Where is the agonist when you need her/him?

Something struck me recently when talking with a graduate student about a panel discussion between professors. She was shocked that one of the faculty members openly disagreed with the one whose book was being discussed, and felt embarrassed on his behalf. I was shocked in turn, because I had thought the disagreement pretty mild, and the discussion very civil. Speaking for the scientists I’ve observed, passions can run high in Q&A sessions after seminars and for the most part this is not just normal, it is expected.

In a separate incident, one of my undergraduates reported being surprised that “there are many topics in the field of science that are not agreed on.” Science had always been taught to him as a collection of theories that were “the only theories” and that these were “the right theories.”

The Chronicle of Higher Education recently asked why we expect students to think critically, but are so reluctant to engage in intellectual battles among ourselves¹. Where does this unwritten rule to avoid public disagreements come from? How are students supposed to develop the skills they need without models and without practice?

For discussion classes, the luxury solution is a team taught class where two professors can take opposing views, debate with each other, and draw the whole class into the discussion². A stripped down alternative might be guest lectures with an expectation of generating some heat: visit my class and I’ll supply the rotten tomatoes.

In science, the debates and open questions can be so specialized that you don’t encounter them until you attend your first conference in grad school. This is a long time to wait before seeing the bread and butter of the discipline. Our teaching model has been bottom-up: start with the basics and build on that. But now that students have to learn in high school the discoveries that earned Isaac Newton his fame, it’s a long climb up. Top-down efforts are too easily relegated to a half page box in the textbook. But given that so much of science is the result of feuds and battles, there must be plenty of debate that we can draw on: have the students start with a current controversy, and then find out what needs to be known to understand it. After all, isn’t this how research progresses anyway?

Benjamin de Foy, Saint Louis University. 20 Aug 2010.

1. “In Praise of Tough Criticism”, Jeffrey R. Di Leo, Chronicle of Higher Education , Jun 13, 2010

2. “Two Professors, One Valuable Lesson: How to Respectfully Disagree”, Mel Seesholtz and Bryan Polk, Chronicle of Higher Education , Oct 25, 2009

For an entertaining account of how far this could go: “Hell’s Classroom”, Thomas H. Benton, Chronicle of Higher Education, Apr 17, 2009

For a useful counterpoint: “Beyond Critical Thinking”, Michael S. Roth, Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan 3, 2010