From: "Martti Puttonen" <marttipu-AT-jazz.cc.spt.fi> Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 13:36:12 +0200 Subject: BHA: teaching argumentative skills to nurses along the DCR All, interested in reflecting practical dialectics Maybe some persons in the list are interested in commenting this practical work: How to teach to nurses scientific/thinking/ argumentation skills? That was my problem when having the personal task of teaching students philosophical thinking (that was the official name ot that course, 1 credit) in nursing at Polytechnical level. For me it has been quite clear for many many years, that education in nursing and in social work in Finland and other western countries in spite of its gradually strenghtening scientific (quite irrealist) basis is strongly fragmented (with special nursing ethics with the only first two dialectical degrees (1M, 2L), with logical arguments without dialectical argumentations, with great concern in abstract latently positivistic theoretiziation, anthrocentrism, etc.). About this fragmentation there has been so little dialectical and other argumentation in my local contexts and this discussion seems to become more fragemented somehow. But this is not my point, here. Rather I am pondering 'all the time', how to arrange (carry out, construct educational tasks, philosophical contents, etc) the basic course in scientific thinking along the lines of DCR. My main thesis in doing that was and still is, that connection or integration of realist science and eudaimonistic realist ethics is necessary and possible. How to do or from where to start among young mainly female students who have no much conceptions about philosophy, social and behavioral sciences? Although it is the question about the whole education and courses, not only the problem of philosophical course. Some characteristics of my course. I have recently written a (lecture) book (of 93 pages with references to some main philosophical theorists of different 'epistemological' in philosophical sciences) in Finnish for having more strength in the lectures and educational conversations with students. The book's name is 'Towards constructive working': - Stressing the underlying basis of philosophical 'analysis' in the context of scientific enquiry and their interelatedness. - Underlinig much philosophical argumentation in the broad sense, both logical (induction, deduction, etc) argumentation, and some ideas about dialectical logics and their interrelatetness, both literary or verbal, and also rethorical argumentation in order to broaden the subjective conception about knowledge and knowing. - Making some preliminary philosophical classifications of the philosophy of science together with various conceptualizations about 'social structures' in concrete social working situations and problems and evaluating them (real dialectical ethics, real dialectical science) in subjective reflection and in interactional conversations. - Constructing some general descriptive classifications about various ethical issues (modern, various postmodern ethical conceptions, and 'constructive ethics' behind (and embrassing) them in some general social working practices. It means to have more broad ideas about different and mutually exclusive constructive approaches. Paying attention to a more contextual ethics apart from its ordinary platonic ethical theories in nursing sciences) - Not paying much attention to anthroposentric problem in this student's thinking phase, because students do not have much scientifically or otherways broadened reflection and not much expecially logical (dialectical and or logical) argumentation skills. It seems to me that I can't describe my course's practice and my book very exactly here. It is a pity that this book or booklet is not in English in order to receive more critical and other comments. Everyone can see how huge problem I have had in front of me, which is doomed to progress also to some irrealist directions, (and towards having some tools of their analysis), too. Apart from other educational projects in this sphere this project of mine has been purposeful and quite much reflected one. I am quite satisfied with my teaching project, because I have at least succeeded in making some divergence (not necessarily crucial one) in practice from the positivistic and or overhermeneutic causal arguments towards to a more reflective and subjectively stronger argumentation. Maybe it is worth mentioning, that earlier I have made some psychological research on dialectical thinking and on its development. I can't see or imagine or construct other philosophical sound and alethic way in health and social work practices than that of DCR, where there is more real possibility to construct scientifically meaninfull ethics, which is a politically understood prequisite for qualified professional working practice nowadays more often. Martti Puttonen, Finland, Lecturer in Behavioral and Social Sciences --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005