| In 1929, John Dewey concluded an address at the University of Edinburgh by asking, "What revisions and surrenders of current beliefs about authoritative ends and values are demanded by the method and conclusions of natural science?" A liberal reading of Dewey reveals that his construction of method, especially as it applied to education, denied the possibility and, indeed, the desirability, of any end or value that might be said to be authoritative. Likewise, although the term "scientific method" is frequently used to convey the notion of authority and rigor in the popular media and in the field of education, developments in the philosophy of science suggest that there is no such unitary method of science. The works of Feyerabend, Kuhn and Campbell, in particular, point to the role of creativity, reasoning based upon previous like examples, and evolutionary patterns (constructed as a process of blind variation followed by selective retention of alternatives) in scientific advancement.;In fact, much of recent scholarship affirms Dewey's own early view of the vitally important nature of Darwin's theory of evolution, not only to the sciences but to every realm of human endeavor. Scholarly opinion in philosophy of science suggests that scientific methods themselves are, in fact, evolutionary in nature. While this post-positivist formulation of the notion of method(s) is broadly considered applicable to areas including human cognition and artificial intelligence, the construction of method in education has thus far remained largely uninformed by these discussions. A reconsideration of Dewey's own notions of the nature and role of method(s) in education, based in Darwinism, affirms their connection to current theorizing about the methods of science. The addition of this theory base to the Deweyan emphasis on education for the purposes of democracy offers promise to educators generally, especially those concerned with citizenship education, and suggests possibilities for critical educators seeking to move beyond the theory-praxis gap. |
