tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post4328245599345622921..comments2024-03-26T14:44:37.985-04:00Comments on D-Ed Reckoning: On Content Knowledge and Stephen DownesKDeRosahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-55066742428986809932009-10-16T12:24:42.383-04:002009-10-16T12:24:42.383-04:00KDeRosa, while of course my primary motive for ask...KDeRosa, while of course my primary motive for asking what evidence could possibly convince Downes to change his mind is that, even in the face of countless disappointments, my hope springs eternal, I do have a secondary motive for my persistance. <br /><br />Arguments influence the bystanders as well as the immediate participants. If you ask what evidence could convince someone they were wrong, and they fail to give a straight answer, they are rather implying that their opposition is irrational.Tracy Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08999246551652981965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-3779787524860169032009-10-16T11:05:35.492-04:002009-10-16T11:05:35.492-04:00Tracy, Stephen won't respond. He cannot becau...Tracy, Stephen won't respond. He cannot because there is no way he can do so while continuing to misrepresent your argument. That's why he didn't respond to anything I wrote. I'm not sure what game he's trying to play, but I'm getting tired of trying to guess.<br /><br />In any event, John Searles, the Chinese Room guy, who Stephen cited as supporting his unknown position, agrees with our properly characterized poition, not Stephen's, at least as far as I can tell based on Stephen's disagreeimg.<br /><br /><a href="http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~jsearle/whatislanguage.pdf" rel="nofollow">What is Language: Some Preliminary Remarks</a>KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-91250371122850252312009-10-16T10:21:44.883-04:002009-10-16T10:21:44.883-04:00Oh drat, the previous comment by me should be:
&qu...Oh drat, the previous comment by me should be:<br />"K is the union of sets A and C, where the union of A and <b>C</b> is greater (contains more elements) than the intersection of A and <b>C</b>." <br /><br />My brain was defaulting back to set theory learnt at school which was always sets A and B. My apologies for that error. Although my propositions are as likely to be true for my defined sets A and B as well.Tracy Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08999246551652981965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-82456542797121541102009-10-16T10:19:46.651-04:002009-10-16T10:19:46.651-04:00"evidence which would prove that there is som...<i>"evidence which would prove that there is some fact without which a knowledge of some language is impossible."</i><br /><br />Stephen Downes, this is not an answer to my question. What I asked you was, to repeat myself, <br />"Is there any evidence that could convince you that content knowledge, in the sense of either propositional knowledge or experiental knowledge, or the result of some experience, or some neural state, might be necessary for reading and critical thinking?"<br /><br />I know I would need evidence, what I want to know is <b>what</b> evidence you count as a proof. <br /><br />At the moment my expectation is that there is no possible evidence that could convince you to change your mind, in other words, you are beyond all rational thought on this topic. Please fulfill my hopes instead of my expectations and tell me what evidence could possibly convince you to change your mind.Tracy Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08999246551652981965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-50769256480545376292009-10-16T09:51:47.543-04:002009-10-16T09:51:47.543-04:00Perhaps that's because I assumed Tracy was usi...<i>Perhaps that's because I assumed Tracy was using standard English usage and not boolean logic. </i><br /><br />Actually, I was informally using set theory, not Boolean logic. <br />To put it formally:<br />K is the set of content knowledge.<br />A is the set of knowledge that is "propositional in form - and specifically, expressible as a sentence or set of sentences" <br />B is the set of knowledge that is "experiental, or the result of some experience, or some neural state, or some set of appropriate dispositions to respond, or skill or habit of mind, etc"<br />C is a subset of set B, consisting of knowledge that is "experiental, or the result of some experience, or some neural state" but excluding the remainder of set B. <br /><br />K is the union of sets A and C, where the union of A and B is greater (contains more elements) than the intersection of A and B. <br /><br />That's why I got so annoyed when Stephen Downes ignored the set C, which I had specifically added, and started talking about content knowledge as only being set A.Tracy Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08999246551652981965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-44244097323815594282009-10-14T14:59:24.488-04:002009-10-14T14:59:24.488-04:00Given that Stephen is quite willing to engage in u...Given that Stephen is quite willing to engage in unrealistic hypotheticals such as the Chinese room, I feel I can answer his call for "evidence which would prove that there is some fact without which a knowledge of some language is impossible."<br /><br />Well, that we're individual entities is a fact, and without it language makes no sense.<br /><br />Stephen can equivocate and redefine what most mean by "facts", "knowledge", "language", and "impossible", of course. I think, though, the redefinitions have shown just how far from reality he's gone. One of the allegedly failed objections to the Chinese room is that syntax cannot replace semantics. Even if Searle's claim that syntax can replace semantics is true, no one learns purely syntactically. Would Searle really have approved of his hypothetical as a recommendation of how to teach human children to read?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-69253907547882818162009-10-13T12:59:02.308-04:002009-10-13T12:59:02.308-04:00Some years ago the fashion in the College of Educa...Some years ago the fashion in the College of Education (and therefore in the Hawaii DOE) was "experiential learning". A common justification for Algebra was "critical thinking" or "thinking skills", in abstract. Policy, it seems, is a game of ping-pong played by Professors of Education, with schools as the table and students as the ball.<br />Professors of Education (academics generally) avoid careful definition just to keep the (tax-supported) game alive. <br /><br />Early in my career as a teacher (I was about 30) I had a brief conversation with a bartender (coffee bar), who was not much older than I. <br />(Him): "What do you do for a living? <br />(Me): "I'm a teacher. <br />(Him): "I used to be a teacher."<br />(Me): "Why'd you quit?"<br />(Him): "You'll find out."<br /><br />I did not press. End of conversation. <br /><br />Eventually, I did.Malcolm Kirkpatrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01294436437292859972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-53077901332438499532009-10-13T09:48:58.503-04:002009-10-13T09:48:58.503-04:00Those of us who are more concrete-minded would app...Those of us who are more concrete-minded would appreciate an example (if such exists) of how students could learn thinking skills without content knowledge.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-15906500148234238042009-10-12T22:48:33.822-04:002009-10-12T22:48:33.822-04:00The key point here is you can't just SAY that ...<i>The key point here is you can't just SAY that there is such-and-such a fact, which is what you always do, you have to PROVE it, which is what you never do.</i><br /><br />Stephen, I'm not quite sure I follow you here. We are still stuck on trying to find a common definition of "content knowledge." In any event, that's an opinion, not a fact. Certainly not a proven fact at this point in time. And, anything that follows from that opinion will also be opinion. No one is going to be proving anything any time soon. So there will be no winners or losers. At best we we will have counterexamples which might disprove an opinion, but that's about it.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-15166102342780658372009-10-12T21:41:46.241-04:002009-10-12T21:41:46.241-04:00Stephen,
What I meant was that you never respond...Stephen, <br /><br />What I meant was that you never responded to Tracy's example after she clarified what she meant by "content knowledge."<br /><br />As to the precise standard of proff you request, where is your proof (using the same phony rigor)for your assertion that content knowledge isn't needed for critical reasoning and the like?<br /><br />I am using the same standard you actually use for your own assertions. Let's play fair.<br /><br />Lastly, what I mean buy advocacy is effectively communicating your argument. You might have the better argument, but you won't convince if your advocacy is poor.<br /><br />And, really, I would gain nothing from a cheap win achieved by fooling you.KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-87371057349582274952009-10-12T21:31:31.958-04:002009-10-12T21:31:31.958-04:00p.s. I do think you have something to gain by lyin...p.s. I do think you have something to gain by lying. I think you see this as a political game, some sort of advocacy, where 'your side' wins if you manage to pull one over on people.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-50612186030748571302009-10-12T21:30:28.227-04:002009-10-12T21:30:28.227-04:00... and finally, I DID answer Tracy's question...... and finally, I DID answer Tracy's question, very clearly and without ambiguity, and I'll state it AGAIN:<br /><br />"evidence which would prove that there is some fact without which a knowledge of some language is impossible."<br /><br />The key point here is you can't just SAY that there is such-and-such a fact, which is what you always do, you have to PROVE it, which is what you never do.<br /><br />If if you don't like the word 'fact' and you don't think it's a linguistic entity (despite your frequent and repeated assertions that it is) then fine, invent something else - concept, association, whatever you think of today - and put that in there. <br /><br />I don't give a flying rooftop WHAT you think goes in there, just identify it clearly, and PROVE that you cannot learn language, or critical reasoning, without it.<br /><br />Or as I expressed it logically, g(f(b)...f(c)) entails (L -> f(a)). Offer some proof g which draws on evidence or experiment f(b)...f(c) which entails that knowledge some language (or critical reasoning, or even mathematics, if you wish) if possible only give f(a), where f(a) can be WHATEVER you want.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-62195708621845642072009-10-12T20:49:23.248-04:002009-10-12T20:49:23.248-04:00Stephen, I have nothing to gain by lying. I especi...Stephen, I have nothing to gain by lying. I especially have nothing to gain by writing easily-detectable lies.<br /><br />Is Tracy lying too?<br /><br />Honestly, Stephen. I'm just looking for a straight answer based on the actual position I've set forth. I assume Tracy is doing the same. If you think our positions are so wrong to be internally inconsistent and contradictory, well, then you have nothing to lose by providing a straight answer and pointing out our errors. And, yet you refuse to do that. That is mighty suspicious.<br /><br />(With respect to the "and" usage, I'll merely point out that Tracy agreed with my usage, not yours. Perhaps that's because I assumed Tracy was using standard English usage and not boolean logic. Although, having never met Tracy in person, it cannot discount the possibility that she is a sophisticated computing machine trying to fool me into thinking she is human. In that case, I should have known that a sophisticated computer would have used boolean logic. So maybe you were right after all. Or maybe I was assuming that a sophicated computer would have been programed to mimic standard English usage in order to fool me. It's all so very confusing.)KDeRosahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06853211164976890091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-82218528492826328362009-10-12T19:30:23.900-04:002009-10-12T19:30:23.900-04:00... though I have to say, your response to me, whe...... though I have to say, your response to me, where you said the word "and" was used in the sense where it meant "or", was a classic.<br /><br />I've seen weaselling before, but this wins the prize.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25541994.post-4156627807657676112009-10-12T19:25:06.221-04:002009-10-12T19:25:06.221-04:00Ken, this post is a pack of lies and you know it.
...Ken, this post is a pack of lies and you know it.<br /><br />You cannot argue honestly, and <i>that</i> is why I terminated the thread.Stephen Downeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06140591903467372209noreply@blogger.com