Talk:Genetic epistemology

Untitled (2007

We are trying to expand Wikipedia by creating a page on the theory of Genetic Epistemology. We are a Learning Theories class and I, the instructor, and the class are trying to learn how to use Wikipedia better. We'll explore how to correctly cite the appropriate sources and the improve the article as soon as possible. Thank you for hanging on to the page.

Response from my talk page

First of all, what you're trying to do is cool; in my first year of university, I was in a Digital Arts class that did something similar. Now, the immediate problem is the apparent copyright violation. The best way to fix that is to simply paraphrase the text from the website. You could use a word-for-word copy only if that text was released under a GFDL compatible license (see the copyright policy for more). That permission/declaration must be given by the author on the website. When that is sorted out, you may remove the speedy deletion tag (as well as the hangon tag) from the page. (Technically, Riboldipj (talk · contribs) him/herself is not allowed to remove it because he/she created the article). As long as the admins know that you are working to improve the page, they will not delete it but you should do your best to sort out the copyright problem as quickly as possible.

Other than that, just try to stick to the manual of style. I don't want to tell you to do anything that conflicts with the objectives of your project but everything should comply with Wikipedia's policies although I doubt that will be a problem. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 01:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I almost forgot to mention: please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) that just makes conversations easier to follow. ~Enviroboy^Talk_Contribs - 01:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

what next

I removed the tag from the article after commenting out the apparent copyvio (using <!-- --> tags. But as a teacher you should b more aware of copyright--the page cannot be assembled by finding test in other sources an then inserting pieces of it (I have some doubts about the rest also). The students in the class must first read the material and understand it, and then write about it in their own words and their own paragraph organization--it is not enough just to reword it. It's not just a matter of citing the sources better--it's a matter of doing one's own writing. Please see WP:FIRST for information about how WP articles should be written. I'll be glad to help further. DGG (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is written like a textbook, not an encyclopedia article. It's going to need rewriting to avoid 'discussing', among other things. It shouldn't be referring to 'you' or 'me'. I may well do this myself sometime in the near future, but I mention it here in case someone else is eager to help in some way and is merely looking for an opportunity. 130.88.52.61 (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary - could informed editors help?

I see a few uses of the word 'contemporary' here, and I suspect at least one of them actually means 'modern' or 'current'. However, I'm not sufficiently familiar with this subject to be sure. Could someone advise? I'm finding it a bit confusing, but I don't know which phrasing to alter! 130.88.52.61 (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that the development of this page has been dormant for almost four years. That it is still in need of heavy editing after all this time, with regard to separating statement of the theory from critique of the theory, is disappointing in that observations identical to those of Piaget keep resurfacing in current debates and a clear concise statement of his observations and theoretical interpretations is needed. Critique of the various points of the theory are fine, but they are so interwoven with the description of the theory here, that one cannot be sure whether the theory, or its critique, is driving the selection of statements and facts in that description. 76.88.1.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ouch! This isn't an explanatory guide, but a rambling, opinionated view

Hard to know where to begin. "Our direct experience with gravity makes our knowledge of it more valid than our indirect experience with black holes." This is presented as an ontological issue, by elevating experience. If knowledge is what matters, then Relativity explains black holes and gravity equally well.

"Assimilation, which occurs when the perception of a new event or object occurs to the learner in an existing schema and is usually used in the context of self-motivation." Incomplete sentence. Perception occurs to a learner? A learner fits observations into knowledge schemas [according to constructionism]. Used in self motivating contexts? Motivating self for what, please.

Accommodation links to a page that never uses the word accommodation.

"The highest form of development is equilibration." Glad to know it now, but such God-like statements need attribution. Though equilibration sounds like entropy.?:

Knowledge is "borne out of change and transformation." Overblown nonsense. Knowledge isn't born, if its constructed. Change and transformation mean what, in this case? Change of constructs? Knowledge is the change of constructs? What if its change to false belief? If change is knowledge, then what about what I know already?

"Piaget's genetic epistemology is a half-way house between formal logic and dialectical logic; from the standpoint of epistemology, Piaget's genetic epistemology is a half-way house between objective idealism and materialism." Half-way house? Isn't that for drug rehab? Between formal and dialectical logic? Formal logic looks at abstract symbols; dialectical knowledge means four or five things, depending who says it. Sure, infants change their logical reasoning, but this has nothing like Hegel's negation principal. And its about as far from formal logic as a toy car from an airplane.

I give up. Somebody needs to do something about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.117.214 (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi 208.80.117.214! Thank you for your comments! It seems to me you would be the perfect "Somebody" who does something about this. If you have good, secondary sources – and please also check WP:MEDRS – then please be bold and start editing! With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 17:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Constructivist?

If someone asserts Piaget called himself a constructivist, then a reference should be given. Also, the justification for so-called constructivism doesn't make sense. If objective knowledge is "out there" waiting to be discovered, then it is not a construction, it is identified or found, not constructed. Also, if thinking is based on predictable logic (in different stages) --that logic is not constructed but more like wired. I am not sure on what basis any self-identifies as a constructivist, but the point is that such identification is meaningless unless one clearly says what is is constructivists believe in a way that is unambiguous. If construction just means "learned" then we all are constructivists, but we don't need the word. Overall, this article is sketchy, opinionated, and overly philosophical. Robotczar (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)