Contributing Paper 1.1 in History and Philosophy of Educology
(A paper used as the basis for a series of seven lectures to faculty and doctoral students in educology at VytautasMagnusUniversity (VMU) in December, 2001. It is published in Pedagogika, Vytauto Didziojo universiteto leidykla, Kaunas, 2001)
This paper contributes to the account of: (1) the history of the word 'educology'; (2) the significance of the meaning of the word 'educology', as it is used to refer to knowledge about the educational process; (3) the features of the educational process, and the phases of the educative experience that ought to be better integrated into the educational process, making, then, the educational process the reference, territory (object) of experiential educology; (4) the constitution of knowledge that references education, i.e. the constitution of educology, and; (5) the conduct and discipline of knowledge that references education, i.e. the conduct and discipline of educology,
An Outlined Introduction to the Universal and Unifying Experiential Research Methodology in the Domain of Educology (The Discipline of Educology Introduced to Graduate Students in Educology
James E. Fisher, Ed.D., President of ERA/USA and Associate Professor of Philosophy at South University-Columbia, SC.
Background to the Paper
This paper builds on articles published by the author in prior issues of the International Journal of Educology. Specifically, the articles are: (i) The Territory of Educology; (ii) Mapping Observations about Education in the Home: An Educology of the Home; (iii) An Introduction of Home Education and Home Educology in the U.S.A.; and (iv) The Domain of Educology. It also builds on Toward a Theory of Language for Educology and Education, an article published by the author in Educology 86, Proceedings of a Conference on Educational Research, Inquiry and Development with an Educological Perspective and on the co-authored book, Analytic Philosophy of Education as a Sub-Discipline of Educology: An Introduction to its Techniques and Application. All of these works provide a context of meaning and a set of circumstances for continuing the development of the meaning, reference, and significance of the term ‘educology’. (1)
Further, this paper is set in the general context of a history of other work involved with developing the meaning, reference, and significance of ‘educology’, i.e. developing the philosophy of educology.
Purpose and Parts of the Paper
The purpose of this paper is to introduce, in outline form, the universal and unifying research methodology of the disciplined thinking for and in the testing for truth experience to be practiced by graduate students in educology, through the meaning, reference, and significance of ‘educology’, in three parts.
Part I: A general history and justification of the meaning, reference, and significance of the term ‘educology’ will be presented in Part I.
Part II: This part is an outline of the domain of educology as knowledge that references education as it is formed and produced through the disciplined, unified, and universal experience of using the methodology of thinking for testing and thinking in testing for truth in reference to education.
Several aspects of the universal, unifying, and disciplined experience of thinking for and in testing for truth in reference to education, i.e. of thinking for and in testing for truth in educology, are not widely understood and practiced by graduate students in educology. To introduce graduate students in educology to an outline of aspects of the logic of eduction, involving the logic of induction, abduction, and deduction, in thinking for and in testing for truth in reference to education, is the essential purpose of this outlined introduction to the domain of educology.
The logic of eduction involves: (i) a Field Map of regions and areas depicted by features in the scope of education as social conduct, as the reference of educology; (ii) the theory of case type educological questions that guide the formation of the funds of knowledge that constitutes educology; and (iii) the theory of phases in the unified and universal thinking in and for testing for truth in reference to education, as the conduct and discipline of educology.
Part III: An important aspect of educological research is the knowledge that references education, i.e. the educology, that it produces, being published and disseminated. Presented in Part III will be journal and internet publication opportunities for graduate students through ERA/USA. (2)
Part I A Brief History of the Development of the Meaning, Reference, and Significance of ‘Educology’ (A Brief History of the Philosophy of Educology)
The term ‘educology’, and the significance of the reference of its meaning, originated from the work of several scholars in Europe, North America, and Australia. Professor Elizabeth Steiner of IndianaUniversity, Bloomington, used the term in a presentation to the Philosophy of Education Society (U.S.A.), Logic of Education and Educatology: Dimensions of Philosophy of Education, in 19964 at Lawrence, Kansas. Although she spelled the term as ‘educatology’, in her original paper, in response to criticisms and recommendations made at the Philosophy of Education Society meeting, she corrected the spelling to ‘educology’. Her subsequent work, in explicating the significance of the meaning of ‘educology’, to more clearly reference knowledge about education, included her articles: Towards Educational Theorizing Without Mistake (1970); Philosophy of Education as Philosophy of Educational Science (1961); The Nonidentity of Philosophy and Theory of Education (1972); and Educology: Thirteen Years Later (1977).
Although unknown to Steiner, the term ‘educology’ was coined thirteen years earlier than her coinage in 1964, and introduced into the literature about education. Professor Lowry W. Harding of OhioStateUniversity (Columbus, Ohio) coined, used, and introduced the term as early as 1951. In fact, Harding had published four books (1951, 1956, 1964, 1965) using the term, and he played the role of principal figure in a loosely formed organization which he named, “The Association for the Study of Educology,” at Ohio State University. To qualify for membership, one had to contribute a witty story or a joke that related to education. In all of Harding’s work on educology, he treated it as a joke. He used the meaning, reference, and significance of ‘educology’ as a format for witty anecdotes about education, although there was the occasional suggestion that underneath the wit, Harding was serious about the idea of developing a fund of knowledge about education, meant by ‘educology’. His books were of limited edition and they were never intended to be widely distributed. Consequently, awareness of them was confined largely to Harding’s students and friends at OhioState.
In contrast to Harding, Steiner was serious in her writings about the meaning, reference, and significance of ‘educology’. She coined the term independently of Harding and without knowledge of his treatment of the term. Moreover, her meaning of ‘educology’ explicitly referenced significant problems of how to conduct inquiry about education in a disciplined manner and of how to substantiate knowledge claims about education, i.e. her meaning explicitly referenced significant problems in the philosophy of educology.
Others who worked independently of Steiner, on these problems in the philosophy of educology, included Professor John B. Biggs of Newcastle Univesity (Australia), Professor Rachel Elder of Pepperdine University (Los Angeles, California), Professor Wolfgang Brezinka of Konstanz University (Konsanz, Federal Republic of Germany), and Professor Anon Monshouwer of the Institute of Philosophy and History of Education, University of Nijmegen (Nijmegen, The Netherlands).
Biggs used the term in a paper presented to the Annual Conference of the South Pacific Association for Teacher Education (MacquarieUniversity, Sydney, Australia): Professional Development or Practice (1975). He also used the term in a subsequent article: Educology: The Theory of Educational Practice (1976). Elder had coined the term in the late 1960’s while working at the University of California, Berkeley, California, and she used it in a paper written for the Far West Laboratory for Educational Research (San Francisco, California): Three Educologies (mimeographed, 1971). In Europe, Brezinka explicated the significance of the meaning of ‘educology’ in his book, Metatheorie der Erziehung (Munich: Ernst Reinhardt, 1978). Also in Europe, Monshouwer used the significance of the meaning and reference of ‘educology’ in his treatment of the problem of what constitutes scientific knowledge about education: Educational Theory as Science of Education (1978, 1979).
Stimulated by Steiner’s work on the significance of the meaning and reference of ‘educology’, many other scholars have worked on extending the meaning and its significance in the construction of solutions to educologically related problems. Persons engaged in this work have included George S. Maccia, David Denton, James E. Fisher, James E. Christensen, William E. Eaton, Gregory J. Pozovich, Jerome A. Popp, Russel Ames, John Martin Rich, Richard Snow, Kenneth Strike, Edmund Short, Charles W. Reigeluth, M. David Merrill, Diana Buell Hiatt, Marian Reinhart, and John Walton.
In the late 1960’s Professor George S. Maccia of IndianaUniversity, Bloomington, Indiana collaborated with Steiner on a number of important works, and one of the outcomes was his Science and Science of Education (1967). At the same time, Professor David Denton of the University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, published A Call for a Society of Educologists (1967).
Christensen and Fisher’s work on the significance of the meaning and reference of ‘educology’ began in the mid 1970’s. Working in relation to the previous achievements of Steiner and Maccia, Christensen and Fisher co-authored a series of papers and articles: The Logical Structure of Educational Studies (Educology) as an Organization for Curriculum and Administration in Colleges of Education, a paper presented to the Annual Conference of the American Educational Studies Association (AERA), New York City, New York 1974 Educational Research as Educology (1975); A ‘Knowledgeable’ Approach to Organizing a College of Education (1977); and An Organizational Theory for Schools of Teacher Education and Faculties of Education (1978). Another educological work which Christensen developed in the late 1970’s was A Conversation about Education as Educology a paper presented to the Annual Conference of the American Educational Studies Association (AESA) (Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979).
In 1975, Professor Fisher organized a symposium at the Annual Conference of AESA (San Francisco, California). The symposium addressed the question of whether the AESA should change its name from the American Educational Studies Association to the American Educology Association. Papers included in this symposium were: The History of the Term, ‘Educology’ (William E. Eaton and Gregory J. Pozovich of Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, Illinois); Educology and the Categories of Educational Studies (James E. Fisher): and A Conversation about Education and Comparative Education (James E. Christensen).
Two years later, in 1977, Professor John Martin Rich of the University of Texas, Austin, Texas, presented a paper to a joint meeting of the Society for Professors of Education and the Philosophy of Education Society entitled, The Moral Domains of the Education Professoriate. In this paper, Rich offered criticism of Steiner’s work on the significance of the meaning and reference of ‘educology’ and he also made efforts to delineate the moral significance of the meaning and reference of ‘educology’.
Also, in 1977, at the Annual Meeting of AERA in New York City, a symposium was held on the question of “Whither or Wither Educology?” The session was chaired by Professor George S. Maccia, and the papers of the symposium included: Educology: Its Origin and Future (Elizabeth S. Maccia); Educology and Educational Theory Construction (Professor Richard E. Snow of Stanford, University, Palo Alto, California): The Relevance of Educology for Educational Practice (Professor Russell Ames, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana); Educology and Educational Policy Making (Professor Kenneth Strike of Cornell University, Ithaca, New York).
In 1979, ColgateUniversity (Hamilton, New York) invited Elizabeth Steiner to accept the A. Lindsay O’Connor Professorship of American Institutions for the Spring Semester. In that capacity, Steiner delivered a series of lectures which were published as Educology of the Free (1981). Also, in 1979, Chrisensen and Fisher published their first educological book: Analytic Philosophy of Education as a Subdiscipline of Educology.
The 1980’s saw further advances in the development of the significance of the meaning and reference of ‘educology’. In 1981, Perspectives on Education as Educology (James E. Christensen, Ed.) was published. This work included contributions from John Biggs (Educology: The Science of Effective Education), Wolf Brezinka (Meta-Theory of Education: European Contributions from an Empirical-Analytical Point of View), James E. Christensen (Educology and Some Related Concepts), David E. Denton (A Renewed Call for a Society of Educologists), James E. Fisher (The Concept of Educology and the Classification System used in Educational Studies), James E. Fisher and Marian Reinhart (Educology and the Teaching of Mathematics), Dianna Buell Hiaatt (Teaching for Alternative Frames of References), George S. Maccia (The Genesis of Educology), Charles M. Reigeluth and M. David Merrill (Instructional Science and Technology: Their Context within Educology and Some Ideas for Their Future Development), Edmund C. Short (Analysis of Educology and Educational Inquiry), Elizabeth Steiner (Educology: Thirteen Years Later), and John Walton (Educology: An Academic Discipline).
Also, in 1981, Educology Research Associates/Australia (ERA/Aus) was formed by James E. Christensen from an international consortium of scholars who shared a common interest in the development of research with an educological perspective. Publications produced by ERA/Aus include Education and Human Development; A Study in Educology (1981), Curriculum, Education, and Educology (1981), and Organization and Colleges of Education: An Educological Perspective (1983).
In 1986, ERA/Aus published Educology ’86: Proceedings of a Conference on Educational Research, Inquiry and Development with an Educological Perspective, University House Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, July 10-12, 1986, edited by Christensen.
In 1987, Seymour Papert published A Critique of Technocentrism in Thinking About the School of the Future, a paper based on a talk presented at Children in an Information Age: Opportunities for Creativity, Innovation, and New Activities (Sofia, Bulgaria, May 1987) in which he warned against technocentrism and scientism while developing a vision of the significance of the meanings of educology and constructionism. In this paper, Papert cites that he has borrowed the term ‘educology’ from Jonas Salk, the “great American thinker and the inventor of the Salk polio vaccine.”
In 1989, Educology Research Association/USA (ERA/USA) was founded in Columbia, South Carolina, by James E. Fisher, with the expressed mission of advancing home, school, and community education and their academic and practical studies in educology. To-date, home and community educational development programs in a USA school, in a USA county township, and in Guinea, West Africa have been designed and implemented, as well as an academic discipline of educology development program being designed and implemented in the Department of Educology, Vytautas Magnes University, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Books in progress to be published by ERA/USA, as being written by James E. Fisher, are Toward a Semiotical Pragmatic Philosophy of Educology, Philosophy of Educology, and A Logic of Eduction for Educology and Education. Articles for publication in the International Journal of Educology, published by ERA/USA, as being written by Fisher, are: Semiotics, Philosophy of Language, and Philosophy of Educology; An Educological Analysis of a Direct Study of the Education of Oppressed and an Indirect Study of the Education of Affluent People (A Semiotically Oriented Study in the Philosophy of Educology) and The I-It and I-Thou Relations in Educology: Toward an Integration of Phenomenology into the Reflective Thinking Experience as Engaged in the Phases of Educological Inquiry.
As did VytautasMagnesUniversity, Kaunas, Lithuania in 2000, StockholmUniversity, Stockholm, Sweden, in its Department of Educology, began offering studies covering the range of the domain of Educology.
In the twenty-first century ‘educology’ and its meaning, reference, and significance continues to be developed through ERA/USA, in both practical and academic international settings, including universities in the world.
The point of going into the origins and future of the significance of the meaning of ‘educology’ is to show that it has a history and future among a set of scholars and that there is a mounting fund of literature associated with it. However, this is not sufficient justification for the use of the meaning and reference of ‘educology’, for developing its significance.
Justification of the Meaning, Reference, and Significance of ‘Educology’
The justification for the term ‘educology’ and the significance of its meaning and reference relate to whether its meaning is used to function for the purpose of thinking for knowing in reference to education, when forming a fund of knowledge meant to truly refer to education. When established terms and their meanings begin to significantly malfunction referentially, i.e. begin to reference something ambiguously, when meant to refer for the purpose of knowing the something, then, the creation of a new term and endowing meaning on it, for more clearly referentially knowing the something, is needed and justified.
This is the case with the meaning of the term ‘educology’, a term, with meaning conceptually endowed on it, that can be used without ambiguity to name the fund of knowledge that references the total scope of education. The term ‘educology’ means ‘knowledge that references the total scope of education’. Its significance is that its meaning clearly functions to name a complete domain of knowledge that truly references education.
Other terms and their meanings, presently being used, do not clearly function in this significant way, considered as follows.
The Term ‘Education’: The meaning of the term ‘education’ malfunctions for the purpose of thinking for knowing about education, i.e. for the purpose of naming the knowledge meant to truly reference education, in that it has been endowed with both a “process of” meaning’ and “knowledge about” meaning’, as shown below.
“Process of” Meaning: ‘education’ means ‘the process intentionally conducted by someone(s) teaching someone(s) to study and learn something in some setting’.
“Knowledge about” Meaning: ‘education’ means ‘the knowledge that truly references the process of education’.
One aspect of the significance of these two meanings of ‘education’ is that there is one word with two meanings, i.e. there is one word that is ambiguous by equivocation, in that at one time the word has the meaning to reference the scope of the process of education, as conducted in some setting, and another time to name a domain of knowledge that references the scope of the process of education. The significance of the equivocation of the meaning of ‘education’ is demonstrated in the following sentence.
“Through the department of education in a university, arrangements are made for students to be taught courses in education, mathematics, history, language, and science in their post secondary education setting so as to complete a degree in education and to acquire a certificate to teach in pre-elementary, elementary, and/or secondary school education settings.”
In the phrase ‘department of education’, the term ‘education’ is being used with the “knowledge about” meaning, as it is being used in the phrases ‘to be taught courses in education’, and ‘to complete a degree in education’. However, in the phrase ‘in their post secondary education setting’, the “process of” meaning is being used, as it is in the phrase ‘in pre-elementary, elementary, and/or secondary school education settings’.
A critical significance of this equivocation of meaning is that it causes confusion in the minds of educologists trying to think clearly and truly about education to form knowledge about it. Because of this critical significant malfunction of the meaning of ‘education’, thinking intended to form knowledge that truly references the process of education becomes obstructed.
Thinking for knowing about, i.e. truly referencing, the scope of the process of education, then, can be, and is, obstructed by the equivocation of meaning, however, it is also limited by the under-extension of meaning, as with the meaning of the term ‘pedagogy’.
The Term ‘Pedagogy’: ‘Pedagogy’ is a term that has been endowed with a meaning that has been significantly used since the eighteenth century. The meaning of the term ‘pedagogy’ is univocal, hence unambiguous, in its “knowledge about” meaning, as shown below. . “Knowledge about” Meaning : ‘pedagogy’ means ‘the knowledge that truly references the process of the intentional conduct of the education of only children’.
The meaning of ‘pedagogy’, then, is unambiguous, in that it has only a “knowledge about” meaning, however, the meaning is limited by narrowing, hence under-extending, the reference to a “process of” meaning for ‘pedagogy’, as the process of education for children only. This meaning is shown below.
“Process of” Meaning for ‘Pedagogy’: ‘education’ means ‘the process intentionally conducted by someone(s) teaching only children to study and learn something in some setting, as truly referenced by the knowledge meant by ‘pedagogy’’
Thinking for knowing about education, then, though not obstructed by the ambiguity of equivocation of meaning, it is under-extended by narrowing the meaning to truly reference the scope of the process of education to include the education of only children.
Thinking for knowing about, i.e. truly referencing, education, then, can be obstructed by the ambiguity of equivocation of meaning and by the under-extension of, i.e. by narrowing, meaning, however, it can also be obstructed by the over-extension of, i.e. by broadening, meaning, as with the meaning of the term ‘ethology’.
The Term ‘Ethology’: Whereas the meaning of ‘pedagogy’ is too narrow to the point of being under-extended, for the purpose of thinking for truly referring to the scope of the process of education, the meaning of the term ‘ethology’ is too broad to the point of being over-extended for this purpose.
‘Ethology’ was proposed by J.S. Mill in the nineteenth century (Systems of Logic, 1846, Book VI, Chapter V, Paragraph 4). Mill was concerned with the problem of knowing, i.e. truly referencing, how different nations developed distinct national characters and to how the process of learning mass character formation was conducted.
The meaning of the term ‘ethology’ is univocal, hence, its meaning is unambiguous and unobstructive, as shown below. . “Knowledge about” Meaning: ‘ethology’ means ‘the knowledge that truly references the process of the intentional and unintentional conduct of education for character formation of someone’
The meaning of ‘ethology’, then, is univocal, in that it has only a “knowledge about” meaning, however, its meaning is broadened, hence over-extended, to refer to the educational process, as shown below.
“Process of” Meaning for ‘Ethology’: ‘education’ means ‘the process intentionally and unintentionally conducted in which someone learns character formation, as referenced by ethology’’
Thinking for knowing about education, then, though not obstructed by the equivocation of the meaning or the under-extension of the meaning, it is obstructed by the over-extension of the meaning of ‘education’, by broadening the meaning to refer to both (i) intentional and (ii) unintentional conduct involved in the educational process, as referred to by the meaning of ‘ethology’.
Education, as referred to for knowing by the meaning of ‘ethology’, then, involves someone learning something, whether child or adult, however, the learning by the someone does not, by reference of the meaning of ‘ethology’, signify only knowledge about the process of learning by intentionally being taught by someone and intentionally studying something by someone. The meaning of ‘ethology’ signifies knowledge that refers to all learning about the something of character formation, whether intentional or unintentional, deliberate or non-deliberate, guided or unguided, hence is an over-extended meaning for truly knowing the scope of the reference of the meaning of ‘education’ as ‘the process intentionally conducted by someone(s) teaching someone(s) to study and learn something in some setting’.
As the meaning of ‘pedagogy’ was shown to be under-extended to properly signify the fund of knowledge referring to the scope of the educational process, to include only children’s education, hence being obstructive for the purpose of truly knowing the full scope of education, the meaning of ‘andragogy’, as proposed to include only adult education by M. S. Knowles in The Modern Practice of Adult Education: Andragogy versus Pedagogy (New York: Association Press, 1970) is so under-extended. Knowles argues that the meaning of ‘andragogy’ is appropriate for naming knowledge referring to adult education. The term is derived from the Greek ‘andr-‘, meaning ‘man or male’. Etymologically, then, the meaning of ‘andragogy’ names knowledge meant to refer to the education of men or males, in particular, rather than to adults, in general, however, it has historically been taken in its general meaning, as follows.
“Knowledge about” Meaning : ‘andragogy’ means ‘the knowledge that truly references the process of the intentional conduct of the education of only adults’.
The meaning of ‘andragogy’ is univocal, as is the meaning of ‘pedagogy’, in that it has only a “knowledge about” meaning, however, the reference of its meaning is narrowed to the point of being under-extended to refer to the process of only that of the education of adults, as shown below.
“Process Meaning” for ‘Andragogy’: ‘education’ means ‘the process intentionally conducted by someone(s) teaching only adults to study and learn something in some setting, as referenced by ‘andragogy’’
The significance of the meanings of ‘education’, ‘pedagogy’, ‘ethology’, and ‘andragogy’, as presented above, is that they obstruct, by the equivocation, under-extension, and over-extension of meaning, in ways that improperly name knowledge that references the scope of the process of education.
The meaning of ‘educology’, however, properly names knowledge that references the scope of education.
“Knowledge about” Meaning : ‘educology’ means ‘the knowledge that references the process of the intentional conduct of the education of someone’
The process of meaning for ‘educology’, then, is:
“Process Meaning” for ‘Educology’: ‘education’ means ‘the process intentionally conducted by someone(s) teaching someone(s) to study and learn something in some setting, as referenced by ‘educology’’
The significance of the meaning of ‘educology’ is that it does not obstruct thinking for truly referencing the process of education, i.e. it does not obstruct thinking for knowing about the scope of the educational process, hence, it is justified as the proper name for the domain of knowledge that references the intentional conduct of education in any social setting.
Part II The Domain of Educology
As with a domain of knowledge that references anything, the domain of educology, as the domain of knowledge that references education, can be understood to be instituted through the three essential aspects of the domain of educology. These aspects are; (i) the reference of knowledge that references education, i.e. the reference of educology; (ii) the constitution of knowledge that references education, i.e. the constitution of educology; and (iii) the conduct and discipline of knowledge that references education, i.e. the conduct and discipline of educology, as outlined in order in Sections A, B, and C.
Section A Reference of Educology
The reference of educology can be represented by six regions and five areas as depicted by the twenty-five features, shown in the Field Map below.
Field Map of the Referential Territory of Educology (3)
The scope of education as a social process involves:
Region I Who Feature a Someone and 1 Feature b Someone else 2
Region II Why Feature c Meeting 3 Feature d to manage and 4 Feature e to teach someone 5 Feature f to study or 6 Feature g through study 7 Feature h to learn 8
Region III What Feature I to attend or 9 Feature j through attention 10 Feature k to know by 11 Feature l educatively experiencing 12 Feature m something of value 13 Feature n judged by some criteria 14 Feature o competently 15 Feature p judged by some criteria 16
Region IV How by using Area A Meeting [1]
Feature q approaches 17 Feature r methods 18 Feature s aids 19 Feature t language arts forms 20 Feature u body language forms 21 Feature v groupings 22 Feature w manners and 23
by using Area B Managing [2]
Feature q approaches 17 Feature r methods 18 Feature s aids 19 Feature t language arts forms 20 Feature u body language forms 21 Feature v groupings 22 Feature w manners and 23
by using Area C Teaching [3]
Feature q approaches 17 Feature r methods 18 Feature s aids 19 Feature t language arts forms 20 Feature u body language forms 21 Feature v groupings 22 Feature w manners and 23
by using Area D Studying [4]
Feature q approaches 17 Feature r methods 18 Feature s aids 19 Feature t language arts forms 20 Feature u body language forms 21 Feature v groupings 22 Feature w manners and 23
by using Area E Learning [5]
Feature q approaches 17 Feature r methods 18 Feature s aids 19 Feature t language arts forms 20 Feature u body language forms 21 Feature v groupings 22 Feature w manners and 23
Region V When Feature x for some amount of time 24
Region VI Where Feature y in some situation 25
Section B Constitution of Educology
Knowledge that references aspects of the regions, areas, and features depicted in the Field Map is constituted in accord with the following theory of case type educological questions.
Case 1: What was the case about education, as described and explained in educological inquiry? Case 2: What is the case about education, as described and explained in educological inquiry? Case 3: What might be the case about education, as predicted and explained in educological inquiry? Case 4: What ought to be the case about education, as prescribed and explained in educological inquiry? Case 5: What should be the case about education, as prescribed and explained in educological inquiry?
The fund of knowledge that answers the Case 1 type of educological question is that named “historical educology” or “history of education.”
The fund of knowledge that answers the Case 2 type of educological question is that named “scientific educology” or “science of education.”
The fund of knowledge that answers the Case 3 type of educological question is “futuristic educology” or “science of future education.”
The fund of knowledge that answers the Case 4 type of educological question is that named “axiological educology” or “axiology of education.” (4)
The fund of knowledge that answers the Case 5 type of educological question is that named “praxiological educology” or “praxiology of education.” (5)
The funds of educology, through the logic of eduction, form the constitution of educology.
Section C Conduct and Discipline of Educology
The constitution of educology is formed through theoretical thinking, as thinking for testing for truth and practical thinking, as thinking in testing for truth in reference to education, by using the logic of eduction.
Theoretical thinking is that thinking using statemental meaning for thinking for testing for truth and practical thinking is that thinking using statemental meaning in thinking when testing for truth, as considered in the theory of phases in the unified, universal, and disciplined reflective thinking experience outlined below.
The Phases Involved in the Thinking for Testing for Truth Experience as Theoretical Thinking in Feference to Education are:
Phase 1: Use of Statemental Meaning to Form Observations in Reference to Education Conducted in a Situation: thinking for testing for truth experience
Phase 2: Use of Statemental Meaning to Form Feelings in Reference to Education in a Situation: thinking for testing for truth experience
Phase 3: Use of Statemental Meaning to Form Case-Type Problem in Reference to Education in a Situation: thinking for testing for truth experience
Phase 4: Use of Statemental Meaning to Form Plausible Solutions in Reference to Education in a Situation: thinking for testing for truth experience
Phase 5: Use of Statemental Meaning to Form Imagined Consequences in Reference to Education in a Situation: thinking for testing for truth experience
Phase 6: Use of Statemental Meaning to Form Choice of a Plausible Solution in Reference to Education in a Situation: thinking for testing for truth experience
Phase 7: Use of Statemental Meaning to Form Planning Procedures for The Enactment of Choice in Reference to Education in a Situation: thinking for testing for truth experience
The Phases Involved in the Thinking in Testing for Truth Experience as Practical Thinking in Reference to Education are:
Phase 8: Use of Statemental Meaning in the Enactment of Choice in Reference to Education in a Situaton: thinking in testing for truth experience
Phase 9: Use of Statemental Meaning in the Observation of the Adherency and Correspondency Relationships in Reference to Education in a Situation: thinking in testing for truth experience
Phase 10: Use of Statemental Meaning in the Evaluation of the Adherency and Correspondency Relationships in Feference to Education in a Situation: thinking in testing for truth experience
Phase 11: Use of Statemental Meaning in the Formation of the Coherency Relationship in the Fund of Knowledge in Reference to Education in a Situation: thinking in testing for truth experience (6)
A graduate student in educology, using the logic of eduction, involving these eleven phases of thinking for and in testing for truth in reference to the features, areas, and regions in the scope of education, disciplines his/her mind for successfully conducting universal and unified educological inquiry.
Part III An Invitation to Graduate Students in Educology to Publish in the International Journal of Educology and in the e-International Journal of Educology.
Graduate students in educology, with disciplined, unified, and universal minds, that are practiced in accord with the logic of eduction, are invited to submit manuscripts for publication in paperback and electronically produced journals through Educology Research Associates/USA (ERA/USA).
The paperback produced journal is the International Journal of Educology (IJE) and the soon-to-be electronically produced journal is the e-International Journal of Educology (e-IJE). Graduate students in educology, interested in publishing in these journals and/or in acquiring a copy of the book in progress, A Logic of Eduction for Educology and Education, should consult the web-site address of www.erausa.org on the internet. Graduate students in educology, confirmed by a letter from a professor in educology, will receive a special discount on the cost of the book and other publications through ERA/USA.
Notes
1. Article (i), The Territory of Educology, appeared in the IJE, 1991, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 18-45; Article (ii), Mapping Observations about Education in the Home, An Educology of the Home, appeared in the IJE, 1993, Volume 7, Number 2, pp. 139-196, under the title, An Introduction to Home Educology and Home Education in the U.S.A. (This was an editorial mistake. The correct title should have been Mapping Observations about Education in the Home, An Educology of the Home.) Article (iii), also published under the title, An Introduction to Home Education and Home Educology in the U.S.A., appeared in the IJE, 1992, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 170-207. (Due to an editorial error, Article (iii) was published before Article (ii).); and Article (iv), The Domain of Educology, appeared in the IJE, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 66-143.
Toward a Theory of Language for Educology and Education, appeared in Educology 86: Proceedings of a Conference on Educational Research, Inquiry and Development with an Educological Perspective, Canberra, July 10-12, 1986, Educology Research Associates, Sydney, 1986.
Analytic Philosophy of Education as a Sub-Discipline of Educology: An Introduction to its Techniques and Application, University Press of American, co-authored with James E. Christensen, 1979.
2. ERA/USA (Educology Research Associates/USA) is a foundation founded by James E. Fisher, Ed. D, President, in 1989 in Columbia, South Carolina for the purpose of promoting the interconnection of home, school, and community education and its universal and unifying body of knowledge as formed in the constitution of educology. ERA/USA has a range of programs described on its home website of www.erausa.org.
3. This Field Map is taken from the article The Domain of Educology, as modified from its original presentation in The Territory of Educology. In The Domain of Educology the field map was named “Field Map of the Territory of Educology,” whereas, in this article it is named “Field Map of the Referential Territory of Educology.” The latter name, including the word ‘referential’, suggests more clearly that the map represents the scope of education as the reference of educology, i.e. as that to which knowledge about education is intended to attend, i.e. to refer.
The Field Map is based on and is an extension of the meaning formed as “education is the social process of someone teaching someone something somewhere” that was conceived and used by Elizabeth Steiner Maccia. She made this meaning significant as being the essence of education in her philosophizing about educology.
4. The term ‘axiology’ is being used to mean ‘the philosophical study of value as what ought to be the case’. Axiology is the philosophical study in which ends are prescribed and explained. Graduate students in educology, interested in further study of the meaning, reference, and significance of ‘axiology’, should read philosophers listed in the text of this article as educological philosophers prescribing and explaining the ends for education.
5. The term ‘praxiology’ is being used to mean the ‘scientific study of effective and efficient human conduct’, i.e. the study of what should be the case to realize the value, as ends, established by axiological philosophical study of what ought to be the case. Praxiology is the scientific study in which means are prescribed and explained to realize axiologically established ends that are prescribed and explained. Graduate students in educology, interested in further study of praxiology, as praxiology of education, i.e. educological praxiology, can follow the links to Tadeusz Kotarbinski, a Polish Philosopher who established the meaning, reference, and significance of ‘praxiology’, using the web-site address of Polish Philosophy Page, ed. by F. Coniglione http://www.fmag.unict.it/polhome.html.
6. These eleven phases of thinking for and in testing for truth experience are educed from Dewey, John: How We Think; Great Books in Philosophy; Prometheus Books, New York, 1991, especially the chapter on A Complete Act of Thought.
Contributing Paper 1.2 in Experiential Philosophy of Educology
(A paper presented by James E. Fisher at the UNESCO Conference on Culture of Peace, Human Rights and Upbringing of the Civic Society in Vilnius, Lithuania on April 19-20, 2001 at the Law University of Lithuania (LUL) published in The Proceedings of the Conference.) This paper contributes to an account of the educative experience, over the mis-educative experience, that ought to be better integrated into the educational process.
Toward a Philosophy of Educology for Developing Democracies in the World
James E. Fisher, Ed.D., President of ERA/USA and Associate Professor of Philosophy at South University-Columbia, SC.
Philosophy of educology is the philosophy of knowledge about education and, where, as John Dewey a leading philosopher in the developing democracy of the USA during the late 1800s to the middle 1900s says, education is:
“that reconstruction or reorganization of experience which adds to the meaning of experience, and which increases ability to direct the course of subsequent experience;” 1
then, philosophy of educology means philosophy of knowledge about how to reconstruct or reorganize experience. It should be pointed out that the meaning of the word ‘education’, as used in the quote above, is that which refers to the educative experience as conducted through the phases of the reflective thinking experience, leading to human growth, whereby, as Dewey says: “there is nothing to which growth is relative save more growth, there is nothing to which education is subordinate save more education. It is a commonplace to say that education should not cease when one leaves school. The point of this commonplace is that the purpose of school education is to insure the continuance of education by organizing the powers that insure growth. The inclination to learn from life itself and to make the conditions of life such that all will learn in the process of living is the finest product of schooling.” 2 Therefore, when Dewey states his educological philosophy of schools as the “purpose of school education is to insure the continuance of education by organizing the powers that insure growth,” he is referring to an experience in which the results of the evils of the mind and body dualism, i.e. the conflict between mind and body as based in traditional philosophy with the bad effects it has on the educative experience, is philosophically reconsidered.
In this regard, Dewey says:
“It would be impossible to state adequately the evil results which have flowed from this dualism of mind and body, much less to exaggerate them. Some of the more striking effects, may, however, be enumerated.
(a) In part bodily activity becomes an intruder. Having nothing, so it is thought, to do with mental activity, it becomes a distraction, an evil to be contended with. For the pupil has a body, and brings it to school along with his mind. And the body is, of necessity, a wellspring of energy; it has to do something. But its activities, not being utilized in occupation with things which yield significant results, have to be frowned upon. They lead the pupil away from the lesson with which his ‘mind’ ought to be occupied; they are sources of mischief. The chief source of the ‘problem of discipline’ in schools is that the teacher has often to spend the larger part of the time in suppressing the bodily activities which take the mind away from its material. A premium is put on physical quietude; on silence, on rigid uniformity of posture and movement; upon a machine-like simulation of the attitudes of intelligent interest. The teachers' business is to hold the pupils up to these requirements and to punish the inevitable deviations which occur.
The nervous strain and fatigue which result with both teacher and pupil are a necessary consequence of the abnormality of the situation in which bodily activity is divorced from the perception of meaning. Callous indifference and explosions from strain alternate. Theneglected body, having no organized fruitful channels of activity, breaks forth, without knowing why or how, into meaningless boisterousness, or settles into equally meaningless fooling -- both very different from the normal play of children. Physically active children become restless and unruly; the more quiescent, so called conscientious ones spend what energy they have in the negative task of keeping their instincts and active tendencies suppressed, instead of in a positive one of constructive planning and execution; they are thus educated not into responsibility for the significant and graceful use of bodily powers, but into an enforced duty not to give them free play. It may be seriously asserted that a chief cause for the remarkable achievements of Greek education was that it was never misled by false notions into an attempted separation of mind and body. (b) Even, however, with respect to the lessons which have to be learned by the application of ‘mind,’ some bodily activities have to be used. The senses -- especially the eye and ear -- have to be employed to take in what the book, the map, the blackboard, andthe teacher say. The lips and vocal organs, and the hands, have to be used to reproduce inspeech and writing what has been stowed away. The senses are then regarded as a kind ofmysterious conduit through which information is conducted from the external world intothe mind; they are spoken of as gateways and avenues of knowledge. To keep the eyes on the book and the ears open to the teacher's words is a mysterious source of intellectual grace. Moreover, reading, writing, and figuring -- important school arts -- demandmuscular or motor training. The muscles of eye, hand, and vocal organs accordingly have to be trained to act as pipes for carrying knowledge back out of the mind into external action. For it happens that using the muscles repeatedly in the same way fixes in them anautomatic tendency to repeat. The obvious result is a mechanical use of the bodily activities which (in spite of the generally obtrusive and interfering character of the body in mental action) have to beemployed more or less. For the senses and muscles are used not as organic participants in having an instructive experience, but as external inlets and outlets of mind. Before the child goes to school, he learns with his hand, eye, and ear, because they are organs of the process of doing something from which meaning results. The boy flying a kite has to keep his eye on the kite, and has to note the various pressures of the string on his hand. His senses are avenues of knowledge not because external facts are somehow‘conveyed’ to the brain, but because they are used in doing something with a purpose. The qualities of seen and touched things have a bearing on what is done, and are alertly perceived; they have a meaning. But when pupils are expected to use their eyes to note the form ofwords, irrespective of their meaning, in order to reproduce them in spelling or reading, the resulting training is simply of isolated sense organs and muscles. It is such isolation of an act from a purpose which makes it mechanical. It is customary for teachers to urge children to read with expression, so as to bring out the meaning. But if they originally learned the sensory-motor technique of reading -- the ability to identify forms and to reproduce the sounds they stand for -- by methods which did not call for attention to meaning, a mechanical habit was established which makes it difficult to read subsequently with intelligence. The vocal organs have been trained to go their own way automatically in isolation; and meaning cannot be tied on at will. Drawing, singing, and writing may be taught in the same mechanical way; for, we repeat, any way is mechanical which narrows down the bodily activity so that a separation of body from mind -- that is, from recognition of meaning -- is set up. Mathematics, even in its higher branches, when undue emphasis is put upon the technique of calculation, and science, when laboratory exercises are given for their own sake, suffer from the same evil.
(c ) On the intellectual side, the separation of ‘mind’ from direct occupation with things throws emphasis on things at the expense of relations or connections. It is altogether too common to separate perceptions and even ideas from judgments. The latter are thought tocome after the former in order to compare them. It is alleged that the mind perceives things apart from relations; that it forms ideas of them in isolation from their connections -- with what goes before and comes after. Then judgment or thought is called upon to combine the separated items of "knowledge" so that their resemblance or causal connection shall be brought out. As matter of fact, every perception and every idea is a sense of the bearings, use, and cause, of a thing. We do not really know a chair or have an idea of it by inventorying and enumerating its various isolated qualities, but only by bringing these qualities into connection with something else -- the purpose which makes it a chair and not a table; or its difference from the kind of chair we are accustomed to, or the "period" which it represents, and so on. A wagon is not perceived when all its parts are summed up; it is the characteristic connection of the parts which makes it a wagon. And these connections are not those of mere physical juxtaposition; they involve connection with the animals that draw it, the things that are carried on it, and so on.Judgment is employed in the perception; otherwise the perception is mere sensory excitation or else a recognition of the result of a prior judgment, as in the case of familiar objects.
Words, the counters for ideals, are, however, easily taken for ideas. And in just the degree in which mental activity is separated from active concern with the world, from doing something and connecting the doing with what is undergone, words, symbols, come to take the place of ideas. The substitution is the more subtle because some meaning is recognized. But we are very easily trained to be content with a minimum of meaning, and to fail to note how restricted is our perception of the relations which confer significance. We get so thoroughly used to a kind of pseudo-idea, a half perception, that we are not aware how half-dead our mental action is, and how much keener and more extensive our observations and ideas would be if we formed them under conditions of a vital experience which required us to use judgment: to hunt for the connections of the thing dealt with.
There is no difference of opinion as to the theory of the matter. All authorities agree that discernment of relationships is the genuinely intellectual matter; hence, the educative matter. The failure arises in supposing that relationships can become perceptible without experience -- without that conjoint trying and undergoing of which we have spoken. It is assumed that "mind" can grasp them if it will only give attention, and that this attentionmay be given at will irrespective of the situation. Hence the deluge of half-observations, of verbal ideas, and unassimilated "knowledge" which afflicts the world. An ounce of experience is better than a ton of theory simply because it is only in experience that any theory has vital and verifiable significance. An experience, a very humble experience, is capable of generating and carrying any amount of theory (or intellectual content), but a theory apart from an experience cannot be definitely grasped even as theory. It tends to become a mere verbal formula, a set of catchwords used to render thinking, or genuine theorizing, unnecessary and impossible. Because of our education we use words, thinkingthey are ideas, to dispose of questions, the disposal being in reality simply such an obscuring of perception as prevents us from seeing any longer the difficulty.” This concern, i.e. the concern about a traditional philosophical belief in the dualism between the mind and body of humans and its bad effects on the educative experience of children and youth in schools, is carried over into Experience and Education where Dewey discusses the Either-Or type of thinking as involved in the traditional vs. progressive education debate conducted in the developing democracy of the USA during the early and middle 20th century.
Though Experience and Education was written in 1938, it is still applicable to the developing democracy in the USA and developing democracies in the world today.In Chapter 1 titled Traditional vs. Progressive Education, Dewey says:
“Mankind likes to think in terms of extreme opposites. It is given to formulating its beliefs in terms of Either-Ors, between which it recognizes no intermediate possibilities. When forced to recognize that the extremes cannot be acted upon, it is still inclined to hold that they are all right in theory but that when it comes to practical matters circumstances compel us to compromise. Educational philosophy is no exception. The history of educational theory is marked by opposition between the idea that education is development from within and that it is formation from without; that it is based upon natural endowments and that education is a process of overcoming natural inclination and substituting in its place habits acquired under external pressure.” 4
Again, though writing in 1938, what Dewey has to say is relevant today, when he says:
“At present, the opposition, so far as practical affairs of the school are concerned, tends to take the form of a contrast between traditional and progressive education.” 5
What Dewey is pointing at is that which was occurring throughout the middle and late 1900s in the developing democracy of the USA, i.e. the reform of education as conducted in schools through an Either-Or form of thinking such that either the traditional education is taken as the right one or the progressive education is taken as the right one, without considering that the Either-Or form of thinking, rather than orienting reformers toward the right form of thinking about education, ought to;
“. . . set new problems which have to be worked out on the basis of a new philosophy of experience.” 6 Remembering that the reflective thinking experience is what Dewey means by an educative experience, it is worthwhile considering the distinction between what he refers to by the meanings of the words ‘educative experience’, and ‘mis-educative experience’, when he says:
“The belief that all genuine education comes about through experience does not mean that all experiences are genuinely or equally educative.Experience and education cannot be directly equated to each other.For some experiences are mis-educative.An experience is mis-educative that has the effect of arresting or distorting the growth of further experience.” 7
When characterizing mis-educative experiences, Dewey says:
“An experience may be such as to engender callousness; it may produce lack ofsensitivity and of responsiveness.Then the possibilities of having richer experience in the future are restricted.Again, a given experience may increase a person’s automatic skill in a particular direction and yet tend to land him in a groove or rut; the effect again is to narrow the field of further experience.An experience may be immediately enjoyable and yet promote the formation of a slack and careless attitude; this attitude then operates to modify the quality of subsequent experiences so as to prevent a person from getting out of them what they have to give.Again, experiences may be so disconnected from one another that, while each is agreeable or even exciting in itself, they are not linked cumulatively to one another.Energy is then dissipated and a person becomes scatterbrained.Each experience may be lively, vivid, and ‘interesting,’ and yet their disconnectedness may artificially generate dispersive, disintegrated, centrifugal habits.The consequence of formation of such habits is inability to control future experiences.They are then taken, either by way of enjoyment or of discontent and revolt, just as they come.Under such circumstances, it is idle to talk of self-control.” 8
In regard to the Either-Or form of thinking used by those taking the side of traditional education and those taking the side of progressive education, Dewey states:
“Traditional education offers a plethora of examples of experiences of the kinds just mentioned.It is a great mistake to suppose, even tacitly, that the traditional schoolroom was not a place in which pupils had experiences.Yet this is tacitly assumed when progressive education as a plan of learning by experience is placed in sharp opposition to the old.The proper line of attack is that the experiences which were had, by pupils and teachers alike, were largely of a wrong kind.How many students, for example, were rendered callous to ideas, and how many lost the impetus to learn because of the way in which learning was experienced by them?How many acquired special skills by means of automatic drill so that their power of judgment and capacity to act intelligently in new situations was limited?How many came to associate the learning process with ennui and boredom?How many found what they did learn so foreign to the situations of life outside the school as to give them no power of control over the latter?How many came to associate books with dull drudgery, so that they were ‘conditioned’ to all but flashy reading matter?” 9
Dewey hastens to say about traditional education, however, that:
“If I ask these questions, it is not for the sake of wholesale condemnation of the old education.It is for quite another purpose.It is to emphasize the fact, first, that young people in traditional schools do have experiences; and, secondly, that the trouble is not the absence of experiences, but their defective and wrong character—wrong and defective from the standpoint of connection with further experience.” 10
And, further he says, in regard to progressive education and the problem it sets for the practicing educologist, or, using Dewey’s words, the problem it sets for the educator.
“The positive side of this point is even more important in connection with progressive education.It is not enough to insist upon the necessity of experience, nor even of activity in experience.Everything depends upon the quality of the experience which is had. Thequality of any experience has two aspects.There is an immediate aspect of agreeableness or disagreeableness, and there is its influence upon later experiences.The first is obvious and easy to judge.The effect of an experience is not borne on its face.It sets a problemto the educator.It is his business to arrange for the kind of experiences which, while they do not repel the student, but rather engage his activities are, nevertheless, more than immediately enjoyable since they promote having desirable future experiences.Just as no man lives or dies to himself, so no experience lives and dies to itself.Wholly independent of desire or intent, every experience lives on in further experiences. Hence the central problem of an education based upon experience is to select the kind of present experiences that live fruitfully and creatively in subsequent experiences. 11
The Central Problem for Philosophy of Educology in Developing Democracies of the World
The central problem for philosophy of educology in developing democracies of the world is that of how to inquire so as to provide knowledge about conditions that best realize experiences that are educative experiences, hence growing experiences, for the children and youth of a democracy that can be provided in a social organization meant and referred to by the words ‘school’ and ‘home’ and also by the word ‘business’, ‘government’, and ‘church’.
About the problem of how to inquire so as to come to know these conditions, Dewey talks about the need for a long view forward, by saying:
“. . . experiences in order to be educative must lead out into an expanding world of subject-matter, a subject matter of facts or information and of ideas.This condition is satisfied only as the educator views teaching and learning as a continuous process of reconstruction of experience.This condition in turn can be satisfied only as the educator has a long look ahead and views every present experience as a moving force in influencing what future experiences will be.” 12
Further, Dewey explains the emphasis he is placing on the pattern in the scientific method, as the phases of the reflective thinking experience, when he says:
“I am aware that the emphasis I have placed upon scientific method may be misleading, for it may result only in calling up the special technique of laboratory research as that is conducted by specialists.But the meaning of the emphasis placed upon scientific method has little to do with specialized techniques.It means that scientific method is the only authentic means at our command for getting at the significance of our everyday experiences of the world in which we live.It means that scientific method provides a working pattern of the way in which and the conditions under which experiences are used to lead ever onward and outward.Adaptation of the method to individuals of various degrees of maturity is a problem for the educator, and the constant factors in the problem are the formation of ideas, acting upon ideas, observation of the conditions which result, and organization of facts and ideas for future use.Neither the ideas, nor the activities, nor the observations, nor the organization are the same for a person six years old as they are for one twelve or eighteen years old, to say nothing of the adult scientists.But at every level there is an expanding development of experience, if experience is educative in effect.Consequently, whatever the level of experience, we have no choice but either to operate in accord with the pattern it provides or else to neglect the place of intelligence in the development and control of a living and moving experience.” 13
In this quote, Dewey alludes to the general phases, i.e. the general pattern, in the reflective thinking experience, i.e. in the scientific method, when saying, as paraphrased, that the constant factors in the scientific method are: (i) a felt problem; (ii) the formation of ideas of how to solve the problem; (iii) acting upon ideas; (iv) observation of the conditions which result; and (v) organization of acts and ideas for future use.
A corollary problem to the central problem for theoretical educologists in consideration of practicing educologists, then, is that of more fully explicating the phases of the reflective thinking experience, i.e. the pattern of the scientific method, so as to understand and know its logic as being, in Dewey’s terms, “a theory of inquiry.”
This corollary problem is being worked on by Educology Research Associates/USA (ERA/USA), in a philosophical project focusing on: (i) the reference of the meaning of the words ‘logic of eduction’, i.e. the logic of how transacted meaning is used to draw out the semiosically meaningful transactions of induction, abduction, and deduction in the phases of the reflective thinking experience, i.e. to draw out the pattern of the scientific method in use in everyday life; and (ii) the significance of this reference to the central problem. 14
The philosophy of educology being followed at ERA/USA is that of a semiotic understanding of the semiosically oriented organic connection between education and experience, through the transaction of meaning, and between this connection and the arrangements for a democratic way of life as it affects the quality of human daily experience.It follows Dewey, when he makes a distinction between the meanings of the words ‘cause’ and ‘reasons’ in reference to why democracy is the preferable arrangement for a way of life.He says:
“The question I would raise concerns why we prefer democratic and humane arrangements to those which are autocratic and harsh.And by ‘why,’ I mean the reason for preferring them, not just the causes which lead us to the preference.One cause may be that we have been taught not only in the schools but by the press, the pulpit, the platform, and our laws and law-making bodies that democracy is the best of all social institutions.We have so assimilated this idea from our surrounds that it has become an habitual part of our mental and moral make-up.But similar causes have led other persons in different surroundings to widely varying conclusions—to prefer facism, for example.The cause for our preference is not the same thing as the reason why we should prefer it.” 15
In regard to the reasons, Dewey says:
“It is not my purpose here to go in detail into the reason.But I would ask a single question: Can we find any reason that does not ultimately come down to the belief that democratic social arrangements promote a better quality of human experience, one which is more widely accessible and enjoyed, than do non-democratic and anti-democratic forms of social life?Does not the principle of regard for individual freedom and fordecency and kindliness of human relations come back in the end to the conviction that these things are tributary to a higher quality of experience on the part of a greater number than are methods of repression and coercion or force?Is it not the reason for our preference that we believe that mutual consultation and convictions reached through persuasion, make possible a better quality of experience than can otherwise be provided on any wide scale?” 16
At ERA/USA, from the perspective of a semiotically oriented experiential philosophy of educology, the answer to this question is in the affirmative.And, the affirmative answer to this question is recommended to all educologists, theoretical or practicing, who are working in and for democracies in the world.
Summary
This article is an intensive abbreviation of the longer original article that was actually presented and distributed at the April 19-20, 2002 International Scientific Conference on Culture of Peace, Humans Rights and Upbringing of the Civic Society as organized by the UNESCO Chair in Culture of Peace and Democracy at the Law University of Lithuania at Vilnius, Lithuania, where Dr. Jurate Morkuniene is the Chairholder.
The original article was titled A General Sketch of a Semiotically Understood and Oriented Organic Experiential Philosophy of Educology for Developing Democracies in the World.The original article was divided into two parts, with the first part discussing the semiotical nature of communication in a democracy as a way of life and the second part discussing a philosophy of educology based on this semiotical nature of communication.The second part of the original article has been revised and presented as this article titled Toward a Philosophy of Educology for Democracies in the World so as to meet the publication of proceedings page requirements.
(4) John Dewey: Experience and Education; (A Touchstone Book, Simon and Shuster, Copyright 1938, First Edition 1997, pg. 17)
(5) Ibid, pg. 17
(6) Ibid, pgs. 21-22
(7) Ibid, pg. 25
(8) Ibid, pg. 26
(9) Ibid, 26-27
(10) Ibid, pg. 27
(11) Ibid, pgs. 27-28
(12) Ibid, pg. 87
(13) Ibid, pgs. 87-88)
(14)For an account of an explication of the logic of eduction, see An Outlined Introduction to the Universal and Unifying Research Methodology in the Domain of Educology, as published in Pedagogika, 51, 2001, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas, Lithuania, and in the International Journal of Educology, (IJE) 1998-2001, Volume 12-15, Educology Research Associates, Sydney.For an account of the way the logic of eduction works in the daily life of a student and a teacher, see The Domain of Educology in IJE, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 66-143. (15) John Dewey: Experience and Education; (A Touchstone Book, Simon and Shuster, Copyright 1938, First Edition 1997, pg. 34)
The Institute of History and Philosophy of Educology for Developing Democracies in the World (The Institute), an Initiative of Educology Research Associates/USA (ERA/USA)