Responding to Richard Hake's post of Nov 8, 2012 5:05 AM (pasted below my response for reference):
I believe that, in general, it will take a lot more thinking and doing (intellectual maturity on our - i.e. human - part) to get to the stage where we're capable of correctly identifying the 'necessary and sufficient conditions' of any state, situation or condition involving complex human/ societal issues and interactions.
Our 'science' and 'scientific thinking' have reached the stage where we can, in many cases, identify such conditions for specific matters involving mathematical statements and proofs, and the like (this includes much of physics also, I believe - and perhaps good bits of other 'hard sciences').
But we're a LONG way from being able to do that for complex societal issues involving human psychological idiosyncracies, etc. At the current stage of our intellectual development, we generally get ourselves all tangled up with futile arguments about things like "PUT THE EDUCATION MAFIA IN JAIL!", "BLOW UP THE SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION!", and the like, which take us nowhere near resolution of the underlying issues and problems that such desires represent. Using the tools discussed below and described at the attachment herewith, most such issues turn out to be quite easily resolved satisfactorily.
I suggest we should first work towards identifying the things in general that "MAY CONTRIBUTE" to other things specifically with regard to a 'Mission' we desire to accomplish: We're capable of doing that fairly effectively right now. In due course we may become knowledgeable enough (and perhaps even wise enough) to identify the 'necessary and sufficient' quite correctly for even quite complex issues.
Attached herewith s document that describes some tools that would help us understand "CONTRIBUTIONS" in complex systems somewhat more clearly and thereby avoid a great many of our conventional foncusions.
I have, in several posts at the Math-teach forum, described different aspects of these tools in some detail. More information can be provided on request.
(These tools are NOT quite 'sufficient' to enable us clearly to identify the 'necessary and sufficient' - but enough of this kind of intellectual effort may well help us become knowledgeable enough to start understanding and then perhaps even correctly identifying the 'necessary and sufficient' in more complex matters than mathematics).
[In slightly different form - and without the attachment - this post has been sent to the 'Math-teach' forum].
Richard Hake posted > Some subscribers to MathEdCC might be interested in a > recent post > "Necessary and Sufficient Conditions For Genuine > Scientific Research > - Response To Greeno" [Hake (2012)]. The abstract > reads: > > ************************************************** > ABSTRACT: In response to "Math Education Research > Doesn't Exist? > Response to Schremmer" [Hake (2012a) at > <http://bit.ly/U7dJi3>, Clyde > Greeno at <http://bit.ly/RW0fFF> wrote that his > statement that the > six principles that, according to "Scientific > Research in Education" > at <http://bit.ly/VjrQaV>, p. 2: "underlie all > scientific inquiry > (including educational research)" are "glibly > superficial and badly > unknowing about the nature of science" was simply an > observation that > those six principles in no way *suffice* as criteria > (i.e., are both > necessary and sufficient) for distinguishing > scientific from > non-scientific educational research. > > Greeno wrote "Tragically, much of educational > research now can use > the NRC report as a basis for so polluting the name > of 'scientific > educational research' that distinguishing genuine > scientific research > from the rest will be a very cumbersome task." > > I wonder if Greeno would consider assisting the math > community in > "distinguishing genuine scientific research from the > rest" by setting > forth his own *necessary and sufficient* conditions > for "genuine > scientific research"? > > BTW, I attempted to address the two crucial > questions: (a) "Can > Education Research Be 'Scientific'?" and (b) "What's > 'Scientific'?" > in a 75 kB post "Can Education Research Be > 'Scientific'? What's > 'Scientific'?" [Hake (2012b)] at > <http://bit.ly/Ujaogk> containing > over 100 references and over 180 hot-linked URL's, > but, as far as I > know, no *substantive* responses were forthcoming. > ********************************** > > To access the complete 8 kB post please click on > <http://bit.ly/Qp3H0w>. > > Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana > University > Links to Articles: <http://bit.ly/a6M5y0> > Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: > <http://bit.ly/9nGd3M> > Academia: <http://bit.ly/a8ixxm> > Blog: <http://bit.ly/9yGsXh> > GooglePlus: <http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE> > Twitter: <http://bit.ly/juvd52> > > REFERENCES [URL shortened by <http://bit.ly/> and > accessed on 07 Nov 2012.] > Hake, R.R. 2012. "Necessary and Sufficient Conditions > For Genuine > Scientific Research - Response To Greeno" online on > the OPEN! AERA-L > archives at <http://bit.ly/Qp3H0w>. Post of 7 Nov > 2012 13:49:33-0800 > to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the > complete post > are being transmitted to several discussion lists and > are also on my > blog "Hake'sEdStuff" at <http://bit.ly/Qp8fnA> with a > provision for > comments.