I think the original question was asked because the person asking it already had what they believed to be an answer. the skills developed through tertiary study are to strengthen critical thinking and expose us to as many ideas as possible and obviously they can't all be correct. (I'm a philosophy student so the approach to truth is different than in the sciences but there is still a truth which the questions asked relate to.)

It Kant be denied that there are foundational texts and concepts but there is nobody saying that Kant, or any of the dead whites, was correct. If you can find out why they aren't then that should be what motivates you. Education is a conversation, training is dogma.

Psychology is a soft science but studying neurochemistry or neurobiology is not psychology's sphere. Although it is possible to identify the brain function, it is not possible to identify the mind function (yet). The chemistry of the brain might be unbalanced and there are ways to treat that but what causes the unbalance? What biological function produces the idea of self? That is closer to what psychology is looking at. The scientific methods used in psychology don't necessarily mean it is aspiring to be a science that it can't be, just like Spinoza or Heidegger used scientific/geometric structures in their work as a way to express their notions to a scientifically literate community.

Finally, I don't know of any discipline that isn't concerned with finding answers to the questions that emerge from that discipline. And to say that one discipline can answer better than others is not to privilege any approach but to acknowledge that each discipline has different tools and methodologies. I wouldn't get a plumber to fix something electrical.

Is what is taught in colleges/universities skewed (often implicitly) toward what people (incl. professors) just believe or what they want to believe?

In academia especially in scientific research related field, we need to demonstrate our explicit findings with empirical evidence beside certain belief / hypotheses coined.

Dear Han Ping Fung

You say: " in scientific research related field, we need to demonstrate our explicit findings with empirical evidence beside certain belief / hypotheses ..." (end quote).

I understand where you are "coming from" and, while that seems to work in the "natural" sciences, it does not seem to work in Psychology. [ (I personally believe all real sciences can have equal statuses and be considered natural sciences -- if done correctly; and, I believed I have thoroughly "spelled out" a system for Psychology that would give findings comparable to any in any other natural science. ) ]

The PRESENT problems in all (recognized, "official", institutional) Psychology (similar to problems this field has had throughout its history) is: (1) I do NOT think often that "controlled conditions" are a good match (at all) with "empirical evidence" ; (2) NOR that the common strengths in statistical/probabilistic findings is a good match with "demonstrating explicit findings".

ALSO needed for any real or decent science: a set of reasonable, explicit, consistent, well-founded assumptions -- A PROVEN SET of foundational ASSUMPTIONS; and, in Psychology's case: fully consistent with Biology !!

I'm wondering why you seem to think that it's a matter of belief, and that the same conditions apply to all fields. The content of University syllabi is determined by far more than what an individual wants to teach, as there are validating bodies and stakeholders influencing the character of degrees. Science is only part of the picture. Often professors teach viewpoints they don't agree with because it's necessary to give students a comprehensive view of the field they are in.

Dear Stephen Andrew Linstead

To answer your question: It is a matter of ingrained "culture", here particularly: the outlooks provided by several old-time philosophers which are still prevalent (to say the least) today and operating as pseudo-'assumptions', never evaluated or well-founded (they are effectively 'automatic' presumptions) TODAY. (UN-founded or poorly founded and/or unproven "assumptions" actually ARE NOTHING BUT BELIEFS.) (I have 600 pages+ of large papers and essays (all related), here on RG, explicating and explaining and countering all this "stuff".)

It seems it is easy to forget the effect philosophy has had (mainly pre-scientific and totally unjustified) on Psychology, and on thinking generally. Examples of its effects are the notions of : characteristics that make humans special and unique from animals (more and more and more of these disproven every year). Also, to remind you of influences of earlier thinkers: Look at the number of words in common use which became big parts of our language after Freud; there are even a number of words in common use (though not particularly correct use) FROM BUDDHISM.

It is always possible to have only a partial view, as you seem to have. But, in fact, we all can only consider so much at one time; we just have to develop ourselves so it is the right "stuff". Of course: otherwise there is some truth to what you say, though I would argue that it has less of an effect than the "cultural" aspects I pointed up.

But, you point out ways to help us feel better; it just, in my view, is certainly not enough to really (or rightfully) think "things are fine".

Dear Brad - my answer was not an answer to you, but to the original question about what is taught in "Universities" which seems to reduce global and disciplinary diversity rather dramatically. I don't see what is "narrow" about my view, nor do I anywhere state that anything is "fine". However, I'm naturally suspicious of "scholarship" that has fewer references than capitalised phrases, and makes rather a lot of assumptions about others whilst accusing those others of not checking their own assumptions. It's true that some disciplines rest on relatively unexamined philosophical assumptions; others, however, make examining such assumptions their business, and even within disciplines there are sub-areas that are more or less reflexive and critical about their own processes. Even in psychology, which seems to be your obsession. And the nature of the University, which seems to be the substantial issue the question raises, has been and continues to be extensively debated both inside and outside philosophy.

No it is generally a simplified version of what academics understand to be a complex issue. Generally students are expected to progress from simplified but usable explanations in school to more nuanced ones in final year studies and of course to be close to the edge of understanding in postgraduate work.

However, the need to assess forces academic staff to give some of this knowledge in a testable true/false way. For example, "What is the Ideal Gas Law?" is testable and is a good approximation to the way gases behave under common conditions of temperature and pressure. Academics teaching this do not (usually) believe that it is true in any sense greater than this. A good lecturer will give reservations and limitations on what is presented as knowledge.

In other areas of study, the academics can explicitly label different interpretations (e.g. as Marxist or feminist) and compare them. For subjects such as medicine and law, much of what is taught is not belief, but current practice.

I think the original question was asked because the person asking it already had what they believed to be an answer. the skills developed through tertiary study are to strengthen critical thinking and expose us to as many ideas as possible and obviously they can't all be correct. (I'm a philosophy student so the approach to truth is different than in the sciences but there is still a truth which the questions asked relate to.)

It Kant be denied that there are foundational texts and concepts but there is nobody saying that Kant, or any of the dead whites, was correct. If you can find out why they aren't then that should be what motivates you. Education is a conversation, training is dogma.

Psychology is a soft science but studying neurochemistry or neurobiology is not psychology's sphere. Although it is possible to identify the brain function, it is not possible to identify the mind function (yet). The chemistry of the brain might be unbalanced and there are ways to treat that but what causes the unbalance? What biological function produces the idea of self? That is closer to what psychology is looking at. The scientific methods used in psychology don't necessarily mean it is aspiring to be a science that it can't be, just like Spinoza or Heidegger used scientific/geometric structures in their work as a way to express their notions to a scientifically literate community.

Finally, I don't know of any discipline that isn't concerned with finding answers to the questions that emerge from that discipline. And to say that one discipline can answer better than others is not to privilege any approach but to acknowledge that each discipline has different tools and methodologies. I wouldn't get a plumber to fix something electrical.

Dear Brad,

Your's is an excellent, albeit rhetorical question (and I would add perennial question). The short answer is obviously, as you state, YES. The why is a bit more complicated involving both implicit and explicit bias. These biases, which have been developed over a lifetime are always brought to the "table" (i.e., classroom and laboratory). Whether or not they are acted upon depends, to some significant extent, on the IQ, view of science, and philosophical orientation of the individual.

I hope that this "biased" perspective is of some assistance.

Sincerely,

Ann Marie

Dear Brad,

I also answer "yes", but I must admit I am not quite as alarmed by this insight as you seem to be. I also very much agree with Stephen's excellent first comment: from my own experience, I know that professors often choose curriculi not primarily for consistency with their beliefs, but for providing a comprehensive picture. In my own curriculi, I always made sure to include my intellectual opponents, simply because they were of eminent importance for shaping my own beliefs. In fact, ensuring the possibility for disagreement is substantial for scientific progress.

In any case, I think your (rhetorical) question just goes to show that teachers should strive to inform their beliefs as best as they can and at the same time be aware of their limitations; it is only human to not know everything, and even experts can rarely do better than act on their best estimation of knowledge. Scientists (or any person!) should be self-critical to a healthy degree, but that does not mean they should not act on what they believe is true - including when they come up with curriculi.

Best,

Joachim

Brad,

As usually, you argue that both psychology and philosophy are aflicted by many probelms. My be this is the ase. This does not mean however that psychological and philosophic knowledge are not important. In your questions, you generally uses philosophy and psychology. As for univesities, their main goal is look for the unknown and purse the true, the good, and the beautiful. Unfortunately, it is often the case that Universities are places pervaded by inbreeding. Of course, psychology is a soft science, but it may help us explain your obssession with it. As usually, you have answers to your questions, and it seems that everything boils down to behavior patterns. May be you are right, but it depends on your idea of behavior paterrns.

Best wishes,

Orlando

Dear Orlando M Lourenço

Nothing should depend on my "idea of behavior patterns" , unless you mean the concept I might have after discovering them (CLEARLY associated with at least some major overt observable behavioral [ pattern ] aspects * ) and then EVERYTHING just "thanks to the organism" (ONLY): when I/we have seen the phenomenology : the patterns and the patterns of patterns, which ARE the biology of behavior (i.e. Psychology, a science of what is ONLY an aspect of Biological functioning)(even when Psychology is defined as "just" 'the science of behavior and environmental aspects' -- which is possible, and fully suffices - and perhaps [(likely)] something which IS NECESSARY in that which overall suffices for understanding). [ When behavior patterns and the species-typical patterns of such patterns are correctly seen, it will be clear (as I have said for decades): behavior patterns are DEFINED ONLY by "other" behaviors and associated ** behavior patterns (e.g the key patterns which surround them). Otherwise: there is no definition (like as/in Biology).]

For science (or clear reasoning, in general): NOTHING should depend on my ideas, except perhaps a minor "good guess" (always small, relative to the proven and/or seen-the-same MAJOR Real context -- the KNOWN phenomenology). And, THIS (just noted) is good only to propel us/me to directly investigate and find (AGAIN: discover) something I/WE have not yet discovered (to "fill the gap").

Orlando M Lourenço , you are correct I eschew both all current psychology and philosophy, but yet I may present the best of both. I have been disturbed by the negative impact of philosophy for many decades: presumptions as 'assumptions': inadequate empiricism, the latter which ultimately and significantly IS adequate ONLY when it is founded and grounded in some directly observable overt behavior -- found, shown, fully rightly agreed-upon, or proven. There is no psychology today of any great value and none that provides for real progress and certainly none that provides for any good concept of CONTINUOUS PROGRESS (a major characteristic of good and actual SCIENCE) (all this described in detail in my essays (Q and A)). My Ethogram Theory is available for all to understand enough to figure it out and learn more (and for continuous progress in psychology). [(I have put every "nail" in every "coffin" of all the other "systems/models" of Psychology -- again, see my RG Q and A essays.)]

About me and philosophy. For decades I have not been able to have a view of anything like "philosophy" which I found acceptable. Finally, I realized I am a philosopher, mainly BECAUSE like a LOT, if not all, philosophers I say "everyone else" is incorrect and I am correct -- a MAJOR characteristic of "philosophy" (or something as close as one gets to such type of claims) . BUT, I have also indicated how any philosophy behind science should entirely "disappear" (and not be seen in its initial form) as the empiricism of the science itself elaborates, integrates, and "morphs" initial concepts to an understanding of what is indeed Real -- with any relationship to the "philosophy" OTHERWISE MISTAKEN.

* FOOTNOTE: I have outlined such a system, such a psychology and greatly detailed the grave and fatal defects of ALL modern psychological thought. (Actually having no way AT ALL of explaining "the prodigy" is totally unacceptable, alone. Ethogram Theory can.)

** FOOTNOTE: I do literally mean associated, as in associative learning: see Ethogram Theory. (It has to be these simple learning processes doing "the work not otherwise addressed" OR some other simple processes -- not yet seen or discovered (which is not likely).

It's quite common in academia all most all observations based on hypotheses empirical, crossectional one, So there is nothing like “what is taught in colleges/universities skewed (often implicitly) toward what people (incl. professors) just believe or what they want to believe”.

Regards

Dr. Kamath Madhusudhana

Dear All,

The Basic Problem as I see in all this confusion about Science as independent of Deep Thinking and Discussion is because of the attempt to camouflage or claim that Science is more intellectual and important and that Philosophy is "Just Spiritual". It is because of a negative attitude developed over a time and the egotism and Pride with which a "Scientist" speaks high about his/her work. Unfortunate to know that even democracy could not make people learn respecting other disciplines and the need for interdisciplinary work if we have to progress further. Thanks.

Dear Madhusudhana Kamath

You say: " common in academia all most all observations based on hypotheses empirical, crossectional one " and you say (a portion quoting me): "... So there is nothing like 'what is taught in colleges/universities skewed (often implicitly) toward what people (incl. professors) just believe or what they want to believe' ".

You basically assert that one thing (your first statement) makes up for (or secures-against) that problem addressed in the second statement. That is very much not the case.

How you frame and conceptualize (and thus operationalize) variables is EXTREMELY variable itself, even and especially with regard to decent empirical standards. Then, also, results can be characterized pretty much as you want -- given the rigor (or lack of rigor) in your established "observations", and then: your findings.

I see today's psychology as having the status of marketing research (given low empirical [(or, much more accurately: non-empirical)] standards, and given the weakness (mere trendiness) of results). YET no doubt some who do some of this very research characterize it as "basic" (as in "basic research").

So "at each end" (or at every step or at every point) there is an "opportunity" for mis-characterization (misconceptualization and some lack of conformance to actual phenomena). This is basically related to if and how concepts USED IN research are empirically founded and grounded. NOTHING that is not clearly related to some key directly observable overt behavior [pattern(s)] meets an acceptable standard for empiricism or science (only such hypotheses are actually empirical AT ALL). Yet, much less is often used and "at play".

I find it amazing how often people love their security so much that they actually are content and believe "the system" takes care of ITSELF. Many who have this view have it memorized and automatized for easy, quick (non-problem-solving) responses.

Dear Martin Böhnert

I believe the "implicit [view] problem" is much more serious that you seem to see it. You also seem to believe professors can make up for it somehow(?) (and "balance 'things' out").

In Psychology: I not just 'see' BUT I KNOW that a set of poor-founded or unfounded, unjustified, AND UNPROVEN pseudo-'assumptions' are used implicitly and unknowingly and without any critical assessment. These 'assumptions" underlie all really important presentations of material, but are NEVER EXAMINED. I have argued that this set of 'assumptions' is not only UNPROVEN, BUT ALSO LIKELY FALSE (since they are not consistent with understandings of biological functioning -- which behavior patterns are). I have detailed these 'assumptions' and provided a detailed critique of them and shown their grave ramifications. I HAVE PROVIDED A BETTER (more-likely-true) set of alternative assumptions and have argued at length (in many ways) about what they are good for. (These are CONSISTENT with the nature and form of biological understandings and principles.) If interested, I have several hundreds of pages of essays about this issue here on RG (in my Q and A, and many collected into my "Collected Essays").

P.S. I too am a philosopher, but make a point of "hating myself" for it.. Philosophy, either by its nature or nearly so, is non-empirical and views remain disconnected from Reality until shown or demonstrated EMPIRICALLY. If you just develop such sort of views and content yourself with them OR elaborate or generate more and more, the more non-empirical one is (and it seems the more philosophers are content with themselves, anyway).

in the USA and in countries dependent on US subsidization what is taught, researched, and often censored is directly related to the Presidential administration goals, just like the Whitehouse since Obama controls Student Loans - the only way to avoid this is to have a million or so dollars to philanthropically pay your professors in the US and overseas and fund/direct your own research and publish it - I know, I wrote for my PhD an NIH project which under Bush was stopped to turn over an issue for psychology to the religious right, thus I funded my own NIH project and hired Russians as my professors! https://www.amazon.com/Unmasking-Motivation-Monumentalizing-Generational-Trafficking/dp/6202073977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1513987620&sr=8-1&keywords=silvia+stein

I’m going to say yes. My Plato paper on my researchgate account talks about this. Even though theories that are reductionistic have been proven to be false teachings, these theories are still taught because they are still supported. All evidence shows that the earth behaves more like an organism than a machine, yet reductionistic methods assume the sum of the parts equal the whole (which is impossible, there is NEVER just one gene or just one neuro responsible for any given function- functionality actually preceeds anatomy). Anyone who thinks differently will not be supported. Probably because all the theories and math are out the window. Therefore perhaps what is taught is more based on believe than actual truth. Surprise- politics are involved. For example, back in the day students who agreed with Gardner’s multiple intelligences would find their careers over. In fact IQ tests that only measure math and verbal are still used even though they are severely INVALID. Also, students who support david Bohm also found their careers went no where. If a student questioned the theory of evolution they would be laughed at. Anyone who drifts into pseudo science- bye bye... even though the scientific method is limited and may not be using the correct tools to measure certain things, no one is allowed think outside the box called the scientific method .

Dear Sandra Kroeker

Thank you for your input and examples. It is appreciated.

Lecturers usually miss the time or the capability to check the consistence of the stuff they teach. An important reason is that physical theories are not based on a proper foundation and lecturers must rely on the trustworthiness of the referred material.

A well-founded theory easily explains that contemporary physics still contains wrong assumptions.

TheStructureOfPhysicalReality.pdf ; http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10664.26885

You ask

Is what is taught in colleges/universities skewed (often implicitly) toward what people (incl. professors) just believe or what they want to believe?

Then you answer

I say a big "Yes" (big time, big time). And there is VERY LITTLE TO NOTHING to counter MOST of this phenomenon at all

What evidence do you have? Why have you not offered any? Why are you prejudiced against universities? (Prejudice - pre judgement - which you manifest). What is your real motive? What are you frightened of? Why are you generating fake news?

Dear Paul Ernest

Sometimes a consistent observation (consistent, repeated observations) comes before any research.

My real motive: I am glad to answer this. What I am really concerned with is whether professors (and, in particular -- since it is my area -- psychology professors) HAVE PERSONALLY PROCESSED WHAT THEY TEACH, so SUCH-AS-THAT is what they are teaching students. I have personally seen and assessed quite a few cases where there was really NO SIGN that Ph.D. level college/university instructors had TRULY, THEMSELVES, processed major topics/issues in their subject area (as I just indicated, and see below) -- and this was over the period of many, many interactions, with several such teachers. I guess THAT is the key observations. This cannot be interpreted as "fake news" in any way.

In short, really and clearly, it is an issue of existential responsibility.

I see such professors as ROBBING THEIR STUDENTS _AND_ they tend to be very unhappy persons as well (a true level of existential responsibility seems to be necessary for personal happiness, thus they also seem to have "robbed" themselves).

I believe I have now pretty well "spelled-out" the general/common core of the problem. AND: I think that personal responsibility for one's subject matter is something those hiring people for college/university teaching COULD ASSESS _AND_ this is NOT limited to just an area(s) where the candidate has done new/special research -- where interviewers can be "fooled" -- but involves big things (like: how do you view the ontogeny of behavior?). I believe this is one SIGNIFICANT, REAL, KEY [FACTOR] for progress in a field.

This very issue I raise IS definitely related to the " trustworthiness " of the material presented and the quality of instruction (it is the essence of transmitting an ability to learn HOW to learn).

I truly hope you, Paul Ernest , can see my point. I hope you are good and are happy.

P.S. to all: If there is any doubt of whether you (as a professor) have thoroughly fulfilled this existential (ethical) responsibility, the answer may well be: "no". In short, insomuch as the phenomenon I describe is the case, arguing against it would be arguing against basic, fundamental ethics.

Brad. It seems like your question is rhetorical. That is, you are making an argument rather than asking a question. You are also generalizing far too much from your limited subject experience to all subjects, and all institutions in all countries. A more precise formulation would have helped.

Dear Martin John Pitt

I often do provide an answer to my own questions. I use the RG Q-and-A facility to present several essays (and many are not so much Questions -- esp. when I start a thread (i.e. with a Question)).

In this thread:

I am generalizing from my experience, but it is not a very limited experience and it is not (knowingly) any sort of select experience (though no randomization is involved). To present several issues, this is the way one has to do it.

As long as one is presenting what is true or may be true in one's general experience (and that experience is not ridiculously limited or counter to certain Realities), but presented as just what it it, there is nothing wrong with it. And, again, that may be the only way to go. AND: Many things yet have to be presented that way for other reasons : even formal scientific things when the field is skewed away from what must be (or would very-much most likely is) true _AND_ from doing anything that would find this out.

After-the-fact some of my presentations may be "truisms" BUT I believe they are still things not thought enough about or recognized enough or not clearly or completely thought about enough. Some of these influence a lot of Psychology (so these things must be examined). People often fail to stay true to reality or possibilities -- many which are important. The fact that realities ARE realities still often must be recognized or ... (Ignorant neglect of issues -- even of key issues -- to the point of delusion is not that uncommon, in my view.)

You fund that research you talk about and I will find some good people to take responsibility for it. Otherwise, you have nothing to complain about.

Brad. You perceive a problem in teaching of psychology in certain countries. Fair enough. But your question was

"Is what is taught in colleges/universities skewed (often implicitly) toward what people (incl. professors) just believe or what they want to believe?"

I cannot answer for psychology, but I have some insight into chemistry and chemical engineering in several countries, including accreditation and acting as external examiner.

If you had asked only about psychology in a certain country, I would not have bothered to answer. However, you made a much greater claim, with which I disagree.

Dear Martin John Pitt

And, with regard to many other fields, I do not really have as strong (and critical) a view; in fact, if asked about certain other fields, I would likely say I have no opinion; yet, problems in academia in general do not seem totally unlikely, so I am comfortable with the way I asked the Question (and answered it). Still, it is true that with Psychology and social sciences, my view seems to be most relevant. I do KNOW, as much as possible to now know, there are grave problems in Psychology (many would likely hold for other social sciences).

Your disagreement with me does not bother me and is in no way discounted.

P.S. About Psychology: I would be willing to say the problems exist in all Western countries (at least): this is based on my assessment of the REASONS for the problems, prominently including Western philosophy.

Dear Brad

Thank you for the courtesy of replying to my questions in a collegial way.

As a retired university professor let me first of all affirm that both I and most of my colleagues have tried our best to present the topics that we teach in a balanced way, reflecting the learned consensus in our fields. Certainly I have tried to reflect the up-to-date research and theoretical developments in topics, and have directed students to explore the professional and research literature themselves. I have done this at undergraduate, masters and doctoral levels. I have also made it clear when I personally adhere to one side of a controversy, eg constructivist learning theory over neo-behaviourism. But far from brainwashing students into my own beliefs (how do you do that?) I have found that proposing positions I disagree with and letting students debate - is more effective in getting them to get a rounded picture closer to my own. Furthermore - a student who can articulate well a position opposed to my own gets more credit from me than one who simply parrots me. My overall goal is to develop well informed critical judgement.

Although psychology is not my primary field, I have taught the psychology of learning mathematics and learning theory, and I'd like to think I communicated the breadth of positions available. Psychology is a very wide field with positions that range freom the hard nosed scientific (experimental psychology, neo behaviourism, brain studies) via the range of cognive theories (info processing, constructivism) to humanistic and philosophical theories (social constructivism, humanistic psychology, analytic psychology, discursive pyschology). Even this spread from the hard to the soft does not include everything. Let me make it clear that I believe all these positions have something of value to offer, although they may address different problems in different styles.

Now your own remarks, Brad, suggest that you place more value on what I have termed hard-nosed approaches that employ the methodologies of the physical sciences. My message has always been that there is value in all the branches, and that both scietific paradigm research and interpretative paradigm research methodologies and approaches have much to offer - depending on the problem - and complement each other. The former is more validatory, the latter exploratory.

In science, and academia as a whole, the biases of individual researchers (and in my day most university professors taught, researched and published) are minimised by 1, the professional integrity of most professors, 2, the range of teachers on each course and course validation and assessment bringing other 'eyes' in, 3. by refereeing for acceptable publication in journals of note.

Like you I am drawing on my personal experience. But I am also aware of the truths of the philosophy of science - that to validate theories we should not just look for cornfirmation (the fallacy of induction - leading to 'all swans are white'). In real tests we should also seek to falsify our theories through hard tests (Popper). So I warn against over-generalizing based on one's experience. For we always interpret our experience through our pre-formed 'lenses' of expectation and bias (me included). However the mechanisms I outlined in the preceding paragraph serve to minimise this bias.

Paul

I think the answer lies in the plane of choosing the model: the model of any phenomenon being studied. but before embarking on this path, it is necessary to answer the question: do we accept a single universal model for all phenomena or our world of phenomena will fall apart ... but if we have the courage to decide on the universality of all phenomena, we will have the opportunity to collect our knowledge (of natural and humanities) in a single system and to approach the study of the nature of consciousness itself .... The East gives us clues in this ..))

Dear Brad,

This is a second answer to your initial question.

Before being teachers and professors, teachers and professors are human beings who espouse, say, a given worldview, that is, a set beliefs and knowledge they find valuable and, as such, worthy of being taugth. So, it is more than natural that when they teach, professors teach according to the worldview they espouse. Is this a skewed and flawed teaching? Not necessarily. To motivate students for the pursuit of the true, the good, and the beautiful is far from a skewed way of teaching. I have tried to do this in my academic carrer as professor and reseacher.

For example, my worldview on education is that only education can save societies and even individuals from possible collapse, be it violent or gradual. However, when I think of education I think of it as a means to get a better world than that we have. I would not say that this is a skewed tinkink and teaching, but rather a desired and desirable way of teching. No matter what professors teach, they should aim at giving rise to innovative and creative students, not conformist people, that is, students who passively accept ready made truths or truths imposed on them from outside. Indocrinated students are no students at all. Note also, that professors' ultimate goal is or should be that their students come to dispense with their professors because they became, say, autonomous and independent learners.

You say, that the institutions are truly institutions in some of the very worst ways/senses. Are you not overgeneralizing? Is this not a skewed way of thinking? As noted by several respondents to your question, it seems that you raise a rhetorical question because you already know how to answer it. However, as Wittgenstein astutely remarked in his book On Certainty, where there is no place for doubt certainty does not make any sense either. I may be wrong, but I get the impression that you have no doubts, only answers and certainties. So, why do you ask for that which you already know? As I a psychologist, I think that you could be a case study for psychologists to examine. Needless to say, this my belief can be skewed. I truly apologize if this is the case.

Orlando

Dear Olena Kalantarova

I like what you said, but with the exception of "choosing the model". I believe no truly fully empirical scientist, or as fully-as-possible empirical scientist, should DEFINE anything OR choose a MODEL. That all must be done (in a VERY real sense) by the Subject, itself: i.e. both definitions and models come from direct observation of overt behavior patterns (and/or related behavior patterns, clearly grounded and founded on observation of KEY, determining overt behavior patterns). Thus, as a result, behavior patterns are only defined by their context : clearly related to other behavior patterns, i.e. behavior patterns are defined by other (and JUST IN TERMS OF OTHER) concurrent or existing behavior patterns (e.g. surrounding behaviors).

As far as models go, I simply do not like them UNLESS they are clearly and only descriptive of the behavior patterns of organisms (the Subjects) and are seen as of the nature and form of biological phenomena (i.e. consistent with biological principles, where the organism SHOWS behavior PATTERNS, and those show or clearly indicate biological principles, such as homeostasis).

I not only firmly believe that outlined above, but believe it to be a LOGICAL and realistic necessity in the world-and-experience-as-it-is : Anything else (other than that described above) is corrupt and bound to stay that way or become more corrupt; but that is exactly where Psychology (all of it) is today (the following outlines "why").:

Unfortunately to accomplish what I just described: Psychologists (theorists and researchers) MUST EXAMINE THEIR 'ASSUMPTIONS'; several of these, when examined, turn out to be incredibly presumptive, poor-founded, poor-grounded, unjustified AND UNPROVEN (and likely FALSE) -- _AND_ they are fatally destructive of any reasonable, reality-based perspective (or model). In my many hundreds of pages of essays on RG (several places in there), you will find these presumptions (pseudo-'assumptions') clearly noted, "spelled-out" and delineated/delimited; AND in my RG essays you will find the distinctly more biologically-consistent (and more likely-true) alternative REAL assumptions (all these also made clear). From that: the "MUST" behind seeing behavior patterns and the defining of all behavior patterns in terms of other concurrent or pre-existing behavior patterns; and, you will see how behavior does show the nature and form of biological functioning *, and well-conceptualizing and noting that, a real model of human behavior can develop. (Hypothetico-deductive systems are to be used when you are FORCED TO, and NEVER (except for small predictions) JUST USED AS YOU WANT TO. This is a principle contradicted by our culture -- our philosophical views, their history and history-in-culture.)

FOOTNOTE: As you must know: behavior is a aspect of biological functioning (no dualism). It is very hard to see or know this from any current Psychology or their models. So, it is simply time for good Psychology to begin.

Dear Orlando M Lourenço

I believe my answer, above to Olena Kalantarova , addresses what you need to hear. Professors must have the necessary principles (and well-founded assumptions) to see HOW to discover. This is where my certainty is: only with logical necessity, realistic necessary, and necessary consistency with Biology.

It is, no matter what the cause, WRONG to not examine explicitly and expressly: presumptive, poor-founded, poor-grounded, unjustified AND UNPROVEN 'assumptions' that are actually MUCH-used (and "at play") AND NOT TO CONSIDER THE BETTER ALTERNATIVES. Yes, I have absolute certainty about that and that the true real (and likely sufficient) FOUNDATION of all understanding of behavior is in terms of behavior patterns/patterning and ultimately ALL in terms of directly observable overt behavior patterns (and/or related behavior patterns, clearly grounded and founded on observation of KEY, determining overt behavior patterns) . These are my absolute certainties (that including the necessity of personal conviction, immersion, and responsibility (existential and ethical responsibility) to DO just that).

P.S. Orlando Lourenco, You addressing me and noting what I have said, you say (quoting): "You say, that the institutions are truly institutions in some of the very worst ways/senses. Are you not overgeneralizing?" No, not with respect to Psychology. [(But, with respect to other fields, perhaps [at least to some extent] "yes". But, my views are likely the case for all social sciences.)] I believe my detailed characterization of Psychology is ubiquitously true: that which bolsters of ALL modern Psychology IS WRONG. And, on certainty : I believe I have addressed this (what I am certain of -- really, just what is necessary to be an actual empiricist and scientist) above and in my extensive many (and many pages of) essays available here on RG.

The very nature of "teaching" is "skewed" if looked closely. A teacher can only teach what he/she has understood from sources which he/she referred to while studying.

There is always a lag between information and understanding. This is all root of misunderstanding and misconception in society.

It is incredibly difficult to publish new physics or new mathematics. Despite the fact that especially physics contains provable mistakes it is nearly impossible to correct these mistakes. Besides of that physics is good at describing things, it often fails to explain things. For example, physicist can excellently describe how photons behave and what their properties are, but they fail to explain the structure of photons in a way that does not produce contradictions. The same holds for elementary particles.

Instead, physics builds bastions around these concepts and creates tales that must be believed because they are lectured at universities.

Einstein did it! But with a lot of resistance.