Cambridge mathematician and philosopher W. K. Clifford (1879/1999) con-cluded his famous essay, "The Ethics of Belief" with the bold claim that "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" (p.77). Clifford's enthusiasm for evidentialism-the pri...
Cambridge mathematician and philosopher W. K. Clifford (1879/1999) con-cluded his famous essay, "The Ethics of Belief" with the bold claim that "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" (p.77). Clifford's enthusiasm for evidentialism-the principle that one should proportion one's belief to the strength of the evidence-may have been overzealous, but a plausible interpretation of his view is this: Because beliefs of-ten have serious moral consequences, one should base one's beliefs on the evi-dence, and it is intellectually and morally irresponsible not to do so. This per-spective motivates recent so-called "evidence-based" methods in the fields of medicine and education. Balcombe's (2000, 2001) case for replacing learning methods that require pain, suffering, and death for animals with methods that do not (computer-assisted learning, three-dimensional models, videotapes, and other alternatives) can be seen as motivated by this evidentialist perspective. Balcombe provided a wealth of empirical evidence from educational studies to show that in most contexts animal dissection is not necessary-and even counterproductive-to achieve valid educa-tional goals, especially higher order goals (concept learning and problem solving). He demonstrated that no sound defense of dissection has been given. Can we learn as effectively without hurting or killing another being? If so, why do we not try? Many of the studies Balcombe cites have supported sufficiently the adequacy and, often, superiority of learning methods that do not harm animals or students. The first of the aforementioned questions is being answered; we can learn effectively with these non-detrimental methods. Those who seek to educate (and accept the prin-ciple of "do no harm") must seize the second question because they see, in the big pic-ture, the benefit for themselves, their students, their society, and other sentient beings. (p. 132)
Cambridge mathematician and philosopher W. K. Clifford (1879/1999) con-cluded his famous essay, "The Ethics of Belief" with the bold claim that "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything upon insufficient evidence" (p.77). Clifford's enthusiasm for evidentialism-the principle that one should proportion one's belief to the strength of the evidence-may have been overzealous, but a plausible interpretation of his view is this: Because beliefs of-ten have serious moral consequences, one should base one's beliefs on the evi-dence, and it is intellectually and morally irresponsible not to do so. This per-spective motivates recent so-called "evidence-based" methods in the fields of medicine and education. Balcombe's (2000, 2001) case for replacing learning methods that require pain, suffering, and death for animals with methods that do not (computer-assisted learning, three-dimensional models, videotapes, and other alternatives) can be seen as motivated by this evidentialist perspective. Balcombe provided a wealth of empirical evidence from educational studies to show that in most contexts animal dissection is not necessary-and even counterproductive-to achieve valid educa-tional goals, especially higher order goals (concept learning and problem solving). He demonstrated that no sound defense of dissection has been given. Can we learn as effectively without hurting or killing another being? If so, why do we not try? Many of the studies Balcombe cites have supported sufficiently the adequacy and, often, superiority of learning methods that do not harm animals or students. The first of the aforementioned questions is being answered; we can learn effectively with these non-detrimental methods. Those who seek to educate (and accept the prin-ciple of "do no harm") must seize the second question because they see, in the big pic-ture, the benefit for themselves, their students, their society, and other sentient beings. (p. 132)
참고문헌 (23)
Balcombe, J. P. (2000). The use of animals in higher education: Problems: Alternatives and recommendations. Washington, DC: Humane Society Press. (Available at http://www.hsus.org/ace/13059)
Balcombe, Jonathan.
Dissection: The Scientific Case for Alternatives.
Journal of applied animal welfare science : JAAWS,
vol.4,
no.2,
117-126.
Francione, G. L. & Charleton, A. E. (1992). Vivisection and dissection in the classroom: A guide to conscientious objection. Jenkintown, PA: American Anti-Vivisection Society.
Goodall, J. (2000). Reason for hope : A spiritual journey. New York: Warner.
Greek, C. & Greek, J. (2000). Sacred cows and golden geese: The human cost of experiments on animals. New York: Continuum.
Greek, C. & Greek, J. (2002). Specious science: How genetics and evolution reveal why medical research on animals harms humans. New York: Continuum.
Public Affairs Quarterly LaFollette H. 113 7 1993
Southern Journal of Philosophy LaFollette H. 323 31 1993 10.1111/j.2041-6962.1993.tb01724.x
LaFollette, H. & Shanks, N. (1996). Brute science. New York: Routledge.
Rath Marr, Kathleen.
Dissection: Where and When Is It Appropriate in the Teaching Laboratory?.
Journal of applied animal welfare science : JAAWS,
vol.4,
no.2,
139-141.
10.1023/A:1021945913427 Nobis, N. N. (2002). Review of Carl Cohen and Tom Regan, The animal rights debate. Journal of Value Inquiry (in press). (Available at http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/papers/Cohen_and_Regan_ review.html)
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (1990). Classroom cut-ups: A look at dissection [video]. Norfolk, VA: Author. (Available at http://www.petatv.com/viv.html)
Rasmussen, Lara Marie.
Life Sciences Learning: An Approach That Promotes Progress and Respects Life.
Journal of applied animal welfare science : JAAWS,
vol.4,
no.2,
131-134.
Valli, V. E. Ted.
Dissection: The Scientific Case for a Sound Medical Education.
Journal of applied animal welfare science : JAAWS,
vol.4,
no.2,
127-130.
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.