APELC Reflections
Juniors and seniors, as I mentioned in the freshmen notes, with my recent tour coming on the heels of the end of the school year and attending to obligations since I’ve returned, I’ve been derelict in writing the reflections I promised I would over the 2008-2009 school year we shared in T-12. I know you’ve been waiting with bated breath to read my thoughts on our time together (sarcasm), but really, I’ve not much different to say to you than I did to your APELC peers at the end of last year. However, as I highlighted (I think) a valuable insight your colleagues and I arrived at last year (about judging others), so I’ll highlight another equally (I think) valuable idea that we uncovered this.
During one of our many discussions about perception and truth, Ben asserted that it’s nearly impossible to objectively observe and evaluate any system x within which one exists and functions because of one’s natural and inescapable assumptions about and personal biases toward one’s own system and against others. For example, it would be nearly impossible for APELCers to objectively observe and evaluate the system “Advanced Placement English Language and Composition class” as I’ve instituted it at CDO because of a number of factors: APELCers’ various understandings and like or dislike of class material; work ethic and grades; ideas about how an English class should be conducted and what should be taught; personal positive or negative feelings about me, the teacher, and previous experiences with other teachers; and so on. Any observations and evaluations APELCers make about their system must necessarily be subjective, the degree to which, though, and the manner in which they let those subjective observations and evaluations inform and direct their classroom experience depends on their individual critical faculties.
This idea can be applied to any system and its participants; the initial axiom seems inviolable. For example, it’s nearly impossible for CDO students and teachers to objectively observe and evaluate the system “Canyon del Oro High School” because they operate in and effect actions within the system. Thus they can only understand and assess the system subjectively, perhaps relative to other schools or how their understanding of education influences their perceptions which only colors further their already obscured critical filters. Another example: it’s nearly impossible for Americans to objectively observe and evaluate the system the “United States of America” because Americans live and participate within said system and because we maintain certain natural and inescapable assumptions about and personal biases toward the system and against others (republican democracy is better than autocracy, liberal capitalism is better than tightly controlled communism, et cetera).
The final extrapolation of this idea must be that humans can not objectively observe and evaluate the universe, the ultimate system. I posed this thought and most of you, after some thought, seemed to agree. Even the objection that rigorous scientific endeavor acts as our objective filter to observation and evaluation of nature fell apart when several of you realized that “science” is a socially constructed system, itself built upon certain postulates, with its own subjective biases and assumptions.
Now this isn’t to say that science can’t be trusted—that would be unreasonable (see Karl Popper’s principle of falsifiability). And this doesn’t necessarily mean our subjective assumptions and biases are unfounded or untrue (this could easily lead to discussions of the genetic fallacy). It does appear to reveal part of our nature that some may not want to admit, namely pure objectivity in observation and evaluation of almost any thing is out of reach, our assumptions and biases can’t be left at the door when we leave the house in the morning. Indeed, you’ll recall in the first quarter our discussion of religious belief and moral activity in which you concluded those who say such things as “Keeps your morals (ideas, beliefs, et cetera) to yourself” say them without thinking what the consequences would be if we did indeed strictly keep them to ourselves.
I hope what I’ve written makes sense. I think it does, but our thinking can always benefit from revision. Epistemological tension is good—it drives us to seek truth.
I’ve enjoyed our year together, APELCers. I look forward to seeing some of you next year, (”What’s that you say, Mr. Girard? I thought you were leaving.” Well I’ll answer that in an other post.), and hope nothing but the best for you graduating seniors. Until we meet again, here’re more images of Obama with unicorns.