Interesting and very well-written article. I think it would be a mistake to discard existing knowledge and theory. Except in the perhaps rare occasions where accepted principles evolved from a fundamentally flawed foundation or analysis, accepted principles can serve as building stones for further development.
Certainly, a key part of the evolution of knowledge is skepticism and questioning of accepted principles. And I would hope that a university education would foster such skills and encourage their development. But it’s a two-way street: Students must question and, where warranted, criticize the foundations of what they are being taught. And professors must be open to, and indeed encourage, such questioning and criticism. Of course, professors who have become established in their respective fields may have an inevitable bias toward accepted knowledge. But good teachers should not be so sure of themselves as to stifle students’ questioning.
Hi Stephen, thank you for your comment! I agree, disregarding existing bodies of knowledge and work is ill-advised. There are so many classes that I took in my first two years of college that require a more trusting, structured approach— I would not have made it through my introductory computer science classes had I been questioning every single concept, so there’s certainly a case to be made for taking the “blind trust” approach when learning a new subject. However, I think it’s quite important to go back to the basics after reaching a certain level of understanding in a field, and revisit whatever was taught to be taken as true. If anything, this exercise helps deepen one’s understanding of a topic, and hopefully, makes even clearer the more complex concepts that build upon those truths. If not, then there’s either a gap in one’s understanding, a gap in the existing body of knowledge, or perhaps something in between.
Interesting and very well-written article. I think it would be a mistake to discard existing knowledge and theory. Except in the perhaps rare occasions where accepted principles evolved from a fundamentally flawed foundation or analysis, accepted principles can serve as building stones for further development.
Certainly, a key part of the evolution of knowledge is skepticism and questioning of accepted principles. And I would hope that a university education would foster such skills and encourage their development. But it’s a two-way street: Students must question and, where warranted, criticize the foundations of what they are being taught. And professors must be open to, and indeed encourage, such questioning and criticism. Of course, professors who have become established in their respective fields may have an inevitable bias toward accepted knowledge. But good teachers should not be so sure of themselves as to stifle students’ questioning.
Hi Stephen, thank you for your comment! I agree, disregarding existing bodies of knowledge and work is ill-advised. There are so many classes that I took in my first two years of college that require a more trusting, structured approach— I would not have made it through my introductory computer science classes had I been questioning every single concept, so there’s certainly a case to be made for taking the “blind trust” approach when learning a new subject. However, I think it’s quite important to go back to the basics after reaching a certain level of understanding in a field, and revisit whatever was taught to be taken as true. If anything, this exercise helps deepen one’s understanding of a topic, and hopefully, makes even clearer the more complex concepts that build upon those truths. If not, then there’s either a gap in one’s understanding, a gap in the existing body of knowledge, or perhaps something in between.
Thanks Emma. I agree. And best of luck with your golf swing!