Stephen Downes
Stephen's Web
Truth in Advertising
I've seen this about three times today, including once in my own comments and now here as well, an argument of the form "the theory that X may be wrong but it's still useful." That's like saying "this map may have the roads all wrong but we can still follow it" or "this restaurant is dangerously unsanitary but we can still eat at it." People should stop arguing like this. (Oh, and another theme that has come up several times recently (here, for example, is that of consultants giving presentations containing questionable or false information). Audiences need to demand more. Don't just keep repeating the same thing - if somebody rebuts it, you should take that seriously, as if it really was refuted or something. Or defend the original work with some argument of your own. But for goodness sakes, don't just say: well we know it's wrong but we can still use it. Miguel Guhlin, Around the Corner v2, October 17, 2007 3:34 p.m.. [Link] [Tags: none] [Previous][Next]Comments
Re: Truth in Advertising
There are a few questions I like to ask people who promote the latest technologies as panaceas for learning:
How badly do you think you were damaged by the lack of these things?
How far outside the skull does learning occur?
Why is a field of study called a "discipline"?
What level of technology is needed to understand Darwin's theory of evolution?
And: How does technology X change anything other than the administrative aspects of learning? [Comment]
[Permalink]
[Previous][Next]
Re: Truth in Advertising
Howdy! Miguel Guhlin (mguhlin.net) here. Stories need have no scientific basis to be valuable. The labels of digital natives, immigrants, refuseniks (as Tim Holt at Bytespeed likes to say), are useful as ways of telling a story. When someone takes that story, that fictional narrative, and then says, "This is backed up by scientific evidence/research," then the story is no longer fictional and must be verified through accepted scientific methods.
Jamie's refutation of Prensky's work is very valuable. It points out that Prensky distorted scientific findings to support a story he concocted. If it had just been a story, and he had said so, then there would be no outcry. Instead, he misinformed us.
Stories are valuable in and of themselves...without scientific data to back them up.
Thanks,
Miguel Guhlin
mguhlin.net [Comment]
[Permalink]
[Previous][Next]
Your comments always remain your property, but in posting them here you agree to license under the same terms as this site (Creative Commons). If your comment is offensive it will be deleted.
Automated Spam-checking is in effect. If you are a registered user you may submit links and other HTML. Anonymous users cannot post links and will have their content screened - certain words are prohibited and your comment will be analyzed to make sure it makes sense.