Thanks Harold for the comments and the valuable links! I'll use them when I argue AGAINST Bloom's taxonomy, which I do every now and then because of reasons you and I have mentioned.

In my work as a HE teacher and project manager I have seen people use Bloom's taxonomy in different contexts. Here in Europe we have the so called Bologna process going on in higher education. It has to a certain extent meant a regression to a behaviorist view of learning, due to the domination of the big, conservative European countries. Here in the Nordic countries, we look (at least on average) differently at learning and we are leaning more towards late modern/postmodern views, at least in theory. I think the progressive Canadians look at things from approximately the same point of view (that's why I read your, George Siemens' and Dave Pollard's blogs every day :-)).

So, I do admit that burying Bloom's taxonomy would be the best solution. But the fact is that it is still used a lot. By pointing conservatives at the new version, I have sometimes been able to get a good conversation going. What does it mean that Evaluation has been replaced by Creating? And that Knowledge has been replaced by Remembering? I feel I have been able to point at some important developments in the traditional view of learning/assessment by using my opponent's own tool, Bloom's taxonomy, as a wedge.

And by pointing at the fact that Krathwohl was involved in both, I can show that even personal views must change, and that "eternal" pedagogical truths have to be looked at very critically.

But I realize that the way I expressed myself in my first post gives the impression that I actually accept the idea of taxonomies. I don't.