Let's talk about "education". Simply put, "education is a practical activity that human beings purposefully cultivate and influence people."
Well, if there is no objection to the above semantic definition, then we can see that "education" as a "practical activity" can also be a "knowledge system". Therefore, in this sense: education is not science!
In fact, to find out whether education is a science, we can also start with the objects we face. What science wants to solve is the problem of "things". Even the study of "thinking" is an abstract study from the aspect of logical form, which basically does not involve human emotions, values and other factors. What education should solve is the problem of "man"-to be precise, the human mind (because medicine also solves human problems).
Why do we say that "education is not science", and some friends always can't figure it out? This may be confusing "education" with "pedagogy". In our daily life, we talk about "education", "learning education" and "education", which have different meanings. "Education" means "educational practice", and "education" of "learning education" means "pedagogy", which may be "educational practice" or "pedagogy research".
It seems reasonable to say that "pedagogy is science", because pedagogy is a systematic theory that summarizes educational practice experience and summarizes educational practice activities.
However, even if "pedagogy" and "educational research" are completely classified as "science", it is debatable. This is the focus of our debate today!
It is generally believed that human beings have three knowledge systems (of course, these are relatively different): natural science, social science and humanities (note: not humanities, but humanities). I agree with this statement. Different from natural science and social science, humanities constitute a unique knowledge system, which is a humanities discipline about human value and spiritual expression. Natural science focuses on facts and laws (causality) and social sciences (such as sociology and management). ) focuses on organization and efficiency, while humanities focuses on value and significance.
When I was studying in Shaanxi Normal University, when the famous scholar Professor You Xilin gave us a lecture, I was puzzled when I first heard the word "humanity". Because I used to say "humanities". At that time, I raised my hand in class and asked Professor You Xilin, "Why not say' humanity' but' humanity'?" I still remember that Mr. You waved his hand very smartly and said categorically: "Humanities can never be called humanities! This is not a question of words, but involves our understanding of humanistic spirit, humanistic world and humanistic significance. Because the humanities are not science! "
Yes, I am now more and more accepting that humanities is not science!
Yu-sheng Lin, a Chinese-American scholar, said: "Humanities can never be called humanities." His reason is: "The problems concerned by humanities are basically beyond the answers of' scientific methods' or' social sciences' that most people know." (Yu-sheng Lin: Creative Transformation of Traditional Culture in China)
Gadamer said: "In English, only natural science is called' science'." (Gadamer: Rationality in the Age of Science) The scope of humanities covers all disciplines except natural science and social science. When it comes to humanities, the bill of the US Congress on the establishment of a state-funded humanities fund says: "Humanities include but are not limited to the following research fields: modern and classical languages, literature, history, philosophy, law, archaeology, art history, art criticism, art theory, art practice and those aspects of social sciences with humanistic contents and methods."
The above discussion does not directly involve "education". Now, we enter the "education".
As "education" on the practical level, it is undoubtedly not science. Maybe it won't be too controversial. Of course, regarding the content of education and teaching, we will involve scientific knowledge (natural science and social science) and use some scientific methods. There is no doubt about it. But educational practice itself is not science. Because it involves neither material nor society, but people's hearts. But now it is precisely because some educators unconsciously regard education as the display of scientific skills, as the teaching of knowledge and the training of skills, so the relationship between teachers and students has become the relationship between people and things. The objective, cold and universal laws in science have replaced the concern for emotional, spiritual harmony and unique individual spiritual universe in education.
As a theoretical "education", it is a little more complicated. As for the attribution of pedagogy, whether it belongs to natural science, social science or humanities is still inconclusive. In the research of pedagogy, there have been two ideas and methods of "science" and "humanity" for hundreds of years. (See Du Shizhong: On Humanistic Education)
In ancient times, this problem did not exist in China or the West. Because "everything was in philosophy" at that time, pedagogy was no exception. However, after the success of modern natural science, positivism regarded natural science as a model of human knowledge, and thus set off a trend of positivism in the humanities field, and all disciplines had to pass the test of "science". In this context, pedagogy began to March into "science".
In any case, the March of pedagogy into science is a historical progress. Because not only the knowledge of natural science itself enriches the content of education and expands education from simple moral education to the cultivation of intellectual spirit, but also the introduction of some natural science means promotes the development of educational research. This meaning, or this contribution, has not been erased so far.
However, from Herbart, pedagogy gradually embarked on a scientific-empirical road: based on psychology, followed by sociology (investigation and statistics). In modern times, educational research began to use social investigation, statistics, measurement and other methods and technologies, and the trend of "psychological education" became more and more mainstream, thus laying and strengthening the view that "education is science". At present, not only phrases such as "information input, output and feedback" have become common descriptive terms in the teaching process, but also "educational technicalization" has become the slogan of the times. "Not only is the purpose of the educational process to pursue economic efficiency, that is,' instilling the maximum amount of knowledge into students in the shortest time', but educational research also pays attention to the effect, that is, improving educational practice and making educational research more empirical and scientific." (Du Shizhong: On Humanities Education). Kroll, Brechinka, Alich and Resener tried to establish the causal explanation theory of educational phenomena and facts with scientific empirical research paradigm, and made this theory legal and operable. Jin Shengyong: Understanding and Education-An Introduction to Educational Philosophy Towards Philosophical Hermeneutics-What a terrible "scientific" prospect of educational research!
In my opinion, pedagogy is closer to the humanities because it focuses on value, spirit and humanity, rather than causality, regularity and materiality. The educational phenomenon of pedagogy research is not accurate but vague. The relationship between educators and educatees is not the relationship between people and things, but the relationship between people. Accurately speaking, in education, educators and educatees have been integrated. Although the research of pedagogy does not exclude the research methods of natural science and social science and even accommodate their research results, such as psychology and sociology mentioned above, as well as economics, physics, mathematics and modern information technology. However, this does not mean that education itself is science. When a film director is creating, he also needs to use modern scientific and technological means to enrich and improve his artistic expression, but it is obviously absurd for anyone to think that a film is a science and a director is a scientist. By the same token, just because some scientific means are used in educational research, it cannot be concluded that pedagogy is science. Because means can't determine the ownership of a subject. It is at this point that many people question "educational science", which I agree with. Of course, when people do not attach importance to scientific means, it is necessary for us to emphasize the "scientificity" of educational research. However, today, when educational research is moving towards "scientism" or "scientism only", it is of practical significance to emphasize that pedagogy is closer to humanities.
The educational trend of thought of "only science" tries to explain pedagogy with "science" and standardize pedagogy research with the academic norms of natural science, so it pays attention to "strict system", "brand-new paradigm" and dazzling and short-lived academic terms; As a result, various educational works that front-line teachers can't understand came into being; The works of Suhomlinski and others are ridiculed by many "educators" as "no system". The "research results" of "scientism" (to put it bluntly, it is essentially "pseudoscience") always exudes the breath of natural science: formulas, charts, curves ... because in their view, if there are no statistical data and investigation materials, it seems that it cannot be regarded as an academic work. What is particularly fatal is that the "science-only" educational trend of thought regards educational practice as "scientific technical operation", schools as "human processing factories", teachers as workers and students as processing objects (in this case, there is no so-called "friend" between teachers and students, and they pursue a standardized, unified, accurate and common procedure and law in the teaching process and teaching methods. In terms of teaching content, colorful teaching content is accurately dismembered and chopped by the "knife of science", and then continuously injected into students' minds. ...
Still an old saying goes: in the process of education (including pedagogy) marching into science, "people" are lost!
Finally, I want to emphasize that we emphasize the humanity of education and do not exclude science education in education. In other words, we oppose scientism in education, but at the same time, we vigorously promote the scientific spirit in education, such as the spirit of seeking truth and criticizing, and so on. Scientific spirit is a kind of free spirit that does not believe in any authority, just like humanistic spirit. This scientific spirit is especially needed in China where ignorance is still prevalent.
If pedagogy wants to be detached or objective, it must transcend the opposition between science and humanities and pursue the organic integration of humanities and science. This is an ideal state. However, in today's era when scientism is rampant and "scientism" is still embezzling education, as a rectification movement, I would rather speak out: education belongs to humanities rather than science!