Philosophies of Education

Abstract

R. J. Haack's article in Philosophy April I976 contains so many misrepresentations or misconceptions of what he calls 'the new view' that I feel it incumbent on me, as the person most frequently cited as the chief offender, to correct a few of them; for there is a real danger that those not familiar with this field might be led to share them. What helps to make his critique a thoroughly slovenly piece of work is, I think, the very assumption that there is a monolithic 'new view' of philosophy of education. If he had examined the literature closely he would have found very important differences between the views of some of the better-known contributors to it-e.g. D. J. O'Connor, Israel Scheffler, David Hamlyn, Paul Hirst, R. K. Elliott, and myself. The first plain mistake, which is symptomatic of Haack's superficial acquaintance with the field, is his assertion that I myself am the originator or have ever considered myself to be the originator of this 'new view' (p. i 6o). Actually this doubtful honour is always attributed to C. D. Hardie. In his Truth and Fallacy in Educational Theory (1942) he applied techniques learnt from Moore and Broad to the educational theories of Rousseau, Herbart and Dewey and to problems of educational theory and measurement. I came on the scene when, having composed a couple of pieces on educational aims which were published in The Listener, I was in i96i invited by Israel Scheffler to work with him at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, Scheffler himself having pioneered this type of approach in the US. D. J. O'Connor's An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education (with much of which I myself strongly disagree) was published in 1957, years before I ever got involved in this field. As far as my share in developing the subject goes Haack ignores the fact that this was made possible because, after the Second World War, a chair in the field was established at the University of London Institute of Education. My predecessor, Professor L. A. Reid, did much to get things started, and I can discern little similarity in outlook between his Philosophy of Education (i962), O'Connor's earlier book, and my own contributions to the subject. Reid's influence on Paul Hirst, whom he discovered, was considerable; for his celebrated 'forms of knowledge' thesis was in part stimulated by an earlier book of Reid's called Ways of Knowledge and Experience. With regard to the alternative conception of education theory which Haack develops (p. i6o) I, like him, regard 'analytic work' as part of educational theory rather than as an abstract preliminary to it, and have no