So my last post drew some interesting responses. Some accused me of being a bit thick and not knowing my history. Read about the enlightenment yourself (eg here) and make up your own mind. It is worth pointing out that I did not contrast the enlightenment with romanticism; I contrasted the enlightenment with what went before.
The other response is… er… ironic. In my post, I suggested:
“…my prediction is that you will see the following dynamic: This new movement will address specific ideas and practices and the establishment will challenge their right to an opinion on these things, either on the basis of experience, gender, some other personal characteristic or because they don’t like the manner in which the argument is expressed.”
This provoked a blog post that – apart from a few lines about explicit instruction only producing ‘hoop jumpers’ – was largely an objection to the manner in which I made my argument. And, to top that, I was accusing of whining:
“Hearing traditionalists whine that they have no power in education is like hearing Christians whine that America is coming to get them. It sounds cool to supporters, but anyone who stops to look around can see that the description is ridiculous on its face.”
I do not know who wrote this post but I challenge them to provide evidence for their claims on explicit instruction. We could then perhaps discuss that.
Update: it turns out that the ihati blog is by @bmgilland