT: Occam's Razor: Occam was a scientist monk. ie a believer.
And OF COURSE no atheist even dares mention Godel and his theorems that proves God's existence and the incompleteness theorem of physics/science.
Godel: (1906–78), US mathematician; born in Austria. Among his important contributions to mathematical logic is the incompleteness theorem. Gödel's work was the surprising culmination of a long search for foundations. Throughout the nineteenth century, mathematicians had tried to establish the foundations of calculus. First Cauchy gave the modern definition of limits; later Weierstrass and Dedekind gave rigorous definitions of the real numbers. By the end of the century, the foundations of calculus rested on integers and their arithmetic. This left the problem of putting the integers themselves on a sound logical basis, which Frege appeared to solve by defining the positive integers in terms of sets. But it soon became clear that naive use of sets could lead to contradictions (such as the set of all sets that aren't members of themselves). Set theory itself would have to be axiomatized. In their massive 3-volume Principia Mathematica, Russell and Whitehead built the foundations of mathematics on a set of axioms for set theory; they needed hundreds of preliminary results before proving that 1 + 1 = 2.
There remained the problem of analyzing the axioms of set theory. Mathematicians hoped that their axioms could be proved consistent (free from contradictions) and complete (strong enough to provide proofs of all true statements). Gödel showed these hopes were overly naive. He proved that any consistent formal system strong enough to axiomatize arithmetic must be incomplete; that is, there are statements that are true but not provable. Also, one can't hope to prove the consistency of such a system using the axioms themselves. The basic idea of Gödel's proof, indirect self-reference, is strikingly simple, but tricky to grasp. A book-long explanation for the general reader is offered in Douglas Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. www.usna.edu/Users/math/meh/godel.html
Gödel was a convinced theist. He held the notion that God was personal…"
"He believed firmly in an afterlife, stating: 'Of course this supposes that there are many relationships which today's science and received wisdom haven't any inkling of. But I am convinced of this (the afterlife), independently of any theology. It is possible today to perceive, by pure reasoning that it is entirely consistent with known facts. If the world is rationally constructed and has meaning, then there must be such a thing (as an afterlife).' " Wikipedia
The reason you won't find atheists mentioning Godel is because they know his theorems do no such thing.
TroubledMan
many atheists are clearly ignoring Godel as his ideas contradict atheist arguments even though Godel is supported by Hawking.
By both claiming to be logical and avoiding logic you are falling into a denial state of hypocrisy.
Your point? That Occam should be totally discredited because believers aren't smart enough to produce truth? I would disagree...
Is this your attempt at humor?
Occam was both a theist and a scientist. This was the actual fact stated by Ozinato.
That's what I said. But what was the point of saying it at all? To discredit "Occam's Razor"? To give it more credit that it was due? What was the point in saying Occam was a theist? OR a scientist?
You originally brought him up and it is not clear why you did! Probably to discredit the post itself!
But really the idea of God is personal and should not be argued. So truly, I say:
Each to their own.
TWISI
I brought up Occams Razor (the theorem, not the man) to indicate that the concept of a god, living in a whole separate universe along with His angels and other creatures, was far more complex than the concept of a big bang coming from a singularity, without any cause at all.
And it had nothing to do with belief at all, just logic. As to whether a god is personal and should not be argued: it wasn't I who declared that it was a logical conclusion everyone should be able to come to. Someone else made up that claim...
Originally, I was responding to Janesix with this topic.
But, yes, I am guilty since I posted it as a forum.
My badness.
Finis.
I have clarified my point (below) for those incapable of admitting the "bleeding obvious" (J. Cleese)
Wilderness
My point: you have used a famous theist's ideas to try and contradict theist ideas. This is an illogical contradiction you are making. In plain English you are making a ridiculous statement based on a hypocritical assumption. as usual I am sure this won't bother you.
What contradiction would that be? The only thing I said was that I could not agree that Occam was an idiot simply because he was a theist, and I do stand behind that statement.
...who is talking about a plan? I am talking about logic.
"Logic is the study of the methods and principles used to distinguish good (correct) from bad (incorrect) reasoning."
Introduction to Logic by Irving M Copi. Page 3.
reason: the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.
rationality: the quality or state of being reasonable, based on facts or reason
logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity
validity: quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency
The definitions seem kind of circular. Can some one decipher it for me? Or give better, more understandable definitions?
(Editing to add more definitions, for my personal clarification.)
Cogency: the quality or state of being convincing or persuasive
Soundness: competent, sensible, or valid
Fact: a thing that is indisputable
so, logic is this:
LOGIC: ability to think, understand, and form judgments, assessed according to strict principles based on indisputable things, that are sensible and convincing.
Ergo, belief in God is illogical. No facts, nothing that's convincing or indisputable.
Because, everything is so beautifully proportioned in the world! Consider the the size of trees in relation to ourselves, etc. Could you imagine if dogs were the size of horses? Or ducks the size of sheep, or people as tall as redwood trees? Or bees the size of birds or orchids the size of redwood trees?! Some force has controlled the rate and size of growth of all things. It is logical to assume that lack of randomness proves divine intelligence and a creator.
Furthermore, proportion is evidence of logic, itself.
Conclusion of my premise: God is both logical and can be proved logically.
"A premise is a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion. In other words: a premise is an assumption that something is true. In logic, an argument requires a set of (at least) two declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. This structure of two premises and one conclusion forms the basic argumentative structure."
Wikipedia
Not sure what that has to do with God or anything else. There were plenty of extremely large sized animals only just recently (in geological terms) that would seem unproportionally large compared to their current, smaller cousins.
That isn't an indisputable fact that proves God exists.
No, but we are talking logic here. The unfolding of evolution is based on logic.
Whatever allows for the continuance of life, evolution adjusts to.
That, according to the definition you provided, is bad reasoning, it is not logic.
Trees are trees and humans are humans, just as ants are ants and bacteria are bacteria. In other words, all life forms have various proportions.
Are there doges the size of horses? Probably not, but there are animals that are indeed the size of horses, they are called, "horses". There may not be ducks the size of sheep, but there are indeed animals the size of sheep, which incidentally, are called, "sheep". The same goes for the birds and bees and the fishes in the seas...
That too, is bad reasoning, that is not logic. Here's why...
Notice the bold? You haven't provided a true assumption, the proportion of life forms varies dramatically from tiny bacteria to the sperm whale. There is no pattern whatsoever with the proportions of animals when compared to one another or anything else.
That is a non-sequitur.
It is logical to assume that some logical force designed it that way.
Furthermore:
Evolution has a natural tendency to select for the possibility/capability of the existence of life. It is logical to assume that an omnipresent intelligent, (logical,) force not only directed and directs the course of evolution, but also possesses the desire for the individuals of creation to manifest as a whole.
All nature works in harmony. This harmony of purpose for the existence of life must have been directed by some force throughout time and is currently being directed by this force. This force must be an omnipresent intelligent force that desires life to exist. (Note: Interdependence in nature reveals a logical process.)
This omnipresent, intelligent and willful force must be an invisible force, since we cannot see it.
Does air not exist since we cannot see it? We deduct that it is there because of the evidence of its existence: Birds and butterflies, horse flies, dragon flies, fire flies, house flies and bees, etc. fly on it.
Therefore, just because we can't see the intelligent / logical, omnipresent, willful force doesn't mean it does not exist... as there is evidence that it does exist.
Right?
Why "must" these things be true?
Maybe they just exist because of natural law.
You really must come down from the clouds, down to earth and reality.
It is not "logical" to think that some outside "force" is designating the size of each organism and designing it that way. Should you disagree, can you provide a syllogism/logical construct backing your claim?
It is not logical to postulate an invisible creature from another universe (along with that universe and all it's parts, life and energy) that decided to create this one. There was no god necessary.
Nature is NOT "in harmony"; all nature is fighting itself and everything all around it, specifically and particularly all life fights all other life for resources. As it doesn't exist, there is no reason (logically or otherwise) to again postulate an invisible god-force guiding it.
- all the fish in the ocean consuming each other enables the species of ocean creatures to continue. It is a logical process needed for ocean-life as a whole, even though you happen not to see it that way.
When the bee dies off we all die. This small but absolutely vital chain in the link of life will be broken.
That's not harmony. Harmony would be non-competitive. That, I believe, is what he's saying.
Life requires sustenance, whether that be other life or non-living things. Food, in other words, and on our world of dog eat dog that means that half the life feeds on the other half.
But a "logical process"? No, just simple chemistry.
That is natural selection at work.
That would be an extinction. Humans would have to rapidly adapt to an earth without bees if such a thing happened. How that would occur is unknown. We could very well die off.
What does that have to do with an intelligent designer/creator?
Not too intelligent, is he?
But, you nor anyone else has ever shown such a force to exist. Not only that, there is absolutely nothing in nature that even resembles designing forces. This is not logical at all. It is the exact opposite of logic.
That is not logical thinking, that is magical thinking. You jump from evolution, which is well understood by many people, to an omnipresent intelligence without any explanation, evidence or reason whatsoever.
What harmony? What are you talking about? Explain this harmony? Where is it observed?
Why "MUST" such a directing force exist? You have provided no reason or evidence at all for that existence. That is magical thinking.
If it is invisible and we cannot observe any effects of it whatsoever in nature, then it simply doesn't exist. That is logic.
Yes, it does, we know exactly what air is comprised of. Air is real. It effects everyone's existence and everyone knows it because they have lungs. This is not even remotely the same thing as an invisible, undetectable force conjured from magical thinking. It is not logic.
Again, that is the opposite of logic, it makes no sense whatsoever. The evidence of "Birds and butterflies, horse flies, dragon flies, fire flies, house flies and bees" is the evidence of evolution and nature. Those are facts based on hard evidence and logic.
Wrong. There is no evidence for the existence of your intelligent designer/creator. None.
It is logical to assume that there is an intelligent , willful and omnipresent force as there is evidence for it.
Q. What is that evidence?
A. All life and the processes that keep it in place here on earth.
My premise is much different than yours':
Your premises are based on non-objective (subjective) reasoning. "God does not exist because God does not fit in with my preferred expectations of him."
My premise is based on objective reasoning: "God is based on what God does and is."
I am the one accepting reality like a man.
I think you have the subjective and objective reasoning backwards.
Subjective: 1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions: Contrasted with objective. Dictionary
Objective: 1 (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Contrasted with subjective. Dictionary.
No, I do not have it backwards. You just do not want to acknowledge I am right.
Right?
You might be right that the Universe in intelligently designed, or that God is the creator and exists. Your reasoning, though, is flawed. There is NO proof of God. At all. There are some indications of design, but nothing that couldn't be explained by laws of nature.
God is behind the laws of nature. Where did they come from? They came from an intelligent, logical, omnipresent, willful and invisible force.
What is this thread doing in Education and Science? Catastrophic failure.
Yes, and dunce hats will be the consequence for wrong answers.
Because they exist!
As I already stated:
"That anything exists at all, (including the laws of nature,)
proves the existence of God/ creator, omnipresent, intelligent, willful invisible force that exists in all creation and in the processes of all creation.
And many scientists cannot deny this fact!"
The universe is incontrovertible, logical evidence that there was no creator.
Easy to say, just as your first comment, not so easy to prove either evidentially or logically. I cannot prove mine, can you prove yours or is it as worthless as my statement was?
That anything exists at all,
proves the existence of God/ creator, omnipresent, intelligent, willful invisible force that exists in all creation and in the processes of all creation.
And many scientists cannot deny this fact!
"The universe is incontrovertible, logical evidence that there was no creator."
Again, your proof or syllogism, contraindicating mine? A mere statement isn't worth the effort to type it, any more than mine was.
Absolutely ALL scientists will deny the statement.
There is no evidence for an omnipresent force. It is not logical to assume one.
That is called evolution. It has nothing to do with omnipresent forces.
That is nonsense, the facts of evolution are not subjective reasoning nor has it anything to do with preferred expectations and everything to do with reality, which DOES NOT show your creator.
That is not objective reasoning, that is magical thinking.
No, you're not accepting reality, you're accepting magic.
That anything exists at all,
proves the existence of God/ creator, omnipresent, intelligent, willful invisible force that exists in all creation and in the processes of all creation.
And many scientists cannot deny this fact!
And your arguing with me does not change the fact that reality exists, whether you acknowledge it or not.
(PS I'm certainly not saying that we have to get down on our knees and pray, sing in church and all that stuff, if that's what you're worried about.)
That is purely magical thinking, there is absolutely no evidence for your creator. The existence of everything shows only nature, there are no gods in nature.
That is ridiculously false and you know it. Of course, reality exists, but your gods have never been shown to exist.
You are refusing to look at the facts of the matter. So, my argument is falling on "deaf ears."
List the facts, please. I would love to see them. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
That I exist... points to a Creator. I did not create myself. I do not even know how my stomach or brain works! Yes evolution, but why me, now? How did I get here in this body created through eons of time through evolution. Conclusion: since I did not make me, it is logical to assume that some other force did. (Edited)
No, it isn't, and repeating that false premise over and over doesn't make it true.
You were born of parents, obviously.
But, if you choose to learn, you can know. It's called going to school.
That is a well known and understood concept, that if you actually took the time to learn, you would understand. Yes, it's called, 'the birds and the bees', every hear of it?
Why can't that force just be a pattern of nature? Why does it necessarily have to be personified? Do you really think God took 4 billion years of evolution to put you here on this Earth, right now? Seems easier just to poof you into existence (as you are one of those who think God is omnipotent). Why would billions of creatures have to live and reproduce and die and mutate just to get YOU here?
Ever hear of ATM? Why you Now in that body? You are evidence of a creator outside of yourself!
And You are the one and only ATM!
Unless he has a genetically exact twin. Not everyone is unique. There are plenty of creatures that reproduce by cloning themselves (asexual reproduction).
Still, evidence of nothing, except for maybe evolution at work.
No, I am the result of parents, just like you and everyone else.
So what?
What facts?
You have not presented an argument.
The fact that you are the only one and special ATM.
how many I's are on the earth? Thats how many facts I can come up with.
Once again an online atheist who pretends Godel doesn't exist. O well we can only marvel.
Non sequitur (logic), a logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise
The obvious beauty and mathematical complexity of the Universe is a reason why many scientists past and present, including Einstein, have believed in God.
LOGIC: ability to think, understand, and form judgments, assessed according to strict principles based on indisputable things, that are sensible and convincing.
Ok...
What is illogical to ME is one who repeats the phrases "You CANNOT understand the scriptures without first understsnding the spirit of the LIVING God. You may not understand the spirit of God without first obtaining his spirit through an act of faith (say yes);" constantly being asked to explain what is, to them, UNobtainable without the NECESSARY faith/spirit.
Show me your unicorn!
No, you cannot see him without zb40.
What is zb40?
It's this stuff you put in your hand.
Where can I get it?
At the corner. Tell them, 736d8.
Why do I have to say that?
It's the secret code.
Why cant I say JELLYFISH???
That aint the code.
D*amn! I wanna see your unicorn. And I aint doin all that sh*t!!!
Let me see your unicorn!!!
Sound logical???
Lmaorotf!!!!!
If you continue to edit after the fact, you are going to lose people to debate with. It gets old and annoying after a while you know. Plus, you promised you would stop doing it.
At least, put in the word "Edit' for clarification.
As far as I know it is not illegal to edit after the first posting.
I will try to avoid posting until I am sure of my thoughts, for your sake though.
Actually, I don't know if there is much more to say about the topic, though.
My book looks very complicated. I hate complicated.
P.S. I just found this book about logic while walking my dogs last night.
Any thing else about logic you would like to discuss?
I didn't say it was illegal. It's hard to follow, and makes conversing difficult.
I love talking about logic. Not that I understand it, however. I have a very illogical mind for some reason (I'm not stupid, I seem to have an odd way of thinking I guess. I don't know).
"Does air not exist since we cannot see it?"
We can see air sometimes. We can measure it, weigh it, feel it, smell it, taste it, even hear it.
Sure you can, sometimes, if it has some form of coloration to it. Can you see a tornado?
That is sand in the air. Revealing that air.
Some gases have color. Some don't. Air is gas.
Ergo, you can see some forms of air.
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/t … group7.php
Air changes. It's probably never the same from one day to the next. The air we have now wasn't the same as it was a hundred years ago, or a thousand or a million.
Any of them that exist at normal atmospheric temperatures as a gas.
And yes, they ALL have color, whether the human eye can see it or not.
- my premise: It is logical to assume that a spirit is animating all that exists and is revealed by its activity in and of matter.
- just as sand reveals the air. Thanks for the analogy!
- sorry about the edit.
- what is your premise?
My premise is that it is logical to not make an assumption on whether or not the Universe was created, as there isn't enough evidence for either case.
Hydrogen: Hydrogen is the lightest of the chemical elements and has the simplest atomic structure, a single electron orbiting a nucleus consisting of a single proton. It is by far the most common element in the universe, although not on the earth, where it occurs chiefly combined with oxygen as water.
Helium: Helium occurs in traces in air and more abundantly in natural gas deposits. It is used as a lifting gas for balloons and airships, and liquid helium (boiling point: 4.2 kelvins, −268.9°C) is used as a coolant. Helium is produced in stars as the main product of the thermonuclear fusion of hydrogen and is the second most abundant element in the universe after hydrogen.
These are elements one and two.
Whomever can tell us where these elements came from, answers the million dollar question.
Yes, I took Chemistry in college(Although I didn't get a degree, I aced my classes). I don't see your point.
I was just contributing like you did. I was curious about hydrogen off the chart you contributed. Thanks for contributing it.
Same thing. If it was created, who created the creator, and who created the creator of the creator? If the creator is supposedly self-created, then why can't the Universe just come into existence? At least a non-created Universe cuts out the middle man.
Hydrogen from the conditions soon after the big bang (energy becoming electrons and protons) and Helium from stars. Helium is the product of two hydrogen atoms fusing.
Hydrogen created the helium and the combo created the stars...
That would not be the truth. Helium has nothing to do with creating stars; they are balls of (almost all) hydrogen and it is hydrogen fusing that makes the star "fire" we enjoy so much. Which, in turn, makes the helium.
"Stars begin as vast clouds of cold molecular hydrogen and helium left over from the Big Bang".
Read more: http://www.universetoday.com/24190/how- … z2yikFbI4H
And, how exactly did the hydrogen create the helium and then the stars?
Maybe the Universe is creating itself right now, as we speak:)
"Stars are fueled by the nuclear fusion of hydrogen to form helium deep in their interiors. The outflow of energy from the central regions of the star provides the pressure necessary to keep the star from collapsing under its own weight, and the energy by which it shines."
Nasa
- it is logical to assume God invented (or became) hydrogen.
Broken record. Do you have anything real to bring to the table? This is getting boring.
I do. Did you read the last page of the Noah thread? I was pretty hilarious.
I'm a humorless ice queen.
(that's from my favorite comedy, Evolution.)
As you and the agnostic/atheists keep telling us...there is no way to know anything. It is all a mystery which even the scientists will admit. We keep learning, we keep discovering and I wish there was something new to bring to the table. Like aliens have presented themselves and want to be our friends…
Alas.
I think that maybe we can figure it out. We're pretty smart, for bipeds.
You do???? We are???? Janesix, do you realize how tiny we are in the whole scheme of the universe? It is logical to assume there is no way to ever fathom our existence intellectually.
Sure I do. But look what we've learned in the last 200 years.
...all based on electricity, fission, fusion and ones and zeros. Big deal.
Not really. I can spend hours a day if I want, studying anthropology, zoology, anatomy, psychology. Learning doesn't have to involve hard sciences.
Yes. But, without a premise, there is no true learning. What is your premise, as far as life?
With many questions …one needs a way to funnel the line of questioning toward a conclusion to either prove or disprove. "The object of reasoning is to find out, from consideration of what we know, something else which we do not know." Charles Sanders Peirce, "The Fixation of Belief."
Oh. I just want to know why we're here. So I study a little bit of everything that could give a clue to that. I'm a generalist I suppose.
There might not be a purpose, I know, but it seems like there is. I would also accept that there isn't one, if that turns out to be the case.
I will probably never know, I'm not a genius.
If what we learn becomes relevant (edit) to our existence in real time in some way, it becomes important.
For instance, I think it is very important to understand the stimulus of human behavior, in general.
Edit:
For instance, are humans motivated by love or power, more? I would, in the final analysis say, love.
It is logical to assume there is a God who is both logical and loving. This conclusion is based on my premise that love is the most valuable thing in the universe, next to logic, and that it comes from God, just as logic does.
"Language is the principal tool with which we communicate; but when words are used carelessly or mistakenly, what was intended to advance mutual understanding may in fact hinder it; our instrument becomes our burden." Irving M. Copi
Among natural bodies some have, and some have not, life; and by life we mean the faculties of self-nourishment, self-growth and self-decay. Thus every natural body partaking of life may be regarded as an essential existence; ... but then it is an existence only in combination. ... And since the organism is such a combination, being possessed of life, it cannot be the Vital Principle. Therefore it follows that the Vital Principle must be an essence, as being the form of a natural body, holding life in potentiality; but essence is a reality. The Vital Principle is the original reality of a natural body endowed with potential life ; this, however, is to be understood only of a body which may be organized. Thus the parts even of plants are organs, but they are organs that are altogether simple; as the leaf which is the covering of the pericarp, the pericarp of the fruit. If, then, there be any general formula for every kind of Vital Principle, it is—the primary reality of an organism.
— Aristotle
Godel challenged the completeness of knowing and argued that we cannot know because we are dependent on axioms; mark axioms---rules and systems of rules, as knowledge.
In other words, what we know is limited by our fixation with fixed sets of axioms.
For example: Godel tells us that because something is provable (not proved or proven just provable) does not mean that it is truth OR one might argue that God is provable (as did Ockham), but this does not mean that God is a truth.
God becomes axiomatic and in being axiomatic, to take Godel to a logical conclusion, God becomes a limiter or knowledge and an obstacle to knowing truth.
axiomatic
...Axioms define and delimit the realm of analysis; the relative truth of an axiom is taken for granted within the particular domain of analysis, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other relative truths. No explicit view regarding the absolute truth of axioms is ever taken in the context of modern mathematics, as such a thing is considered to be an irrelevant and impossible contradiction in terms. Wikipedia
Seems like a good argument to me.
"We especially need imagination in science. It is not all mathematics, nor all logic, but it is somewhat beauty and poetry."
Maria Montessori
As a historian of science, I can say this: Among the most creative and imaginative thinkers in the history of the world as scientists and mathematicians.
Neither science nor mathematics begins/ends with numbers and logic.
Science and mathematics are, in fact, elegant and poetic.
I think Maria Montessori had a very narrow view of science and mathematics and one that was based on a fundamental lack of knowledge of what it is that scientists and mathematicians think. She might have been surprised how much like her---in terms of thinking about knowing, scientists and mathematicians really are.
@MBUGGIEH
She, herself, was a scientist, first and foremost. You state a non-truth in regards to her "narrow view."
Maybe you misunderstand why I quote her here. I am certainly not against scientists. Either was she.
I think she liked to refer to her studies as "science" or as "scientific pedagogy" as I recall from my undergraduate education---and while she was a pediatrician (again I am working from memory) she tended to champion an educational paradigm that jettisoned variations in learning styles and minds for a simplistic "lead the child to knowledge and they will learn everything when they are ready" approach.
In addition, she presumed that all children enjoy and prefer to engage with what she called "practical" or hands-on learning and presumed that all children have creative minds, prefer creative learning, etc.
None of this is true, but for Montessori it these were axioms that misguided her approach to education.
"I think…" " I recall…"
Close, but no cigar?
Not even…
What do you actually know about her work that you get to use the word "axiom?"
It is logical to assume…
not enough.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWFLaDXesnE
Dr. Montessori was a champion for the Inner Life of the child. To respect it, to be aware of it, to assist it.
Whatever.
Montessori's approaches to education do not work with most children. Having spent 37+ years teaching I, like my colleagues, have seen many educational gimmicks come and go.
Unfortunately, for all of its failures and harm, the Montessori gimmick persists.
W h a t e v e r.
Like you have read anything written by her, w h a t - s o - e v e r ?
Oh please...I got my teacher certification in the mid-1970s...she was "all the rage".
We were required to read her books in every education-related class we took; were required to spend part of our student teaching in so-called "Montessori classrooms"---even at the secondary level, and were required in implement her approaches in our students teaching.
And if that was not enough: I was required to implement her methods in my classroom in the later 1970s when I was working as a full-time social studies teacher.
That said:
It is possible---believe it or not, to disagree with someone AND be informed.
Disagreement does NOT mean lack of information.
My assessment of Montessori is based on what I witnessed and experienced over a 37 year period.
But, you did not mentor with someone who worked directly with her as I did. My mentor understood her teachings because she was taught by Montessori herself. Maria Peerzada, (my mentor) was unique in that she had this first hand knowledge. Montessori schools today don't even confer with her words through what she wrote. They have no way of comprehending the true approach. You don' t either. However, If you are busting the dogmas of Montessori, I am all for it.
That being said, I will never give in and loose this fight. Montessori understood more about children than you will ever know. I recommend sitting quietly with her books, Secret of Childhood, and Absorbent Mind and TRY to contemplate the truths she discovered through scientific observation, research, dedication and love for the child.
You have NO idea with whom I worked or mentored. And you have NO idea as to my knowledge or understanding of education or children. Your knowledge of my experiences, mentors, education, and knowledge are, in fact, less than zero.
If you believe her methods are true and great, then use them.
I wonder, is insulting others part of your cherished Montessori approach to education?
I only said you did not work with someone as I did; someone who worked with Montessori directly. I was extremely blessed as she helped me with my own child.
"Dr. Montessori observed that children experience sensitive periods, or windows of opportunity, as they grow. As their students develop, Montessori teachers match appropriate lessons and materials to these sensitive periods when learning is most naturally absorbed and internalized.
In early childhood, Montessori students learn through sensory-motor activities, working with materials that develop their cognitive powers through direct experience: seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, touching, and movement.
In the elementary years, the child continues to organize his thinking through work with the Montessori learning materials and an interdisciplinary curriculum as he passes from the concrete to the abstract. He begins the application of his knowledge to real-world experiences."
http://amshq.org/Montessori-Education/I … Montessori
Does this really look so terrible to you?
What is it you specifically disagree with as far as her approach? Maybe I can help you understand her.
Maybe we should refer to Stephen Hawking's defense of Godel in his free online essay titled "Godel and the End of Physics"?
Do we dare say we know more about physics that hawking?
by aka-dj 13 years ago
It seems to come up so often, as if faith and logic were mortal enemies. Can you please explain why you see it that way? If you see the opposite, why?Quite frankly, I have NO problem with it.
by janesix 9 years ago
Please give me some examples of books or websites where I can study rational /logical thinking. I want to join the real world now. Books are good, but websites would be better, as I have a limited income, and can't really afford to buy many books. Although titles would be good, so I can at least...
by Billie Kelpin 8 years ago
What are your best examples to easily identify errors of logic and faulty reasoning?Whether it's false cause, circular reasoning, faulty analogies, etc., logic seems to elude all of us in our discussions. We can often recognize that an argument doesn't make sense, but often we aren't able to...
by sibtain bukhari 9 years ago
There is no scientific and logical evidence of self existence of universe, therefore,only logical conclusion is the creator of universe not proving its self existence .
by CONSCIOUSNINJA 11 years ago
This is a common belief amongst Christians, but a few questions arise...what about the individuals that lived before Jesus' arrival on Earth?if Jesus died for your sins, then whats the motivation to do good deeds in life?why would God be unjust & punish (be it symbolic) ONE individual? ...a...
by fazal1ksk 5 years ago
Logic is Science or Art? Please explain.
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |