Close

01/16/2020

In contrast, the abovementioned “dumbing it down” article was published by a university-level publication, and it’s not hard to see that it conforms to the “standard” set of academic writing, and therefore, it is well written according to academic standards. The difference comes in the way they present a subject. In the following excerpts we can see how much the author was interested in appealing to the intellect, and on the other hand, how little was the subject actually about the intellect and how much it was a matter of how we understand reality.

In contrast, the abovementioned “dumbing it down” article was published by a university-level publication, and it’s not hard to see that it conforms to the “standard” set of academic writing, and therefore, it is well written according to academic standards. The difference comes in the way they present a subject. In the following excerpts we can see how much the author was interested in appealing to the intellect, and on the other hand, how little was the subject actually about the intellect and how much it was a matter of how we understand reality.
This article is quite representative of many written articles written by “educationalists” who aim to make their subjects easier for the reader.
The most serious problem with the article is that it lacks any critical analysis to support claims made by the author.
“In fact, this process of cognitive decline actually started before birth. The brain was not “altered” or “reprogrammed” during development but is instead a “biologist’s laboratory for testing hypotheses about development.”
For someone who has never read about the nature of human being since birth, it may be difficult for him or her to comprehend what this paragraph actually says. If this was a genuine article, then the abovementioned paragraph describes how scientists discovered some key facts about the biology of human being, which then served as hypotheses to help clarify the nature of the human brain and cognitive function. For this reason, they coined the term “cognitive phenotype” to describe the key traits of cognitive function. However, if the article is true, this article was written after death and is an attempt to present a concept about the nature of human being.
This is a very important point because the author has written that the brain is a laboratory for testing hypotheses about the development of the human being. In this context, the author argues that the “cognitive phenotypes” describe the basic human traits that scientists are examining by means of experimental methods. In effect, he or she has stated that the knowledge derived from these researchers is more valuable than the knowledge derived from scientific method. It’s quite obvious that one has to evaluate a concept with scientific method to understand its limitations.
“We often speak as if cognitive functioning is some fundamental feature of human beings. The truth is that it is the scientific version of a developmental theme that is as old as civilization itself. The scientific method in this sense does not require that human beings be in a state of cognitive health. Rather, the method uses a process known as the scientific method to arrive at the truth about cognition, and scientific inquiry is the process that allows us to learn about the cognitive functions of the human being.”
If what he or she really wants to say is true that humans are the ones who developed these methods of scientific inquiry at the cost of the development of cognitive abilities of the human being, then it means that, for example, Galileo did not discover the “laws of gravity