The Invariant Gardener

A colleague of mine recently handed me two articles dealing with neurosciences and education. After their takeover bid attempt of psychology, neurosciences are coveting education as a possible conquest for their empire.

Sadly enough, less and less people seems able to judge this discourse for what it is: a pure rhetoric with no serious argument

In an attempt to help teachers, educators and any person interested by the field of education staying away of what appears to me as useless conceptions, in what follows I will indulge in the activity which always gives me tremendous satisfactions : criticism.

In a serie of posts, I intend to read very closely these two recent articles :

1) “We Feel, Therefore We Learn: The Relevance of Affective and Social Neuroscience to Education” by Mary Helen Immordino-Yang and Antonio Damasio.
2) How Educational Theories Can Use Neuroscientific Data by Daniel T. Willingham and John W. Lloyd  

I don’t have read them yet. So it is supposed to be a kind of challenge. My only conviction is that, anyhow, I will learn something even if I still don’t know what.

My starting point is the fact that in my theory and pratice of psychology I have simply no use of neuroscience. Psychology is an autonomous science. I wouldn’t say so of education science but I am adamant that neurosciences won’t help in the least because my mind of school psychologist is complety devoid of neuroscientific concepts which would be of practical value when operating in the psychological realm.

Of course, this journey inside of the neuroscientific rhetoric will be an excellent opportunity to draw a global perspective of my synthetic conception of psychology

I hope you will have fun as much as I surely will.