Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This semester I am leading a graduate seminar in the history of educational thought.Amongst the intimates of the program this course is also known as 'From Plato to Playdough'.Who is Playdough?This "philosopher" could be Richard Rorty or Nishitani, but more likely Foucault or Heidegger.Where we end the breathless and heady tour depends on how many seminal thinkers we get to visit and whether there will be the next bus waiting to continue the tour into the both eagerly anticipated and (to some) dreaded POMO times.An Education course like this is, most often, not only forgotten in the graduate curriculum, but also when it is offered, as in my Faculty of Education, its importance is sometimes not properly or adequately appreciated.Why bother reading dusty (or, now from the dustless online libraries) philosophical texts?Surely, we have moved well beyond Plato and Descartes in all ways: intellectually, culturally, scientifically, and technologically.Yes?With advances like genetic engineering, cell phones, internet, and brain stem cell transplant, we must have left far behind ancient Greece of the Homeric times when Olympic gods were cavorting around and Socrates was worrying about the end of the oral and beginning of the literate culture; or from the days when Galileo had to stand trial on suspicion of heresy for his heliocentric ideas, and Descartes was researching the soul's contact point with the body and came up with the theory that the contact point was the pineal gland in the brain!So why do educational philosophers continue to invoke the ghosts of the past and pour over their inscriptions almost chiseled in stone in search of what--wisdom?I confess that I myself get frustrated and discouraged sometimes in the company of educational philosophers who endlessly spout Aristotle saying this, Kant saying that.I suppose I am equally guilty of this kind of authoritative discourse as I am fond of quoting Lao Tze and Siddhartha!Moreover, I suppose that my frustration is not really about citing the long-dead (white or coloured, male or female) philosophers since I get equally discouraged with folks around me who seem to practice the same kind of devotional scholarship dedicated to their favourite contemporary or living theorists.Call this kind of academic ancestor worship an abuse of scholarship.Perhaps, what happens is that we feel important about what we do and who we are through becoming an expert on eminent scholars and theorists.A case of "borrowed glory," which is, of course, not confined to the workers in the academy: we just have to take a look at the celebrity culture around us.But, in all seriousness, surely we have more important reasons than the case of borrowed glory to invoke such illustrious names as Socrates, Aristotle, Locke, Kant, Rousseau, or any number of these key thinkers from the annals of world philosophies.In this particular issue alone, the readers will find many articles that speak of Plato and other seminal thinkers from the Western intellectual tradition.For instance, Howard Cannatella revisits Plato and Aristotle to make insightful observations and arguments about the role of art in intellectual and moral development.Today, lamentations and fury are aired over the lack of adequate and deserving support for the arts in public schooling.To know something about the ancient animosity between the (rational) philosopher and the (muse-inspired, "irrational") poet, as portrayed in Plato's Republic, may help us realize anew just how foundational the division is between reason and emotion in Western thought, and how deep-seated is the privileging of activities associated with the former over the latter.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,162 | 0,108 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».