RON MCDERMOTT spoke of RESEARCH 1            1/2 to DAN TRIPLETT on 12-
04-96
RM>I can't remember what her post was about, but if it included
RM>numbers, then it was quantitative.  Many studies are
RM>quantitative.  What you mean by "qualitative methodology"
RM>escapes me.  The methodology can be neither qualitative nor
RM>quantitative, only the data and conclusions can be...
Yeah....Im trying to get this straight in my head.......Sometimes I have 
to think so much it hurts.....
RM>RM>DT>Generally speaking the seven conditions that Cambourne
RM>RM>DT>identified  are all important and necessary.
RM>RM>Based upon what test?  Simply because they show up over and
RM>RM>over? 
Because I said so......(I hated hearing that when I was a kid.....)
RM>DT>Are you saying you know more than a whole host of 
RM>DT>early childhood educators?  (hehehe)  
RM>It sometimes seems like it....     ;-)
RM>DT>On this basis, one might conclude that the 
RM>RM>development of civilization requires the wholesale slaughter
RM>RM>of large numbers of people periodically.  Now I don't happen
RM>RM>to believe that, and I don't suggest we try an experiment
RM>RM>with controls, but the inference is "reasonable" based on
RM>RM>multiple observations over long time intervals.  It's also
RM>RM>"reliable"...  Is it valid?
RM>DT>This is a silly comparison Ron.
RM>It certainly is not... This is exactly the process about 
RM>which we are talking: Observations of data and inferential
RM>conclusion.  That this particular conclusion is unacceptable
RM>to you does not alter the fact that the process is exactly
RM>that which you wish to consider "equal" to the scientific
RM>process - It isn't and never will be....
I think it is silly because it is such an extreme example.  There must 
be a logical fallacy to your argument but I can't think of what it could 
be offhand.  Hey I know....it's the Quantum Leap fallacy....
RM>RM>WHAT they are doesn't matter; what I THINK of them, also
RM>RM>doesn't matter; and whether I BELIEVE them doesn't matter.
RM>RM>All that matters is HOW he arrived at them....
RM>DT>Yes...and if his conclusions are valid and you get hung up on his 
RM>DT>methodology of which you aren't sure of exactly (neither am I 
RM>DT>*exactly* ) then where does that put you?
RM>It makes me a skeptic; which is a very healthy thing to be,
RM>in general.  I try not to get "wed" to the rantings of 
RM>others......    ;-)
You aren't suggesting I'm a ranter are you?  
RM>DT>Upon what are you basing your pedagogical beliefs?  
RM>Ah... My ACTIONS are based upon the collection of data; 
RM>which includes educational literature, personal observation,
RM>commonsense, logical deduction.  As a human, I am forced to
RM>ACT in this fashion.  As a scientist, I weigh the import of
RM>the data, and that factors into my decisionmaking process.
RM>The necessity that I act forces me to consider even suspect
RM>conclusions when determining my course of action, but I 
RM>would never give them the weight I do to scientifically
RM>derived conclusions.... 
This makes a lot of sense and really clarifies for me you thinking about 
some of the matters we have discussed.  I suppose in many ways we 
operate similarly with the exception that I am probably more easily 
swayed by those that I regard as more knowledgeable in my field.  
Dan...  
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------