Educology

At stake in the competition is the resolution to the problem "Which populace will control the eaarth, a populace whose culture is being democratized, a populace whose culture is being autocratized, or a populace whose culture is being radically terrorized?"   The general need, then, is for the resolution to this problem to be a populace whose culture is being educologically democratized.?

Statement of Specific Need for Educology: It follows from this general need that what the eaarth needs now, as a specific need of meeting 21st century cultural challenges, is for the populace in developing democracies, i.e. the populace whose culture is being educologically democratized, on eaarth: (1) to be more successfully educated, whereby, this success depends on; (i) the reconstruction of the fragmented body of knowledge about; (a) how to effectively educate someone, i.e. (b) how to effectively organize the practice of the educational process, without so much waste of human talent in the process (Click here for an account of the waste of human talent in education by John Dewey in Chapter 3, Waste in Education, in The School and Society), (ii) into a unified body of educological knowledge, i.e. into educology, and; (2) to continue to be successfully protected by strong military and police forces, as democratically organized cultural institutions, whereby, the continuity of this success, also; (i) depends on (1) above, hence, (ii) depends on educology, i.e. (iii) depends on a unified body of knowledge about the organization of the effective practice of the educational process, without so much waste of human talent in the process.

_______________________
1. On March 30, 2010, I began to use the meaning of the word 'eaarth', where it, and its spelling with the double 'a', is being used to have the meaning intended by Bill McKibben in his book named Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, Holt and Company, 2010.  In Scientific American, April 2010, in the Editor's introduction to McKibben's "exclusive excerpt," as an article, named "Breaking the Growth Habit," this book is alluded to as follows:

"In his new book, Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet, McKibben argues that human kind, because of its actions, now lives on a fundamentally different world, which he calls 'Eaarth'.  This celestial body can no longer support the economic growth model that has driven society for 200 years.  To avoid our own collapse, we must instead seek to maintain wealth and resources, in large part by shifting to more durable, localized economies."  (pg. 61) 

In one of the excerpts taken from Eaarth, McKibben says:

"In the world we grew up in, our most ingrained economic and political habit was growth.  For the 250 years since Adam Smith, we've assumed that more is better and that the answer to the problem is another burst of expansion.  That's because it's worked, at least for a long while: the lives of comfort and relative security that we Westerners lead are the produce of 10 generations of steady growth in our economies.  But now that we're stuck between a played-out rock and a hot place, its time to think with special clarity about the future.  On our new planet [planet Eaarth], growth may be the one big habit we finally must break." (pg. 61-62)

The point being made is that the meaning of the word 'Earth' is used to refer to an "old planet," whereas, the meaning of the word 'Eaarth' is used to refer to a "new planet," whereby, the difference, as measured in years is: (1) that the "new planet" Eaarth is 200 years old, and known to be a planet with natural resources that are finite, and; (2) that the "old planet" Earth is older that 250 years, and known to have been a planet with natural resources that are infinite.

It is significant that the knowledge of the infinite existence of natural resources of planet Earth is knowledge entailed in Adam Smith's philosophy of self-interest and growth, whereas, the knowledge of the finite existence of natural resources of planet Eaarth is knowledge entailed in John Dewey's philosophy of self-interest and growth.

It is the understanding entailed in John Dewey's philosophy of self-interest and growth in which experiential philosophy of educology is founded, not in the understanding entailed in Adam Smith's philosophy of self-interest and growth. 

Statement of General Effect of Educology: With educology (with a unified body of knowledge about the organization of the effective practice of the educational process in educologically developing democracies on eaarth, without so much waste of human talent), generally, the populace in developing democracies: (1) can better understand the nature of democracy as a government, and as a way of life, hence; (2) can better develop the hindsight, foresight, volition, and states-person-ship, to successfully compete with the autocratic countries and radical terrorist organizations on eaarth.

Statement of Specific Effect of Educology: And, with educology (unified body of knowledge about the organization of the effective practice of the educational process in educologically developing democracies on eaarth, without so much waste of human talent), specifically, then, the states-person-ship of the populace in developing democratized cultures will be empowered with a body of knowledge required to successfully reorganize the educational process: (1) as a social process practiced in homes, schools, and other community democratized cultural institutions, and; (2) as a social process, practiced in democratized cultural institutions, that presently includes more mis-educative experiences (democratically destructive learning experiences) than educative experiences (democratically constructive learning experiences), hence, includes so much waste of human talent.

John Dewey makes the distinction between mis-educative and educative experiences as they organically inhere in the educational process, hence as they are involved in producing democratically destructive and constructive learning experiences, therefore, in producing so much waste of human talent in the process. Click here, to see Dewey's book Experience and Education, the book in which this distinction is clearly made.  Also, click here to see this distinction clarified in Contributing Paper 1.2 on this website.

Statement of National and International Interests: What the eaarth needs now, then, is educology, as a unified body of knowledge about the organization of the effective practice of the educational process, without producing so many democratically destructive learning experiences, as mis-educative experiences, hence, without producing so much waste of human talent.  Educology is required for the national and international welfare and defense of populaces in cultures in which democracies are developing on eaarth.

The Institute: To work toward meeting the specific need of meeting 21st century cultural challenges characterizing developing democracies on eaarth, Educology Research Associates/USA (ERA/USA) created The Institute of History and Philosophy of Educology for Developing Democracies in the World (The Institute).  Click here to see an account of ERA/USA on this website.

Mission of The Institute: Assigned to The Institute is the mission to research and develop a philosophy of educology, i.e. to research and develop a philosophy of a unified body of knowledge about the organization of the effective practice of the educational process, without producing mis-educative experiences as democratically destructive learning experiences, hence, without producing so much waste of human talent:  (1) founded in the philosophy of democracy, as a form of government, and; (2) founded in the philosophy of democracy; (i) as a way of life of a populace enculturalizing itself by conducting critically oriented reflective thinking experiences, as knowledge producing inquiry experiences, hence; (ii) as a democratically oriented evolutionary, rather than a democratically oriented de-evolutionary, way of life on eaarth.  The name of the philosophy of educology being developed in The Institute is 'Experiential Philosophy of Educology' which contrasts with what is called 'Analytical Philosophy of Educology' and 'Phenomenological Philosophy of Educology'.

Philosophical Awareness: The assignment of the mission to The Institute has been made with awareness that it involves resolving two epistemological problems, i.e: (1) resolving the general philosophical problem of what a unified body of knowledge is, in respect to a culture being democratized, after which, then; (2) resolving the specific philosophical problem of what a unified body of knowledge about the organization of the educational process, without so many destructive learning experiences (mis-educative experiences), hence, without so much waste of human talent, is, in respect to a culture being democratized, i.e; (3) resolving the specific philosophical problem of what educology is, in respect to a culture being democratized.

From the perspective of The Institute, the eaarth's 21st century problematic cultural situation, inducing the above statements of need for educology, exists within a past antecedent-cultural-fact and its significance to a present consequential-cultural-fact.

The Past Antecedent-Cultural-Fact

From the perspective of The Institute, the past antecedent-cultural-fact was: (1) culturally created on eaarth during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries (1543-1727) Copernican Revolution on earth, not eaarth, (i) involving Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galieo, and Newton as Scientists, click here, (ii) and, involving Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Kant, and Hegel as Rationalist and Empiricists Philosophers, (iii) i.e. during a cultural revolution, (iv) creating the Modern Era of Science and Philosophy on earth, not eaarth, and; (2) continuing during, (i) the 19th century (1809-1882) Darwinian Revolution on earth, no eaarth, involving, specifically, Darwin, as a Scientist, click here, and, (ii) the 19th and 20th centuries (1879-1955) Einsteinian Revolution on earth, not eaarth involving, specifically, Einstein as a Scientist, click here, and, involving Peirce, James, and Dewey as Pragmatist Philosophers, and; (iii) i.e. during a later and another cultural revolution, (iv) creating the Post-Modern Era of Science and Philosophy on eaarth, not earth, and, (3) further continuing into the 21st century, click here. From the perspective of The Institute, then, the antecedent-cultural fact: (1) created on earth, not eaarth, in the past, during the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, and, (2) continuing into and during, hence, being significant in and during, the 19th and 20th centuries, and; (3) consequentially, continuing into and during, hence, being significant in, and creating, (4) the present 21st century eaarth's, not earth's, problematic cultural situation inducing the above statements of need for educology;

From the perspective of The Institute, this antecedent-cultural-fact: (1) was created on earth, leading to its continuation on eaarth, by the pattern of phases of reflective thinking experiences. Click here for an account of this pattern of phases in John Dewey’s Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, specifically, Chapter 2, The Structure of Inquiry and the Construction of Judgment, in section 2.6 The Pattern of Inquiry. Also, click here, on this website for a critique of this pattern of phases from the perspective of The Institute, specifically, Section C: Conduct and Discipline of Educology, in Contributing Paper 1, a paper in History and Philosophy of Educology, under Contributing Papers; (2) being conducted by Persons as Scientists and as Rationalist, Empiricist, and Pragmatist Philosophers, and; (3) as being conduct organically inhering in, hence, to be freely practiced in; (4) the organization of the knowing process as a culturally oriented natural right's social process. Click here, for the complete text of the Declaration of Independence, specifically, the first paragraph of the text, for the confirmation of the knowing process, as a social process, and as a culturally oriented natural right’s practice by the populace being enculturalized by the  Constitution of the USA; (5) leading to the present consequential-cultural-fact.

The Present Consequential-Cultural-Fact

From the perspective of The Institute, the present consequential-cultural-fact is: (1) the eaarth’s 21st century problematic cultural situation; (i) as made significant by the cultural revolutions taking place; (a) during  the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries leading to the Modern Era of Science and Philosophy on earth, and, (b) during the 19th and 20th centuries leading to the Post-Modern Era of Science and Philosophy on eaarth, and; (2) is characterized by The Philosophical Fallacy, as the fallacy of selectively emphasizing a specific trait.  Click here for an account of The Philosophical Fallacy on this website;  (i) in the conduct of the pattern of phases of reflective thinking experiences, (ii) organically inhering in the organization of the practice of the knowing process, and; (iii) as the conduct of the pattern of phases of reflective thinking experiences, (iv) serves as a model for, (v) the conduct of educative experiences (democratically constructive experiences), (vi) organically inhering in the organization of the practice of the educational process, without so many democratically destructive learning experiences (mis-educative experiences), hence, without so much waste of human talent, in the process.