To
Daniel
To Diana (re: To Daniel - Steiner and the
pedagogical treatment of left-handed children)
From: at
Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 4:16 pm
Subject: To Diana (re: To Daniel - Steiner and the pedagogical
treatment of left-handed children)
Daniel:
Diana has decided to continue our "debate"
without me, over at a friendlier forum:
Diana:
I am replying here to Daniel
Hindes from "anthroposophy tomorrow," in a discussion
about the practice of forcing left-handed children to use their
right hands. To anyone (probably most everyone) not following
or interested in that discussion, I apologize - just delete now.
Daniel:
I'm a bit puzzled as to why the reply is made
to a group of people who do not have the benefit of reading the
entire foregoing discussion. In particular, they will have a
difficult time judging my position, as they are not able to read
my own words on the matter, and since Diana has a way of changing
my writing that alters it's meaning. Perhaps she is not so concerned
with elucidation, but wants to present her "struggles"
to a house audience so they appear heroic.
Diana:
Daniel says, "Diana left
because every point of fact she alleged I demonstrated conclusively
to be mistaken." It seems Daniel's boast was not meant to
be public, but someone helpfully copied his words to the "anthroposophy
tomorrow" list. My "anthroposophy tomorrow" friends
spent some time musing over various reasons I may have left their
list (there even seemed to be some ambivalence about the appropriateness
of the "trailer trash" remarks) and they seem to think
that because I left their list I have nothing more to say on
the topic.
Daniel:
Yes, some private e-mail did get public. Diana
has not addressed my allegation, made in perhaps too boastful
a manner that I had refuted her every claim. Instead she mentions
an accusation that someone called her "trailer trash".
A reader not familiar with the entire proceeding might even think
that I was the one to say this to her, so I must request that
she be clearer on this point. It is a rather cheap jab to put
such allegations close to my name so that readers might infer
I say such things.
Diana
(quoting Daniel):
I only attack you because
you claim the mantle of science for your opinions.
Diana:
I claim no such thing. I claim
that science doesn't support the practice of forcing left-handed
children to switch hands. Personally, I don't feel we need "attack"
one another, and don't feel attacked myself until people begin
inserting comments about "trailer trash" and birds
"flying over and crapping on you" into the discussion.
Daniel: My "attack" is on ideas,
not your person. You now state that "science doesn't support
the practice of forcing left-handed children to switch hands"
which is true; it doesn't speak against it either. Earlier
you asked:
It would be a lot more interesting to me
if you had any actual information, Daniel, or even suggestions,
on why Steiner may have spoken "against science" on
the treatment of the left-handed.
So you have moved from the position that Steiner
spoke "against science" to one that "science doesn't
support it"; this represents an unacknowledged small, but
critical, move away from your original position towards mine.
On reviewing our exchange, I must confess
I feel I have been needlessly harsh. There are certainly more
productive ways to discourse on such a complicated matter. Upon
reflection, I also feel that my post about the Mars brothers
management style as an allegory for unnamed critics and the AT
list was inappropriate. My apologies.
Diana:
I don't claim science answers
every question in the world, or that science is always right
(replying partly to other comments by Christine here). My claim
is simple and it is not a scientist's claim; it is a claim about
the existing science as far as I understand it, and Daniel has
shown nothing to the contrary. He claims "the jury is still
out," but there's no jury deliberating on this.
Daniel:
This appears to me to be a bit unclear. "Science,
as you understand it" claims something, but what, exactly
is not written above, so I can't judge whether I have shown anything
to the contrary or not. "The jury is still out" refers
to the fact that the case cannot be settled from the scientific
evidence currently available. Claiming that no jury is deliberating
this is to miss the metaphor. Let’s review my original summary:
Daniel:
I have yet to see the research that "decides"
the issue. If you find it, please bring it to my attention. I
am sorry that you cannot find scientific evidence to back up
your position. Claiming that because no research exists, the
issue is therefore "decided" is not scientific, or
even logical, for that matter. The fact that "no one outside
of Waldorf is working on "pedagogical treatments" for
handedness" in itself tells us nothing about the usefulness
of such treatments. And finally, I base my statement "science
is far from having made up his mind on the issue" not only
on the absence of studies showing harm, but also on the presence
of studies such as the one I cited above that show that such
treatment can have effects, even if the area has not been researched.
Diana (summarizing for a friendly audience):
It got silly - I stated casually
that Steiner spoke "against science," was hotly challenged
to back up this claim, it was so offensive to see anyone suggest
Steiner and science weren't compatible.
Daniel:
Of course, it was too much of a bother to
actually back up a claim with research - how silly! - and how
funny that anyone would think that the matter ought even to be
looked into! Silly anthropops, don't you know Steiner was against
science?
Diana:
Then they had a good time
chortling among themselves about how I'm some kind of zealot
for the Religion of Science, I follow men in white coats around
or something - even though I tried hard to avoid even having
a conversation about science, since it doesn't interest me much.
Daniel:
I think a number of people would feel that
this is a mis-representation of their statements. I'm sure it
plays well for a friendly audience. Claiming a lack of interest
in science is telling, however.
Diana:
It was funny to see Christine
explain patiently to me that science sometimes makes mistakes
and tosses out old, incorrect knowledge. (Like - left handed
children should be forced to switch hands?)
Daniel:
A wonderfully patronizing tone, I must say.
Logically, since "science" has never done any real
research on switching the writing hand of children under 9 years
of age, it would be hard for it to toss out old research on the
matter.
Daniel:
The next portion has Diana quoting me out
of context. To set the matter straight, I have put the versions
between ||||| markers.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diana (quoting Daniel):
You stated that scientists
have objected to Steiner's pedagogy. I said that would be atypical
and asked you to give examples. Can you?
Diana:
I don't believe I stated that
scientists have objected to Steiner's pedagogy. Steiner is mostly
ignored.
Diana (quoting Daniel):
YOU have made the initial
claim, not I.
Diana again:
I make no claim other than
that because the practice is unsupported (and reportedly causes
some children pain), it should be stopped. To reply to a point
you made earlier, if we are going to cause children pain, we'd
better have a good reason - not wait for neuroscience to come
up with one.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel:
The above reads funny, probably because of
the selective trimming. Let's look at the
original exchange:
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel:
If I may ask you another question, what
scientists have expressed their views on Steiner's pedagogical
recommendations? Steiner is referrenced very infrequently outside
of anthroposophical circles, so I am curious on this point.
Diana:
Daniel . . . if you don't know what conclusions
to draw from the fact that no one else even comments on these
recommendations, or cites Steiner outside anthroposophical circles
. . . what do you think I am trying to tell you?
Daniel:
You did not answer my question. You stated
that scientists have objected to Steiner's pedagogy. I said that
would be atypical and asked you to give examples. Can you?
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The phrase: "YOU have made the initial
claim, not I." either came from a
different thread earlier in the same message:
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diana:
Where does he report the results of his
attempts to switch the left-handed child/ren in this family and
where is the follow-up describing possible effects on these children
later. Where is the control group of right-handed children, or
of left-handed children who were not switched.
Daniel:
I never claimed it was science. YOU said
it was "unscientific". I have asked you to back up
this assertion.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
or from a
later message:
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diana:
The person making the claims needs to show
the studies supporting the claims. There's lots of things there
isn't evidence for and we don't go around asking each
other for evidence there is no evidence. :)
Daniel:
My point exactly. However, YOU have made
the initial claim, not I. I have not called Steiner's pedagogy
"science". Rather, YOU called it "unscientific".
Now when I ask you to prove your claim, you cannot. But somehow
that is my problem?
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel:
I don't appreciate being made a fool through
selective quotations. It is a cheap trick, well known over at
the WC list, and has at least as much to do with the famous "problem
talking to anthroposophists" that Staudenmaier continually
laments as anything else. People somehow get upset when you misquote
them to paint them a fool, and then strut around in the superiority
of your position. Funny, that. It is not real dialogue at all.
Diana:
There is a difference between
"making a claim" and starting a discussion, about,
in this case, what claims are made by other people - how scientists'
claims, or in this case lack thereof, contrast with Waldorf educators'
confusion about left-handedness. I do not make scientific claims,
not being a scientist. My claim that science does not support
forcing left-handed children to use their right hands is correct.
Daniel:
The above amounts to a bunch of posturing
for a friendly audience, and sidesteps the real issues entirely.
Diana claims she was only trying to start a "discussion".
Yet despite claiming that she is not making any claims, she immediately
claims "Waldorf educators' [are confused] about left-handedness".
When we actually go over the issue, she is left holding only
the opinion that it is bad, but must admit that there is no science
to support either position. This is portrayed as a "victory".
Diana:
Here is my last take on your
interpretation of the study about literacy in children with asymmetric
laterality. It's interesting, as are your interpretations, and
there's no reason to take offense that I do not agree with your
reasoning.
Daniel:
No, I did not take offense at disagreement;
I took offense at your arguing a position that I didn't hold.
Let me repeat
the exchange for clarity:
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel:
While this study is far too small to be
conclusive, its conclusions do raise the question whether neurological
development can be influence by pedagogical treatment, and specifically
just the type of treatment that Steiner indicated by telling
teachers to encourage left dominant children to write with their
right hand.
Diana:
I have no idea how you could possibly have
concluded that from reading that study. There is absolutely no
suggestion in the study that handedness can or should be affected
by a parent or teacher attempting to change it in the first place,
thus your suggestion for this "pedagogical treatment"
is totally off base. If you do know of anyone else who has drawn
this conclusion from this study, or implemented a "pedagogical
treatment" based on this study, please cite it.
Daniel:
And I can't possibly believe that you can
read what I wrote and conclude what you do. I wrote that the
implications of the study raised questions. I did not write the
the study conclued anything. Read my paragraph again. I'll break
it down for you:
1. Study shows that brain characteristics influence cognitive
development, specifically reading ability.
2. Environment influences brain development (not stated in study)
3. Environmental influences can incluede which hand is used to
write
4. Ergo, which hand to write with could influence brain development
5. If brain development influences cognitive development, then
which hand a child writes with could influence brain development.
6. Ergo, which hand a child writes with could influence cognitive
development.
Point six is precicely Steiner's position.
If we accept point six, there is a basis for considering switching.
Finally, science neither says switching is helpful or that it
is harmful.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel:
Your friendly audience doubtless thinks that
I immediately become upset when someone disagrees with me. I
think I am quite clear that I become frustrated when someone
can't read what I write, especially when they are in too much
of a hurry to demonstrate that I am wrong.
Diana:
Accusing me of not reading
it is not productive.
Daniel:
Nice sentence, however it is a factual statement
of your behavior. You have on more than one occasion responded
directly to my writing, quoting my sentences, in a way that shows
you have not actually read them properly. I do not feel that
this is productive in a "discussion".
Diana:
I read fast - and now I've
had a few days to read it again.
Daniel:
I'll take accuracy over speed any day.
Diana (quoting Daniel):
which hand a child writes
with could influence cognitive development.
Diana:
Daniel, is that a "claim"?
Daniel:
Well aside from the missing 5 previous steps,
and the "Ergo" that has somehow been omitted without
ellipses, it is not a claim, it is a logical conclusion from
the previous facts and premises. This is a classical form in
logic (premise one, premise two, conclusion). As such, it is
not a "claim"; the claims are the premises:
1. Study shows that brain characteristics
influence cognitive development, specifically reading ability.
2. Environment influences brain development (not stated in study)
3. Environmental influences can include which hand is used to
write
Diana:
I'm not a scientist, so I
don't make claims about what influences cognitive development.
But, if handedness can influence cognitive development, this
is a far cry from suggesting anyone try to change a child's handedness.
That's a leap not suggested or supported by the study you mentioned.
Daniel:
It is true that you are not a scientist. It
is also true that the study does not force logic to make the
leap to changing handedness. It does, however, open the possibility
that if the leap were to be made for other reasons, and these
other reasons were to then to work, the study would support them.
Complicated thought, I know.
Diana:
There would be many reasons
to think twice before making that leap- such as possible psychological
effects on the child - and although switching left handers was
a common practice in earlier decades, perhaps it is quite telling
that the researchers do not even consider it.
Daniel:
There are many reasons to think twice before
doing anything. There are just as many reasons for doing things
after thinking.
Although it was common practice to switch
left-handers in earlier decades, this was not done in the way
Steiner recommended, or for the same reasons. Steiner recommended
switching the writing hand only, of left-dominant children under
the age of nine, for it's subsequent effects on cognitive development.
The fact that researchers don't consider it
says nothing in itself.
Diana:
It is far less radical to
suggest changing a child's "literacy environment" than
suggesting trying to change the child's inborn physical capabilities.
The study was broadly about helping children read and
Daniel wants us to believe he found something to support switching
children's hands.
Daniel:
Diana, you're not really writing to me, are
you? You appear to be grandstanding for your WC friends.
Cognitive development has a lot to do with
helping children read. Nor do I believe I have found anything
terribly important here. The study is interesting in that it
shows that mechanisms exist that may (or may not) support Steiner's
indications. Nothing more, nothing less.
Diana:
Theoretically, it could happen
that science could change its collective mind on this...
Daniel:
To change it's mind, it would have to have
made it up in the first place. Above, you admit that this hasn't
happened, yet here you claim, to the contrary, that a scientific
consensus exists. This is not consistent logically.
Diana:
... though I think it is unlikely
we will again see a practice endorsed that there is a wide consensus
(a cultural consensus, yes) is unkind, which some people (myself
included) actually consider a form of child abuse and an expression
of sadism.
Daniel:
Thanks for sharing your personal feelings
on this. They still remain quite a distance from embodying "science".
Diana:
There are counterexamples
- it could happen. Some people see the practice of electroshock
therapy for depression this way, for instance. Many people considered
it abusive and horrifying, and yet now there is research backing
up its usefulness sometimes and it is used often again.
Daniel:
I think electroshock therapy has been studied
in far more scientific depth than the influence of the writing
hand on cognitive development. Therefore this is not actually
a counterexample because there is no science on the influence
of the writing hand on cognitive development.
Diana:
But Waldorf is on solider
ground simply making clear to parents that the reasons to switch
hands come from Steiner's spiritual research. The relevant excerpts
from Steiner's published statements on left-handedness should
be xeroxed and handed to parents as part of an admissions package
at any Waldorf school where teachers consider in any way
interfering with children's handedness.
Daniel:
I have to agree completely. (Please be careful
when quoting this sentence, it applies specifically to the paragraph
above, as written, and no more and no less).
Diana:
They have every right to implement
this as part of Waldorf pedagogy in private schools. (Unfortunately.
I feel sorry for children whose handedness is interfered with;
but do not dispute that parents have the right to choose their
children's education.) Parents need full, forthright information
about the practice before enrolling a child. Statements that
"neuroscience" or "cognitive development"
are somehow implicated are irresponsible.
Daniel:
Here to I have to agree. (Please be careful
when quoting this sentence, it applies specifically to the paragraph
above, as written, and no more and no less).
Diana:
I wrote previously:
The suggestion that this
is never done without the parents' consent is belied by many
reports from Waldorf parents.
Diana (quoting Daniel):
Earlier you said that you
agreed that the current practice of informing parents seemed
to be the more common one. Do you have new information that caused
you to change your mind? If so, please share it.
Diana:
I don't think I said that.
Daniel
Let me remind you. Here
is the exchange:
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel:
As to subsequent Waldorf educators, inasmuch
as they adhere to Steiner's important qualification, first, do
no harm, I do not feel that most of them to have gone against
advances in neuroscientific research. To this point I should
note the distinction I have drawn between mainstream Waldorf
and the rather narrow-minded straw man of a Waldorf-teacher-from-hell
that says on the first day of school: "Alright all you lefties,
from now on I forbid you to touch a pencil with your left hand."
Several such caricatures may even exist in reality,
Diana:
Actually, the article that Dan cited in
his 1997 post on critics described such a teacher. I'd agree,
however, that such an extreme approach is probably very rare
now in Waldorf.
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diana:
Perhaps you remember that I said I am fairly
sure the practice of switching children in general is less common
now than in the past. (I don't base this on anything but impressions;
but since it favors Waldorf, I suspect you will not object to
my not backing it up.)
Daniel:
I think your own words are pretty clear.
Diana:
Furthermore, even if I had
said what you attribute to me there, it wouldn't mean I had changed
my mind about anything. I said the suggestion it is "never"
done is incorrect based on parents' reports. Getting the parents'
informed consent may be more common; that is not contradictory.
I don't think there is any valid information out there about
how many Waldorf school still do this or how they explain it
to parents.
Daniel:
I suppose we could split hairs about whether
the sentence: "I'd agree, however, that such an extreme
approach is probably very rare now in Waldorf." refers to
switching in general, or switching without parental consent.
Daniel:
In her summary to the Waldorf Critics, Diana quotes:
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Diana: About eurythmy:
(Mis)quoting Daniel:
I am not aware of any [evidence] one way
or the other.
Diana:
If there is no evidence of it one way or
another, an MD who prescribes it is a quack.
Daniel:
Nice twist on my words.
Diana:
There was no twist. Your "I
am not aware of any" was in reply to my question about "evidence."
My putting [evidence] in brackets was not a misrepresentation
- the brackets show it is my insertion and not your original
words, but was inserted to clarify what the word "any"
referred to, without repeating the entire dialogue.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel:
Let's look at what I wrote, and what
Diana made of it:
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Setzer, quoted by Daniel:
If the child is less than
nine years old, and there a consensus of all those people, our
school tries to stimulate the child to write (and only to write)
with his or her right hand. If a laterality test shows that the
child is totally left-sided (eyes, ears, hands and feet), he
or she should do all other activities (aside from writing) with
the left hand. If the child has a cross-laterality (some organs
are right-sided, others are left), exercises and eventually therapy
is recommended, so he or she may acquire a brain-dominance. There
are curative Eurythmy exercises that may help in this issue.
Diana:
Where is the evidence that curative eurythmy
"helps" in this issue? Helps what? Can anyone tell
me if any controlled research has EVER been done on "curative
eurythmy," to show that it helps anybody with anything?
Daniel:
The experience of dozens of practicing
MD's over decades has shown the efficacy of such treatments for
many conditions. Oh, but they are anthroposophists, so their
opinion is not to be trusted. "Curative eurythmy" (as
opposed to performance eurythmy) is by prescription only, and
can only be initiated by an MD. I don't know of any trained curative
eurythmists that would work with someone who did not have such
a prescription. Would have to look into the question of scientific
research into the efficay of curative eurythmy. I am not aware
of any one way or the other. But why do I have to do all the
work? Perhaps you could find out for us here.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel:
That was the original exchange. In
a follow-up e-mail, Diana wrote (and I replied):
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(Mis)quoting Daniel:
I am not aware of any [evidence] one way or the other.
Diana:
If there is no evidence of it one way or
another, an MD who prescribes it is a quack.
Daniel:
Nice twist on my words. I said that ther
wasn't any scientific evidence (meaning in the placebo-controlled,
double blind sense). Of the other, non-scientific evidence, called
"case studies" there are volumes. I was being precice
in differentiating the two types. Much medicine is based on case
studies. Because of the prohibitive costs, many areas are not
on double-blind placebo-controled studies. If this is your criteria,
most practicing doctors are "quacks." Glad to see you
have closed your mind and stooped to dirty tricks of misquotation
for cheap points. How very Staudenmaier.
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Daniel:
There is a long way from my stating "I
am not aware of any [scientific research into the efficacy of
curative eurythmy] one way or the other." to Diana's claim
that I said: "I am not aware of any [evidence] one way or
the other.", especially when in the same paragraph I said,
"The experience of dozens of practicing MD's over decades
has shown the efficacy of such treatments for many conditions."
It is on this that I base my accusation that Diana has twisted
my words.
Diana:
Thanks for all the info about
Steiner's tutoring. I notice your claim that Steiner "spent
a decade supporting himself by tutoring" is not repeated;
now we hear simply that Steiner "derived money from tutoring."
(Various web sites refer to Steiner supporting himself through
school with "scholarships and tutoring.")
Daniel:
How careless of me not to be pedantically
specific. I stand by the claim that "Steiner spent a decade
supporting himself by tutoring", and repeat it here. I felt
it would be evident from the extensive materials I provided on
the matter. If you had questions, you could simply ask me for
a clarification rather than carrying on like you have won some
point because I neglected to repeat myself on the matter.
Diana
P.S. to Christine - I think
you are right that science has to continually admit that it was
wrong, and that this is in fact a better procedure than believing
one guy's pronouncements because he said he was "clairvoyant."
Daniel:
This is a rather cheap jab, especially on
a forum where Christine is not present to respond.
Daniel
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:11 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] To Diana (re: To Daniel
- Steiner and the pedago...
To quote Bill Cosby:
"I had never seen a conniption (referring
to his wife) - believe me, you don't want to see one!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
February/March
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
