Since they acknowledge a multiplicity of answers and methods in applying mathematics, but lack any principled grounds for rational choice. Selections among alternatives are made according to personal preference, or on pragmatic and expedient grounds. This is referred to as ‘Multiplistic absolutism’. A number of researchers have reported teachers’ mathematics-related belief systems that can be described as Multiplistic (Cooney, 1988; Oprea and Stonewater, 1987).
The level of Relativism includes subjective versions of public absolutist philosophies, as we have seen. In the terminology of Chapter 2 these consist of formal absolutist (e.g. logicism and formalism) and progressive absolutist (e.g. intuitionism) philosophies of mathematics. Fallibilist philosophies of mathematics, such as Lakatos’ quasi-empiricism and social constructivism are also Relativistic, because their truths (corrigibility notwithstanding) are justified within frameworks such as informal mathematical systems or axiomatic theories. Knowledge within fallibilist philosophies is also evaluated with respect to the broader contexts of human activity and culture. These fallibilist philosophies are Relativistic because they acknowledge the multiplicity of approaches and possible solutions to mathematical problems, but require that mathematical knowledge is evaluated within a principled framework.
C. Ethical Positions
Individuals’ ethical positions are also described by the Perry theory
Ethical dualism
Dualism is an extreme ethical position, for if relates moral issues to an absolute authority without rational justification,
and denies the legitimacy of alternative values or perspectives. Whilst minor variations within a Dualistic ethical position are possible, it describes a limited range of authoritarian outlooks.
Ethical multiplicity
A Multiplistic ethical position acknowledges that different moral perspectives on any issue exist, but lacks rational or principled grounds for choice or principled grounds for choice or justification. Whilst such a position allows that individual’ preferences may be equally valid, it maintains its own set for values and interests. The lack for an absolute or principled justification for moral choice and actions, necessitates that choices are made on the grounds of whim, or the utility and expediency of their outcomes, based on pragmatic reasoning. Consequently, the set of values most compatible with this position comprises utility, pragmatic choice and expediency,
Since they acknowledge a multiplicity of answers and methods in applying mathematics, but lack any principled grounds for rational choice. Selections among alternatives are made according to personal preference, or on pragmatic and expedient grounds. This is referred to as ‘Multiplistic absolutism’. A number of researchers have reported teachers’ mathematics-related belief systems that can be described as Multiplistic (Cooney, 1988; Oprea and Stonewater, 1987).
The level of Relativism includes subjective versions of public absolutist philosophies, as we have seen. In the terminology of Chapter 2 these consist of formal absolutist (e.g. logicism and formalism) and progressive absolutist (e.g. intuitionism) philosophies of mathematics. Fallibilist philosophies of mathematics, such as Lakatos’ quasi-empiricism and social constructivism are also Relativistic, because their truths (corrigibility notwithstanding) are justified within frameworks such as informal mathematical systems or axiomatic theories. Knowledge within fallibilist philosophies is also evaluated with respect to the broader contexts of human activity and culture. These fallibilist philosophies are Relativistic because they acknowledge the multiplicity of approaches and possible solutions to mathematical problems, but require that mathematical knowledge is evaluated within a principled framework.
C. Ethical Positions
Individuals’ ethical positions are also described by the Perry theory
Ethical dualism
Dualism is an extreme ethical position, for if relates moral issues to an absolute authority without rational justification,
and denies the legitimacy of alternative values or perspectives. Whilst minor variations within a Dualistic ethical position are possible, it describes a limited range of authoritarian outlooks.
Ethical multiplicity
A Multiplistic ethical position acknowledges that different moral perspectives on any issue exist, but lacks rational or principled grounds for choice or principled grounds for choice or justification. Whilst such a position allows that individual’ preferences may be equally valid, it maintains its own set for values and interests. The lack for an absolute or principled justification for moral choice and actions, necessitates that choices are made on the grounds of whim, or the utility and expediency of their outcomes, based on pragmatic reasoning. Consequently, the set of values most compatible with this position comprises utility, pragmatic choice and expediency,
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
