I'm more-or-less in agreement with Jon Dron's critique of Dave Cormier's post from a couple of weeks ago, especially this: "The core problem is that the questions are not sets, so they cannot intersect and, to make it worse, they are questions about different kinds of entity that could never be overlapping sets." The implication is that though useful as a discussion tool, the relationships described between the entities are not inferences, but are themselves talking points. As I suggested when this came out, to get to the heart of the question: is the 'sweet spot' really 'they did it, and they learned, and we helped'? I'd rather they learned on their own, and I'd rather they didn't have to go through some sort of validation performance.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
