Why do i wonder about everything

On the contrary, when there is no volitional dimension involved no wonder , no end or meaning no beauty , no attunement between the volitional dimension and meaning sensitivity and no trusting predisposition secure attachment , the rigid and limiting mechanical process of so-called learning through mere repetition becomes a deadening and alienating routine.

This could be described as training, not learning, because it does not contemplate the human being as a whole. While there is an increasing interest in an holistic and integral vision of the human being in education, there is also a tendency to conceptually fragment man into various parts and pieces, for example through theories that divide intelligence, or through the left- and right-brain balanced approach to learning, which is a consequence of an over-literal interpretation of hemisphere specialization Goswami, What if wonder served to bridge all of these parts and pieces in order to help make sense of them?

This approach involves a change in paradigm because it implies a return back to reality, a switch from self-consciousness towards reality-based consciousness as the starting point of learning.

In the midst of multidisciplinary confusion, some have been arguing in favor of the middleman figure of a neuroeducator. Before we consider experimenting this new idea on our children, perhaps it is worth opening up the multidisciplinary debate and paying some attention to the Wonder Approach.

This might well be an opportunity to re-consider the classical approach to philosophy as a relevant middleman between neuroscience and education. The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Ainsworth, M. Google Scholar. Objects relations, attachment and dependency. Child Dev. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. American Academy of Pediatrics. The doman-delacato treatment of neurologically handicapped children. Neurology 18, — Anderson, D. Television and very young children. Aquinas, T. Questiones Disputatae de Veritate. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company. The Pocket Aquinas. New York: Washington Square Press.

Arend, R. Continuity of individual adaptation from infancy to kindergarten: a predictive study of ego-resiliency and curiosity in preschoolers. Aristotle, N. Artemenko, P. Paris: J. Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss. I: Attachment. NY: Basic Books. Bruner, J. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Boston: The Jerusalem-Harvard Lectures. Carson, R. The Sense of Wonder. Chalmers, D.

Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Chesterton, G. MT: Kessinger Publishing. Tremendous Trifles. The Defendant. London: Wildside Press. Chonchaiya, W. Television viewing associates with delayed language development. Acta Paediatr. Christakis, D. The effects of fast-pace cartoons. Pediatrics , — Early television exposure and subsequent attentional problems in children. Diener, M. Media Psychol. Duch, H. Association of screen time use and language development in hispanic toddlers: a cross-sectional and longitudinal study.

Phila 52, — Egan, K. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Engel, S. Goswami, U. Neuroscience and education: from research to practice. Howard-Jones, P. Scepticism is not enough. Cortex 45, — Hmelo-Silver, C. Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: a response to kirschner, Sweller, and Clark Huxley, T.

Hyatt, K. Remedial Spec. Kirschner, P. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Kirsh, S. Violent video game play impacts facial emotion recognition. Kuhl, P. Foreign-language experience in infancy: effects of short-term exposure and social interaction on phonetic learning.

U S A , — Educar en el Asombro. Barcelona: Plataforma. Legrand, L. Lipman, M. Mayer, R. Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning?

Montessori, M. The Discovery of the Child. Moore, T. The Education of the Heart. NY: Thomas Moore. Ophir, E. Cognitive control in media multitaskers. Overberg, J. Differences in taste sensitivity between obese and non-obese children and adolescents.

Piaget, J. The Psychology of Intelligence. NY: Littlefield, Adams. The Construction of Reality in the Child. Oxon: Psychology Press. Richert, R. Word learning from baby videos. Saint-Exupery, A. Sometimes we just have to accept that not everything has a purpose. And if we over -explain we might end up with false beliefs. Conspiracy theories are a good example. There is often some truth in them, but they typically try to explain many different data points by appeal to a single group or entity, trying to make sense of everything in a unified way.

But sometimes those data points are simply coincidental, or due to chance. In the real world things rarely conform to perfect patterns; there are often exceptions.

You get information about each person, such as age, personality characteristics, names and photos. But there are more subtle reasons to prefer simpler explanations. For example, we might consider simpler explanations first because they are typically easier to falsify. So one argument is not that nature itself is simple, but that a preference for simplicity helps us arrive at the truth more efficiently.

Simpler explanations also have cognitive benefits: they are easier to remember, easier to reason with, and easier to communicate. Conveying science to lay people often involves the translation of complex terms into simpler ones, the use of metaphors, and the removal of some details. In the process, information is lost. Is this the price we pay for simple explanations?

Often it is, but strangely enough, people sometimes seem to value complicated explanations. One study showed that when you add completely irrelevant math to the abstract of a scientific paper, non-experts judge the work as better.

In another study, adding irrelevant neuroscientific information to psychological explanations made non-experts less effective at differentiating circular from non-circular explanations.

But in general, we do need explanations to be presented in terms we can understand, and for non-experts that will often involve leaving things out. Sometimes we create new terms to explain the world. For example, psychologists may introduce concepts such as the unconscious or self-confidence and then study them as if they were real. Does a belief in our own names for things lead us astray? The experience for those of us on earth is totally unique to us. I want you to think about that idea.

Consider how many things you may believe that may not be true. Think about how many things you believe may have other ways to be examined, viewed or explained other than in the manner you have come to accept as the only way or the one true way or as the truth. We are going to look at the Greeks because they believed for a long time in stories that they took to be true and upon which they based their lives. About the time of Socrates many Greeks were coming to question and even to disbelieve in those stories and when they no longer believed they were at a loss as to how they were to live their lives, in particular what were they to use as the basis for a GOOD life: a moral life.

This was so because the moral guide that most were using was rested within those stories that now were being questioned or rejected as not being true. Socrates wondered and questioned. I wonder and question. Philosophers wonder and question. This work shall encourage each reader to wonder and question. Now many times I shall make an effort to have you look at things you take for granted as being true and look at them differently.

I want you to open up your minds to the possibility that things may not be as you think they are. A dean at my college saw me one afternoon and asked me to come to his office. I thought I might have done something wrong. I met him in his office and he told me he just wanted to see how I was doing. I was very young and full of enthusiasm and told him about all the exercises and projects I was doing with my classes and showed him my course outlines.

He was interested but he wanted me to relax. He told me I should try to keep in mind that if by the time the course in Philosophy was over I would have accomplished a great deal if some of the students, just SOME of the students, would leave the course thinking that the universe was not just the way they thought all things were on the first day of the course.

This is has become one of my goals: that some of you who read this text will come to consider that all things may not be as you think they are now. Socrates and Plato learned and taught that the senses are not to be trusted. That wanted people to t rust more in reason. The senses can deceive you, a nd further, y ou should know better.

The sun looks to me to be. And I swear that the sun looks like it moves. These ideas are the result of what my senses tell me. I see these things every day with my own eyes. Nothing could be plainer. Are these ideas true? In the next section we shall examine why people believe and why they would believe in things that are not true. Philosophy attempts to arrive at a basis for belief resting on reason. Philosophy goes even further as it attempts to examine what is believed to be true and the very idea of truth itself.