Subject:
|
Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 30 Mar 2002 03:27:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1473 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > I agree. And those who watch TV recreationally are more likely to catch
> > instructive programs while flipping through the stations. Those programs too
> > may enhance their lives.
>
> Absolutely! I hope I haven't given the impression that I'm somehow
> anti-media if it isn't in book form. Far from it. Channels like Discovery,
> TLC, The History Channel etc. all make for a great use of time.
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" as Bigfoot research, Alien Abduction Conspiracies, and
the "evidence" that ancient architecture *must* have been built by
extra-terrestrials--all without subjecting such claims to even the most
cursory critical examination or dissent. To vomit forth this garbage under the
guise of science is a gross disservice to actual science and is, I would argue,
a far more insidious source of bad information than any sitcom or primetime
melodrama.
That's not to say, of course, that video can't be an excellent educational
supplement; I'm simply saying that The Discovery Channel is about 90% garbage
and 10% questionable.
> But do I want a surgeon who's only ever watched 'Operation' on the Discovery
> channel cutting into me? :)
Just to clarify on this point--I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't let a
surgeon cut you open if he'd only ever read about the operation, either. The
key in a case like this, obviously, is the hands-on training and experience
that neither book-learning nor TV-learning can really replace.
> > > A mind that isn't exercised is prone to whither and weaken. Watching TV,
> > > listening to music, surfing the web. They're all good exercise; perhaps
> > > akin to a leisurely walk in the park. But reading is like running a
> > > marathon at the pace of a 100 yard dash.
> >
> > I don't think so. If reading were such hard work, people wouldn't do it
> > much.
To answer Chris:
It *is* hard work, people *don't* do it much, at least not well, and
sometimes not at all. Somewhere I read (not on the internet!) that the average
US adult reads fewer than two books PER YEAR! Obviously these people think
that reading is harder or less enjoyable or less valuable than other pursuits,
so it can be argued that, for these people, the perceived "benefits" of reading
do not outweigh the perceived "costs."
I think that actually supports your larger point, that multimedia
presentation can be a more effective educational tool than a static text.
> > > I've never met a person who was worse off for reading.
> > How do you know that a person wouldn't have been
> > better off engaging in some other activity for the time that was spent
> > reading?
Again to Chris:
This is a counter-factual, of course. I might have been better off for
clubbing ten harp seals just for the fun of it, but I didn't do it, so we'll
never know. Lacking specific examples, such as "if Jimmy hadn't wasted time
reading, he might have Beneficial-Result-X happen to him," there's no useful
way to guess "what might have been if only Jimmy hadn't read that book."
What's the point of such speculation?
> > > Because something better did come along. The written word. It allowed
> > > ideas to live on, past their orators... this was a vital link in passing on
> > > advanced ideas so that each generation didn't have to reinvent them.
> >
> > So if TV (or multimedia, really) is a better technology, then we should fully
> > adopt it as well, right?
Adopt it, sure! And if it wholly supplants prior information technologies,
bravo for TV! Barring a book-destructive catastrophe and the sudden world-wide
accessibility of electronic information technology, electronic media won't
likely extinguish the hardcopy written word for at least several centuries.
> But again, you can't stick a laptop into a backpack and take it deep into
> the woods and prop yourself up beneath a tree and read Hemmingway. Well,
> you can, but without the smell of a cheap paperback and the sound of pages
> being flipped, it just isn't the same. :)
>
> > > I've read a number of computer books, from networking to operating systems
> > > and from programming to HTML.
To any and all:
This isn't a convincing argument to anyone who isn't already a True Believer
in the universal superior of electronic media. What do you do when the
batteries run out? How about when your eBook (or equivalent) is stolen,
containing your 300-volume electronic reference library? What happens to your
stored data when you drop the eBook down a flight of steps, or you get caught
in a sudden downpour, or you step on it, or you suffer some huge static
discharge or the like? These may seem like piddling Luddite arguments, but
they're legitimate concerns. Until the electronic media can out-compete
printed text on all relevant playing fields (perceived or actual), electronics
simply won't supplant hardcopy.
Mind you, I'm not suggesting that e-media aren't fantastic fantastic
fantastic tools for research, communication, presentation, etc etc etc, but I
don't thus far see any merit in the claims that e-media are going to eliminate
primitive printed books and paper.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
59 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
