Dewey's and Freire's popular philosophies of education in a capitalist context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article looks at Dewey’s and Freire’s popular philosophies of education in light of their views of the relation between common sense and scientific inquiry. Dewey’s view, unlike that of Freire, requires the data to be radically reorganized so that the inductive data cannot really be considered merely a reorganizing of common-sense experience. Dewey, though, does not apply his own characterization of scientific inquiry to his critique of capitalist relations; his criticism constitutes an external critique of capitalism via his concept of a cultural lag. Freire, too, criticizes capitalist relations not on its own terms but externally, via his humanist ethical condemnation of treating human subjects as objects. Marx, on the other hand, proposes an internal critique of capitalist relations, starting with the contradictory inductive unit of the commodity that parallels Dewey’s concept of scientific induction. Freire, despite his different conception of scientific inquiry, shares Marx’s interest in the working class and provides a complementary educational approach by addressing the working class’ experience of fear, by counteracting the denigration of working-class experience and by arguing against the claim of neutrality in inquiry in a capitalist context. A synthesis of the three philosophies would therefore serve better the educational needs of the working class.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.078 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".