Notices
Results 1 to 41 of 41

Thread: Dialogue ain’t for Sissies!

  1. #1 Dialogue ain’t for Sissies! 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Dialogue ain’t for Sissies!

    Human discourse seldom goes beyond adolescent styled discussion, debate, or argument. Intellectually, judging by our discourse, few Americans have the sophistication to undertake dialogue. I am 74 years old and have never experienced dialogue either as a participant or as a spectator. Our discourse seldom takes us beyond tacit (only a vague feeling) knowledge.

    I am convinced that until we can dialogue we will never be safe from self destruction and perhaps even destruction of the planet for any life forms.

    Few Americans are prepared to dialogue. Dialogue is much different from discussion and debate. To dialogue requires much preparation and our educational system have not prepared us for the practice of dialogue.

    Our educational system is almost completely dedicated to rote teaching. Our system is almost totally a system of teaching by telling. Why is this so?

    A didactic technique of educating young people is the most efficient way of inculcating facts into the memory of children. It seems to me that it is necessary to teach facts to children as quickly and as efficiently as possible during their early years.

    It is vital that we have knowledge of many and varied types of algorithms. The more our lives are controlled by technology the more algorithms we must know.

    However, there are no known algorithms for many problems that we face daily. Where we fail to have algorithms we must find ways to facilitate understanding.

    How does the Socratic technique, or as it is more often called the dialogue method, enhance understanding by a student?

    A classroom that is focusing on a dialogue technique of instruction would be one wherein there would be the usual teacher and a number of pupils. A question or a matter of interest would be introduced and pupils would be asked to give their opinion on the matter. Each student voicing a point of view would be subject to questions by members of the class and the instructor and each would be expect to defend the opinion as best they can. Such a class program would require, in many cases that the students come to class well prepared and ready to become an active participant.

    The subject might be the American war in Iraq, for example. One can imagine in such a case that there would be many different points of view. Some students might be from homes wherein varying political affiliations might be held. Some students may be Muslims or Jews of Protestants. Such a question would elicit many and strongly held views. The views of all students would be subjected to questions focusing upon the quality of the argument supporting a view and perhaps questions that might focus upon the biases exposed by the view. Assumptions would be examined and questioned. The whole process is directed toward establishing a critical habit of thought in all students.

    How does a young person who has finished their schooling develop their own value system?

    How does a young person develop a sound intellectual foundation upon which to build a life?

    What is a sound intellectual foundation?

    How does a young person learn to ask the important questions?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Dialogue ain’t for Sissies! 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Dialogue ain’t for Sissies!

    Human discourse seldom goes beyond adolescent styled discussion, debate, or argument. Intellectually, judging by our discourse, few Americans have the sophistication to undertake dialogue. I am 74 years old and have never experienced dialogue either as a participant or as a spectator.
    If you've never done it or seen it, how are you so sure it works? And you really haven't explained why it is different than discussion or debate.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Dialogue ain’t for Sissies! 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    I am 74 years old and have never experienced dialogue either as a participant or as a spectator.
    That I can totally believe. Your persistent failure to respond to more than a small fraction of the replies to your posts suggests you have only the vaguest idea of how dialogues should be conducted.
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Our educational system is almost completely dedicated to rote teaching.
    Nonsense. May I suggest you visit some schools or talk to some teachers. We are now in the 21st century, not the 19th.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Dialogue ain’t for Sissies! 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Dialogue ain’t for Sissies!

    Human discourse seldom goes beyond adolescent styled discussion, debate, or argument. Intellectually, judging by our discourse, few Americans have the sophistication to undertake dialogue. I am 74 years old and have never experienced dialogue either as a participant or as a spectator.
    If you've never done it or seen it, how are you so sure it works? And you really haven't explained why it is different than discussion or debate.
    I am not completely sure it will work. But the best minds that I have read indicate it is possible. I have no alternative, do you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    William Graham Sumner, a distinguished anthropologist states the ideal:

    “The critical habit of thought, if usual in a society, will pervade its entire mores, because it is a way of taking up the problems of life.”

    There are no paradigms for multilogical problems. Perhaps we might use the phrase ’frame of reference’ instead. A jury trial might be a useful example of a problem engaged by many reflective agents with a multiplicity of frames of reference. In such a situation the jury must utilize communicative techniques to enter into a dialogue wherein there is a constant dialectic until a unanimous solution is reached or deadlock prevails. The example of jury trial is useful but is a snapshot of experience and details agents in a one-time sort of experience.

    Socratic dialogue is a technique for attempting to solve multilogical problems. Problems that are either not pattern like or that the pattern is too complex to ascertain. Most problems that we face in our daily life are such multilogical in nature. Simple problems that occur daily in family life are examples. Each member of the family has a different point of view with differing needs and desires. Most of the problems we constantly face are not readily solved by mathematics because they are not pattern specific and are multilogical.

    Dialogue is a technique for mutual consideration of such problems wherein solutions grow in a dialectical manner. Through dialogue each individual brings his/her point of view to the fore by proposing solutions constructed around their specific view. All participants in the dialogue come at the solution from the logic of their views. The solution builds dialectically i.e. a thesis is developed and from this thesis and a contrasting antithesis is constructed a synthesis that takes into consideration both proposals. From this a new synthesis, a new thesis is developed.

    When we are dealing with monological problems well circumscribed by algorithms the personal biases of the subject are of small concern. In multilogical problems, without the advantage of paradigms and algorithms, the biases of the problem solvers become a serious source of error. One important task of dialogue is to illuminate these prejudices which may be quite subtle and often out of consciousness of the participant holding them.

    When we engage in a dialogue what happens? The first thing we find is that dialogue is unlike anything in which we have previously been involved. Group discussions generally digress quickly into verbal food fights and nothing positive is accomplished. Discussions become venues for shouting at one another. The most important thing discovered--provided you wished to advance your thinking so as to develop a means for solving intractable problems--is that skills and attitudes not presently possessed must be developed.

    In a dialogue one discovers that advancement of the group toward solutions requires that each member be part of a coherent body wherein all agree to certain standards and procedures. It is necessary to form a solid foundation for the house under construction. The foundation must be solid and the structure true to a standard. In a house construction one sees carpenters using plumb-bobs and levels constantly. What are the plumb-bobs and levels of thought? What are the standards and principles of successful dialogue?

    Each member of the dialogue discovers that things never thought of before are the first matters that must be resolved. The science of thought is the first and fundamental consideration that dawn on the participants. What are the fundaments of thought that must be examined?

    The science of epistemology imposes itself immediately as a first consideration. Epistemology is the theory and craft of knowing. If the members of the group cannot agree on what knowledge is that group can go no further.

    What can the group agree upon as to what is knowledge and what is truth? For all those who have never given such matters any thought this sounds a bit silly. Everyone knows what knowledge is and what truth is. That is a problem. Those never engaged in dialogue are likely to have ever questioned such basic concerns. This whole matter of introducing the concept of dialogue faces the bootstrap problem. The bootstrap problem is one of accomplishing an end when the end to be accomplished is necessary for considering the end to be accomplished. Can the dog ever catch its tail?

    Only after the group agrees on the nature of the plum bobs and levels of thought will the group be ready to move to the next step. The next barrier that it is likely to face is of the distinction between awareness and consciousness.

    Before Americans can dialogue there must be preparation. That preparation is not furnished by our educational system. The only way that Americans can prepare themselves for dialogue is through a process of self-actualizing self-learning. It is here that we must begin our effort to dialog.

    A dialogical process is not one wherein individuals reason together in an attempt to make common, ideas that are already known to each individual. ”Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together.” Dialogical reasoning together is an act of creation, of mutual understanding, of meaning.

    Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other.
    Each must be prepared to “drop his old ideas and intentions. And be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for…Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to ‘work together’) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.”

    “On Dialogue” written by “The late David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists and foremost thinkers this century, was Fellow of the Royal Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London.

    Bohm is convinced that communication is breaking down as a result of the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring. Communication is a concept with a common meaning that does not fit well with the concepts of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic.

    I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.

    Do you have any interest in learning to dialogue?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Do you have any interest in learning to dialogue?
    Do you? I already routinely engage in dialogue as you have defined it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Do you have any interest in learning to dialogue?
    Do you? I already routinely engage in dialogue as you have defined it.

    Here is a technique that might be of interest for a dialogue.

    Talking Circles is a technique used in colleges to teach dialogical thinking. This technique has evidently proved effective when decisions are required about issues wherein there is no right or wrong answer; such matters as social and moral concerns can be discussed within a non-judgmental climate.

    A particular issue is defined in a short statement and every entry is directed only to that statement and no comment is directed at other comments. The group should be small, perhaps seven members or less.


    Suppose we start with a short essay like the following and ask for a first response to this post by those who wish to enter into a dialogue.
    ________________________________________
    A prudent society would put technology on hold

    The aims of technology are achieved and our chances for survival are fatally diminished. The fault is not in our technology but in us. The fault lies within human society.

    McLuhan made us aware of the fact that technology is an extension of our self. I would say that we and also our ecosystem are both gestalts, a whole, wherein there are complex feedback loops that permit self healing and various means that protect us from our self.

    The dictionary defines gestalt as meaning a structure, configuration, or pattern of physical, biological, or psychological phenomena so integrated as to constitute a functional unit with properties not derivable by summation of its parts. When we interfere with the gestalt, i.e. our ecosystem or our self, we are changing some one or some few of the feedback loops that help us maintain equilibrium. Such modifications, if not fully understood, can send the gestalt into a mode wherein equilibrium can no longer be maintained.

    In 1919 Ernest Rutherford announced to a shocked world “I have been engaged in experiments which suggest that the atom can be artificially disintegrated. If it is true, it is far greater importance than a war.” Today’s stem-cell research could, in my opinion, be considered as more important than a war and also more important than Rutherford’s research success.

    The discussion regarding the advisability of continuing stem-cell research primarily focuses on the religious/political factor and on the technology but there is little or no focus upon the impact that could result to our society beyond its health effects.

    We are unwilling or unable to focus on the long-term effects of our technology and thus should put much of it on hold until we gain a better means to evaluate the future implications of our technology. What do you think about this serious matter?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Dialogue ain’t for Sissies! 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    I am not completely sure it will work. But the best minds that I have read indicate it is possible. I have no alternative, do you?
    Okay Coberst. Let's have a dialogue. You be Socrates and I'll be the pupil. Topic of discussion: Why Dialogue is different/better than the usual discussion on The Science Forum. Lead on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Dialogue ain’t for Sissies! 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    I am not completely sure it will work. But the best minds that I have read indicate it is possible. I have no alternative, do you?
    Okay Coberst. Let's have a dialogue. You be Socrates and I'll be the pupil. Topic of discussion: Why Dialogue is different/better than the usual discussion on The Science Forum. Lead on.
    Before Americans can dialogue there must be preparation. That preparation is not furnished by our educational system. The only way that Americans can prepare themselves for dialogue is through a process of self-actualizing self-learning. It is here that we must begin our effort to dialog.

    A dialogical process is not one wherein individuals reason together in an attempt to make common, ideas that are already known to each individual. ”Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together.” Dialogical reasoning together is an act of creation, of mutual understanding, of meaning.

    Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other. Each must be prepared to “drop his old ideas and intentions. And be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for…Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to ‘work together’) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.”

    “On Dialogue” written by “The late David Bohm, one of the greatest physicists and foremost thinkers this century, was Fellow of the Royal Society and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Birkbeck College, University of London.

    Bohm is convinced that communication is breaking down as a result of the crude and insensitive manner in which it is transpiring. Communication is a concept with a common meaning that does not fit well with the concepts of dialogue, dialectic, and dialogic.

    I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Why Socrates, you're off to a bold start today! Opening the dialogue by asserting your own thesis ?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Dialogue ain’t for Sissies! 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Before Americans can dialogue there must be preparation. That preparation is not furnished by our educational system.
    It seems you are declining my offer to dialogue because I am the product of the American educational system. Is that correct?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Dialogue ain’t for Sissies! 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Before Americans can dialogue there must be preparation. That preparation is not furnished by our educational system.
    It seems you are declining my offer to dialogue because I am the product of the American educational system. Is that correct?
    You asked me to lead on. I have presented my thesis and I would expect you to answer with your thesis and from that I would try to make a synthesis out of yours and mine. Then we would continue from there dialectically until we reached a conclusion or exhaustion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.
    Hi Coberst, Harold's topic for dialogue is why dialogue is different or better than the type of discussions that go on here. Your reply doesn't respond to this at all. I'm confused as to what the difference is.

    There are a lot of young people on here who are benefitting from being here in ways they wouldn't if they were involved in some other activities. Don't you think that these forums are a practical electronic substitute for sitting around the Academy?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    I claim that if we citizens do not learn to dialogue we cannot learn to live together in harmony sufficient to save the species.
    Hi Coberst, Harold's topic for dialogue is why dialogue is different or better than the type of discussions that go on here. Your reply doesn't respond to this at all. I'm confused as to what the difference is.

    There are a lot of young people on here who are benefitting from being here in ways they wouldn't if they were involved in some other activities. Don't you think that these forums are a practical electronic substitute for sitting around the Academy?
    These two paragraps of my thesis speak to the question of why dialogue is different and better.

    A dialogical process is not one wherein individuals reason together in an attempt to make common, ideas that are already known to each individual. ”Rather, it may be said that the two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together.” Dialogical reasoning together is an act of creation, of mutual understanding, of meaning.

    Dialogic can happen only if both individuals wish to reason together in truth, in coherence, without prejudice, and without trying to influence each other. Each must be prepared to “drop his old ideas and intentions. And be ready to go on to something different, when this is called for…Thus, if people are to cooperate (i.e., literally to ‘work together’) they have to be able to create something in common, something that takes shape in their mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.”
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Coberst, I think it would be good to start off with a set of ground rules; otherwise I am liable to lapse into my usual methods, since I am still not clear on the difference. The way you have started the discussion is a lot different than I expected. Of course, we can play this any way you want, but I thought Socrates' method was to ask a series of leading questions to elicit the desired conclusion, without even overtly revealing his own opinion.

    Now, there is one thing that bothers me about what you have said, and that is that it requires some preparation or training before you begin to attempt a dialogue. Does that mean that there is some grade level, say in elementary school, below which the students would not be ready to do it?

    This does not seem right, because if dialogue is the most efficient method of learning, why spend time learning by other methods before you even start using it?

    It brings to mind Professor Harold Hill's "think method" of learning to play a musical instrument.

    If you are not familiar with Professor Harold Hill, he was the con artist in The Music Man who came to River City, Iowa and convinced the people they needed a boy's band. Then when they started asking where their musical instruments were, he convinced them the kids could learn to play by just imagining they have an instrument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    mutual discussions and actions, rather than something that is conveyed from one person who acts as an authority to the others, who act as passive instruments of this authority.”
    This is contrary to communication's origin. Mammals teach adaptations to their offspring. We've expanded this behaviour to dizzying heights of sophistication, but the basic roles are still present. Humans swap roles easily, even as the ball bounces.

    What you're proposing is adult-adult communication. That role equality is tacit to most relationships, but in the nuts & bolts of talk it's tedious and arguably, ultimately impossible. One can't make any statement or observation without some authority, even while excusing that pretension of authority at every turn. On the other hand, playing the child (e.g. Socrates) won't work if everybody does it. We need the two roles interacting.

    I do think people could reign in our arrogant excesses, which aim not to conversation but to social climbing. And we could better expose our common ignorance, even personal ignorance. We're all children too, aren't we?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Harold

    The reason few if any of us have experience with dialogue is because dialogue takes preparation. Our standad means for communication requires no preparation, no thought, and thus leads to no useful conclusions. We have always left conclusions to the individuals with power.

    I would say that the minimum preparation required to dialogue is learning CT (Critical Thinking). While studying CT I first learned of the dialogial method. I suggest reading "Critical Thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world" by Richard Paul.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    I would say that the minimum preparation required to dialogue is learning CT (Critical Thinking).
    Is this what all the dialogue experts say, or is this only your opinion? And what is the answer to my question about what age and school grade would be appropriate to start dialogue?

    Going back to my analogy to playing a musical instrument - is it an apt analogy or not? Or do you think studying music theory is a prerequisite to playing a musical instrument?

    By the way, let me know any time you think I am breaking the dialog rules.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    I would say that the minimum preparation required to dialogue is learning CT (Critical Thinking).
    Is this what all the dialogue experts say, or is this only your opinion? And what is the answer to my question about what age and school grade would be appropriate to start dialogue?

    Going back to my analogy to playing a musical instrument - is it an apt analogy or not? Or do you think studying music theory is a prerequisite to playing a musical instrument?

    By the way, let me know any time you think I am breaking the dialog rules.
    I have not read any expert who uses the words that one must study CT to dialogue but if you read the book I mentioned you wll learn what dialogical reasoning is about and you will also recognize why CT is required.

    When people try to reason together they must share some common pool of knowledge. CT is one of the fundamental skills, knowledge, and attitude required to participate in dialogue.

    Obviously a person can play a musical instrument without knowing anything about musical theory. One can discuss and debate without knowing anyting much. However, dialogue is a diffeent fish completely.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    I have not read any expert who uses the words that one must study CT to dialogue
    Well, do they say anything similar to that in different words? I'm asking if this is the common wisdom of the experts or if it is something you made up on your own. If you made it up on your own, just say so; don't beat around the bush.
    but if you read the book I mentioned you wll learn what dialogical reasoning is about and you will also recognize why CT is required.
    I'm not going to read the book just to have this dialog with you. If you think I am not thinking critically, please point out where I have fallen short.
    One can discuss and debate without knowing anyting much. However, dialogue is a diffeent fish completely.
    How so? And how do you know this given that you have admittedly not done it?

    Coberst, I hereby accuse you of violating the rules of the dialog. You aren't supposed to try to influence me. Yet, you keep insisting on this point about needing training. I was, and am open minded about it, but I will not simply take your word for it. Your mind is closed. Nor will I defer to your opinion just because you read some book.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    1C3
    1C3 is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    You aren't supposed to try to influence me. Yet, you keep insisting on this point about needing training. I was, and am open minded about it, but I will not simply take your word for it. Your mind is closed. Nor will I defer to your opinion just because you read some book.
    I agree, dialogue, no matter how much preperation you have done, requires the person that is listening, to listen with an open mind (Empty mind). Not to hear what a person is saying, and for everything they say, relate it to what they know already (that is is preconseption). One should try to rid themselves of preconception in order to fully appreciate (understand for themselves) what someone is saying, no matter how rediculous it may be. That is the true art of dialogue! not preparation.
    How can you argue with prepared ideas against that which you do not know or have not listened to?!




    Why is my cup so useful?

    Because it is empty!!! :wink:
    Do you know why this cup is so useful? Because it is empty!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by 1C3
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    You aren't supposed to try to influence me. Yet, you keep insisting on this point about needing training. I was, and am open minded about it, but I will not simply take your word for it. Your mind is closed. Nor will I defer to your opinion just because you read some book.
    I agree, dialogue, no matter how much preperation you have done, requires the person that is listening, to listen with an open mind (Empty mind). Not to hear what a person is saying, and for everything they say, relate it to what they know already (that is is preconseption). One should try to rid themselves of preconception in order to fully appreciate (understand for themselves) what someone is saying, no matter how rediculous it may be. That is the true art of dialogue! not preparation.
    How can you argue with prepared ideas against that which you do not know or have not listened to?!

    You make a good point about listening. However, listening, unlike hearing, requires the ability to assimilate what is said. People attempting to reason together must share some common pool of knowledge otherwise one never gets beyond the trivial.



    Why is my cup so useful?

    Because it is empty!!! :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    You make a good point about listening. However, listening, unlike hearing, requires the ability to assimilate what is said. People attempting to reason together must share some common pool of knowledge otherwise one never gets beyond the trivial.
    Okay, I'm listening. Now, what is trivial? Surely not your point about the preparation needed before dialogue. That was a central point of your thesis.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    You make a good point about listening. However, listening, unlike hearing, requires the ability to assimilate what is said. People attempting to reason together must share some common pool of knowledge otherwise one never gets beyond the trivial.
    Okay, I'm listening. Now, what is trivial? Surely not your point about the preparation needed before dialogue. That was a central point of your thesis.
    CT is one of the basic subjects one needs for dialogue. But in addition one must maintain a significant level of intellectual sophistication.

    A football analogy might be useful.

    We can easily join with another person or two and take a football to the park and quickly get up a touch football game. Such a game might compare with the normal mode of discourse. However, such a level of football sophistication is not suitable for Friday night football games between high schools.

    One can take this analogy through college level through professional level. Dialogue requires a different level of sophistication than does a game in the park on a Sunday afternoon.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    One can take this analogy through college level through professional level. Dialogue requires a different level of sophistication than does a game in the park on a Sunday afternoon.
    Okay. And that applies to our current situation in what way? The college and high school players are still having fun, getting exercise, and perhaps preparing themselves for professional ball. Did anybody ever play professional football without first playing in high school and college?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    How about if we try this. Relate some success stories of the Bohmian Dialogue that will explain its particular benefits.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    How about if we try this. Relate some success stories of the Bohmian Dialogue that will explain its particular benefits.


    There are no successes identified in his book that I know of. There has been only failure, conjecture, study, and a desperate need.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    There are no successes identified in his book that I know of. There has been only failure, conjecture, study, and a desperate need.
    Come on, Coberst. Give us something positive. You didn't come here recommending this method because of an unremitting series of abject failures.

    From what I understand it is similar to the brainstorming process that all engineers are familiar with. This is where a team is put together and people throw out all kinds of wacky ideas. Nobody is allowed to say why the ideas won't work, at least in the initial stages. Hopefully the wacky idea will trigger something useful in the mind of another participant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    There are no successes identified in his book that I know of. There has been only failure, conjecture, study, and a desperate need.
    Come on, Coberst. Give us something positive. You didn't come here recommending this method because of an unremitting series of abject failures.

    From what I understand it is similar to the brainstorming process that all engineers are familiar with. This is where a team is put together and people throw out all kinds of wacky ideas. Nobody is allowed to say why the ideas won't work, at least in the initial stages. Hopefully the wacky idea will trigger something useful in the mind of another participant.
    I am giving you something positive. I am giving you CT. We must reject our anti-intellectual bias and recognize that self-learning is our only way to prepare our self to deal with reality. We must adapt or become toast.

    We humans are at a cross roads. We can continue on the road we have chosen for we can "take the road less traveled". Until we find a way to communicate together we face a future filled with war and a future filled with war with the technology we now have and will improve means certain destruction.

    What you and I can do is we can study what our sciences have given us and thereby prepare our self to deal with our problem. If we refuse to study we are doomed to travel a dangerous road into the future.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    find a way to communicate
    I read ya.

    We have found a way to communicate, and better than mere jawing too. Isn't this self-evident?

    Listen: I grew up in an age before this CERN invention the World Wide Web got outside science circles. We used to watch cable television. This is how everybody save a few eccentrics whiled the bulk of free time, just gazing passively at whatever dull pander was offered, and most of us watched the same commercials over and over too! The statistics don't lie here. Even smart folks did it, thinking their critical thinking about the Dukes of Hazzard or whatever. That is a shameful truth those who lived through the age prefer to forget. It's easy to forget because there just wasn't much going on, in the upstairs of the nation.

    Now you say
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    We humans are at a cross roads. We can continue on the road we have chosen for we can "take the road less traveled". Until we find a way to communicate together...
    ? WTF man we're on it already, as fast as our bandwidths can carry us.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    I am giving you something positive. I am giving you CT.
    Tsk, tsk. You are arguing and defending your position. That's a cardinal sin in the Bohm Dialogue. I'm simply asking for you to make a positive statement about Bohm Dialogue. Is that so difficult? Also, the critical thinking was a different book, different method. We're dialoging on Bohm Dialogue right now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    I am giving you something positive. I am giving you CT.
    Tsk, tsk. You are arguing and defending your position. That's a cardinal sin in the Bohm Dialogue. I'm simply asking for you to make a positive statement about Bohm Dialogue. Is that so difficult? Also, the critical thinking was a different book, different method. We're dialoging on Bohm Dialogue right now.
    Do not confuse our discourse with dialogue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Coberst, you are not doing a very good selling job. First you say this Dialogue-with-a-capital-D is the last best hope to save all mankind. But you won't even say why or what it is, so I have to go surfing the internet to find out for myself. Then you say it has failed everywhere it has been tried. Then you are unable to find a single positive thing to say about it. Now you are refusing to even try to use it in your own discourse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Coberst, you are not doing a very good selling job. First you say this Dialogue-with-a-capital-D is the last best hope to save all mankind. But you won't even say why or what it is, so I have to go surfing the internet to find out for myself. Then you say it has failed everywhere it has been tried. Then you are unable to find a single positive thing to say about it. Now you are refusing to even try to use it in your own discourse.
    Harold I cut your meat up into bit size portions but I am not your mother. You must learn how to spoon the food into your mouth your self. In this case that means get the book and study it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Here's the problem. There are a zillion books out there. You want people to read a particular one. That's where the salesmanship comes in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    22
    Double talk, double talk.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37 Re: Dialogue ain’t for Sissies! 
    Forum Freshman wolwerine94's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Dialogue ain’t for Sissies!

    Human discourse seldom goes beyond adolescent styled discussion, debate, or argument. Intellectually, judging by our discourse, few Americans have the sophistication to undertake dialogue. I am 74 years old and have never experienced dialogue either as a participant or as a spectator. Our discourse seldom takes us beyond tacit (only a vague feeling) knowledge.

    I am convinced that until we can dialogue we will never be safe from self destruction and perhaps even destruction of the planet for any life forms.

    Few Americans are prepared to dialogue. Dialogue is much different from discussion and debate. To dialogue requires much preparation and our educational system have not prepared us for the practice of dialogue.

    Our educational system is almost completely dedicated to rote teaching. Our system is almost totally a system of teaching by telling. Why is this so?

    A didactic technique of educating young people is the most efficient way of inculcating facts into the memory of children. It seems to me that it is necessary to teach facts to children as quickly and as efficiently as possible during their early years.

    It is vital that we have knowledge of many and varied types of algorithms. The more our lives are controlled by technology the more algorithms we must know.

    However, there are no known algorithms for many problems that we face daily. Where we fail to have algorithms we must find ways to facilitate understanding.

    How does the Socratic technique, or as it is more often called the dialogue method, enhance understanding by a student?

    A classroom that is focusing on a dialogue technique of instruction would be one wherein there would be the usual teacher and a number of pupils. A question or a matter of interest would be introduced and pupils would be asked to give their opinion on the matter. Each student voicing a point of view would be subject to questions by members of the class and the instructor and each would be expect to defend the opinion as best they can. Such a class program would require, in many cases that the students come to class well prepared and ready to become an active participant.

    The subject might be the American war in Iraq, for example. One can imagine in such a case that there would be many different points of view. Some students might be from homes wherein varying political affiliations might be held. Some students may be Muslims or Jews of Protestants. Such a question would elicit many and strongly held views. The views of all students would be subjected to questions focusing upon the quality of the argument supporting a view and perhaps questions that might focus upon the biases exposed by the view. Assumptions would be examined and questioned. The whole process is directed toward establishing a critical habit of thought in all students.

    How does a young person who has finished their schooling develop their own value system?

    How does a young person develop a sound intellectual foundation upon which to build a life?

    What is a sound intellectual foundation?

    How does a young person learn to ask the important questions?
    This is a peace of shit!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    172
    Interesting, is it not?

    How can an inarticulate poster end an ongoing philosophical discussion by inarticulately declaring it a "pease (sic) of shit" ?

    Good God, yall, if you all can't handle the directed semantics of your own conceptions then you should call on me. Then maybe I, being wiser than you, will slip you the obvious skinny.

    Jeez! What a shallow World!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    To say there is a 79% water, yes it is.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    I have experienced 'dialogue' in all it's various forms. I am female. I believe that makes a difference.

    Coberst dialogue exists in many forms, hence you should be specific, details of forms here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue

    Meanwhile Harold:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohm_Dialogue

    " Dialogue is really aimed at going into the whole thought process and changing the way the thought process occurs collectively. We haven't really paid much attention to thought as a process. We have ENGAGED in thoughts, but we have only paid attention to the content, not to the process. Why does thought require attention? Everything requires attention, really. If we ran machines without paying attention to them, they would break down. Our thought, too, is a process, and it requires attention, otherwise it's going to go wrong.

    In such a dialogue, when one person says something, the other person does not, in general, respond with exactly the same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the meanings are only similar and not identical. Thus, when the 2nd person replies, the 1st person sees a Difference between what he meant to say and what the other person understood. On considering this difference, he may then be able to see something new, which is relevant both to his own views and to those of the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the continual emergence of a new content that is common to both participants. Thus, in a dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain ideas or items of information that are already known to him. Rather, it may be said that two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together. (from On Dialogue)

    It seems then that the main trouble is that the other person is the one who is prejudiced and not listening"



    AND


    "Principles of Dialogue

    "Bohm Dialogue" has been widely used in the field of organizational development, and has evolved beyond what David Bohm intended: rarely is the minimum group size as large as what Bohm originally recommended, and there are often other numerous subtle differences. Specifically, any method of conversation that claims to be based on the "principles of dialogue as established by David Bohm" can be considered to be a form of Bohm Dialogue. Those principles of "Bohm Dialogue" are:

    1. The group agrees that no group-level decisions will be made in the conversation. "...In the dialogue group we are not going to decide what to do about anything. This is crucial. Otherwise we are not free. We must have an empty space where we are not obliged to anything, nor to come to any conclusions, nor to say anything or not say anything. It's open and free" (Bohm, "On Dialogue", p.18-19.)"

    2. Each individual agrees to suspend judgement in the conversation. (Specifically, if the individual hears an idea he doesn't like, he does not attack that idea.) "...people in any group will bring to it assumptions, and as the group continues meeting, those assumptions will come up. What is called for is to suspend those assumptions, so that you neither carry them out nor suppress them. You don't believe them, nor do you disbelieve them; you don't judge them as good or bad...(Bohm, "On Dialogue", p. 22.)"

    3. As these individuals "suspend judgement" they also simultaneously are as honest and transparent as possible. (Specifically, if the individual has a "good idea" that he might otherwise hold back from the group because it is too controversial, he will share that idea in this conversation.)

    4. Individuals in the conversation try to build on other individuals' ideas in the conversation. (The group often comes up with ideas that are far beyond what any of the individuals thought possible before the conversation began.)



    Basically your average coffee morning chit chat.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41 Re: Dialogue ain't for Sissies! 
    Forum Ph.D. Hanuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The 10th Kingdom xD
    Posts
    750
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    Dialogue ain’t for Sissies!

    Human discourse seldom goes beyond adolescent styled discussion, debate, or argument. Intellectually, judging by our discourse, few Americans have the sophistication to undertake dialogue. I am 74 years old and have never experienced dialogue either as a participant or as a spectator. Our discourse seldom takes us beyond tacit (only a vague feeling) knowledge.

    I am convinced that until we can dialogue we will never be safe from self destruction and perhaps even destruction of the planet for any life forms.

    Few Americans are prepared to dialogue. Dialogue is much different from discussion and debate. To dialogue requires much preparation and our educational system have not prepared us for the practice of dialogue.

    Our educational system is almost completely dedicated to rote teaching. Our system is almost totally a system of teaching by telling. Why is this so?

    A didactic technique of educating young people is the most efficient way of inculcating facts into the memory of children. It seems to me that it is necessary to teach facts to children as quickly and as efficiently as possible during their early years.

    It is vital that we have knowledge of many and varied types of algorithms. The more our lives are controlled by technology the more algorithms we must know.

    However, there are no known algorithms for many problems that we face daily. Where we fail to have algorithms we must find ways to facilitate understanding.

    How does the Socratic technique, or as it is more often called the dialogue method, enhance understanding by a student?

    A classroom that is focusing on a dialogue technique of instruction would be one wherein there would be the usual teacher and a number of pupils. A question or a matter of interest would be introduced and pupils would be asked to give their opinion on the matter. Each student voicing a point of view would be subject to questions by members of the class and the instructor and each would be expect to defend the opinion as best they can. Such a class program would require, in many cases that the students come to class well prepared and ready to become an active participant.

    The subject might be the American war in Iraq, for example. One can imagine in such a case that there would be many different points of view. Some students might be from homes wherein varying political affiliations might be held. Some students may be Muslims or Jews of Protestants. Such a question would elicit many and strongly held views. The views of all students would be subjected to questions focusing upon the quality of the argument supporting a view and perhaps questions that might focus upon the biases exposed by the view. Assumptions would be examined and questioned. The whole process is directed toward establishing a critical habit of thought in all students.

    How does a young person who has finished their schooling develop their own value system?

    How does a young person develop a sound intellectual foundation upon which to build a life?

    What is a sound intellectual foundation?

    How does a young person learn to ask the important questions?
    Whats wrong with talking?
    Y'know... I throw a word, my friend/opponent throws a couple more;
    we make sentenses togeather and conclussions out of them...

    Obviously a convirsation will have a very short lifespan if your opponent
    is a closed minded piece of guano....

    p.s. why would one want to engage in a dialogue with the class if
    he can sleep instead?? :/
    I mean... a class of like 30-40 people can handle only 4-5 practipiating
    students at most! over this number will be chaos!!!
    And also... why do the talking when others can do the talking for ya? :P

    ~peace
    Good Brother
    ~~~~~~~~~~
    The truths that matter to us the most are often left half-spoken..
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •