Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Re: scientific proof

From: Frederick W. Schueler <>
Date: Sat Jan 28 15:26:01 2006

Warren McMillan wrote:
> If you want evidence of how well scientific proof works as a means with
> which to justify an educational model, look to the public school
> system. That system is tested and measured and surveyed continuously on
> the pretext of improving it. All it really represents, however, is a
> distraction. All the scientific research into public education never
> questions its fundamental intention & the assumptions that derive from
> that intention.

* the common phrase 'scientific proof' is an oxymoron, since science is
the discipline of agreeing to value stories only for their vulnerability
to falsification, and of agreeing to believe stories only to the extent
that they have survived attempts to falsify them, while remaining
vulnerable to future disproof. No scientific story is ever 'proven to be
true' -- the ones that are accepted have merely survived the most
attempts to prove them wrong, and their status is that of waiting to be
proven less true than a revised story.

Any educational study that doesn't set out to falsify the prevalent
model of education isn't scientific. Scientific studies of education
must include the radical alternatives to the prevalent system: Sudbury,
unschooling, and cetera.

           Bishops Mills Natural History Centre
Frederick W. Schueler, Aleta Karstad, Jennifer Helene Schueler
      RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
   on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
     (613)258-3107 <>
subscribe to the Eastern Ontario Natural History list-serve at
Received on Sat Jan 28 2006 - 15:25:13 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 00:03:14 EDT