Sacrificing Understanding
Inductive & Deductive
We read this essay called Sacrificing Understanding, written by Keith Raneire and Ivy Nevares, in which the importance of having both deduction and induction is highlighted. It has come to my attention that here at the MPC we use both learning processes and merge it into one. The dialogue we had reading this essay lead to an unexpected discussion in regards to general education, what differences we had here at the MPC to the rest of the faculties within the UFM, or even other universities. The premise came to be that the traditional educational system varies greatly from ours, which is in fact true, and from this we carried the conversation on what is optimal for the learner.
We also mentioned a great deal about the individual and his role in ANY educational system whether be it the MPC or political science for instance. It is the values of a learner that allow him or her to adapt to any learning environment and thus a true MPC’er is capable of working both collaboratively and individually no matter the circumstance; this is the ideal of course, not necessarily the current reality.
Back to the essay itself, it gives several examples, examples than include moments in which induction is not necessarily the way, for instance a kid crossing the street will not learn to look twice after a bus has run him over. That kind of information needs be given.
During my final presentation I had a section in which I spoke briefly about the value of a deductive and inductive process, I symbolized Euclid as a purely deductive formal system in which he works from certain axioms unto propositions and proofs. Euclid goes on and on constructing new and newer figures. I guess it is worthy to mention that Euclid though it may be a self-consistent system, is not complete, and that there is such a thing as non-Euclidian geometry, that inductively came out of the missing portions within Euclid’s system that help explain our universe. What I also spoke of is how that process exists within the MPC and in science itself, how having both is not only something we would like to have when it comes to knowledge, but something that we need.
We read this essay called Sacrificing Understanding, written by Keith Raneire and Ivy Nevares, in which the importance of having both deduction and induction is highlighted. It has come to my attention that here at the MPC we use both learning processes and merge it into one. The dialogue we had reading this essay lead to an unexpected discussion in regards to general education, what differences we had here at the MPC to the rest of the faculties within the UFM, or even other universities. The premise came to be that the traditional educational system varies greatly from ours, which is in fact true, and from this we carried the conversation on what is optimal for the learner.
We also mentioned a great deal about the individual and his role in ANY educational system whether be it the MPC or political science for instance. It is the values of a learner that allow him or her to adapt to any learning environment and thus a true MPC’er is capable of working both collaboratively and individually no matter the circumstance; this is the ideal of course, not necessarily the current reality.
Back to the essay itself, it gives several examples, examples than include moments in which induction is not necessarily the way, for instance a kid crossing the street will not learn to look twice after a bus has run him over. That kind of information needs be given.
During my final presentation I had a section in which I spoke briefly about the value of a deductive and inductive process, I symbolized Euclid as a purely deductive formal system in which he works from certain axioms unto propositions and proofs. Euclid goes on and on constructing new and newer figures. I guess it is worthy to mention that Euclid though it may be a self-consistent system, is not complete, and that there is such a thing as non-Euclidian geometry, that inductively came out of the missing portions within Euclid’s system that help explain our universe. What I also spoke of is how that process exists within the MPC and in science itself, how having both is not only something we would like to have when it comes to knowledge, but something that we need.
