 | | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) up? (...) No. I'm saying that I can see how one would come, through a non-rigorous examination, to believe that stance. But even when a correlation is shown (which we haven't pointed to) it says nothing of causality. (...) Well, they tell you (...) (22 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
<BIG snip> As an avid reader and attendee of literary (and other) conventions I really want to weigh in on this subject. I believe that reading is an indespensible tool for learning and growing in the present. There are two things I get from books (...) (22 years ago, 26-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) You'll have to forgive this member of the laity, but I'm kind of unsure what you're saying here. Do you mean to say that even when a link is shown to exist, there is no explanation of it's cause? I'm having trouble with this..... perhaps you (...) (22 years ago, 27-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) Does it offend you that I hobby-research lay opinion on education or something? A correlation says that when you observe X, you are to some extent likely to ovserve Y as well. Y might be phrased as _not_ Z which means that X and Z are (...) (22 years ago, 28-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) No, not at all. I honestly meant what I said. It's just that some of your terminology and phrases were way above my head. See the two paragraphs below for further examples. But to be honest again, I didn't realize you were researching (...) (22 years ago, 29-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) Unfortunately, the Discovery Channel (along with its siblings) is very close to the worst source of science information currently available to the mainstream public. That channel has countless programs that present such "frontiers of science" (...) (22 years ago, 30-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) Allan, are you saying you don't get what the difference between correlation and causality is? Chris's words seem pretty clear to me... there seems to be a statistical link (a correlation) between poverty and education level, to wit, people who (...) (22 years ago, 30-Mar-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) Really? I don't get TV, but I'd been under the impression that these channels had some pretty good stuff even if it was _Popular Science_ caliber rather than _Nature_ caliber. What you're describing sounds more like _Omni_. (...) (...) (22 years ago, 1-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) Upon further reflection (and watching) I can say that certain mainstream "nature" type programs aren't bad, especially the stuff on deep-sea exploration. Some of the military and "justice files" stuff might be good, too, but I can't speak with (...) (22 years ago, 1-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) You are, of course, absolutely correct to point out the difference between correlation and causation, but it must be recalled that statistical data are routinely used by both sides in all kinds of discussions, so Allan can be forgiven for (...) (22 years ago, 2-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) Yes, I agree with all of the above. Nevertheless it's irrelevant. My question really was to Allan, because I honestly didn't understand what it was he didn't understand about what Chris said. (...) Me too. (22 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) Hey! My irrelevance is *always* relevant. I've noticed that Chris' grasp of statistics is stronger than mine, and sometimes his articulations on the subject can muddle my brain a bit (more). Perhaps Allan was suffering a similar verbal (...) (22 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) I think the point I was trying to make to Christopher was that I didn't realize the debate had turned into a research project. I just thought we were talking about the importance of reading. As it was, I wasn't exactly sure what he was driving (...) (22 years ago, 7-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) We were. That's all. I'm not categorizing your responses and writing papers. It's just a hobby of mine to explore what people think about education. I used the phrase "hobby-research" a single time in a throwaway comment. Such a comment does (...) (22 years ago, 7-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) Sorry, I guess I didn't realize that the phrase wasn't meant to be taken at face value. From the way I read it here, you were gathering commentary and opinions in some loose research project. The same way that 'hobby farming' actually (...) (22 years ago, 7-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) I guess if loose can mean _very_ loose then it's still OK. You were suggesting a difference in status between conversation and hobby-research but to me they're the same thing. I talk about the things I'm thinking about. That's research of a (...) (22 years ago, 7-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes: <snip> I'm starting to realise something... Maybe should have realised it sooner. Perhaps we need a disclaimer from you. (or you from us) If I get the sense of what I snipped away, what you do when (...) (22 years ago, 7-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) The charter of the group reads as follows: "lugnet.off-topic.debate– Off-topic (non-LEGO®) discussions: debates, controversies, etc." Although it's called .debate, I had always thought that there was room for open personal discussions within (...) (22 years ago, 7-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) No, do NOT do that! My post was to try to clear up some confusion on my part (and perhaps others) on where you are coming from, and build a new basis for constructive dialog. If you take away from that the idea that I'm thinking you should not (...) (22 years ago, 7-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
|
(...) Hmmm...I think these are all very closely related ideas. Yes, debate has a specific meaning -- but classically, formal arguments are comprised of appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos. To use non-greek terms, a formal argument appeals to one's (...) (22 years ago, 7-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
