In article <pnorton-ya023080001407981739090001 at tjnews.tju.edu>,
Pamela Norton <pnorton at hendrix.JCI.TJU.EDU> wrote:
> In a previous post, I defended "criticism" but I think that what I
>really had in mind was skepticism; replace the last three words of the
>quote with the words "research science". I think what many posters objected
>to falls into the cynicism category. Do we all agree that cynicism is bad
>but skepticism is good?
I think it is much easier to tear down than to build up, and that, Popper's
and Kuhn's theories not-withstanding, science needs both. I am preparing
a course for the fall in "Gender Issues in Biology" for a mixed audience
of women's studies and biology students, and some of my concerns are to
develop critical skills in the domain of gender research. But I want those
skills to include not just the "tearing down" skills but also the skills
to recognize what is a real contribution of a piece of work, to ask not
just "What is bad in this? Where did it go wrong?" but also to ask "What
is good in this, what new viewpoint does it present, how do these observations
contribute to the field?"
I got much more training in tearing down than in recognizing good points,
and I think it sometimes paralyses me with fears of doing things badly.
I'm sure that's some of where this comes from.
Chris.
