Subject:
|
Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 1 Apr 2002 16:57:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1510 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> Unfortunately, the Discovery Channel (along with its siblings) is very close
> to the worst source of science information currently available to the • [snip]
> supplement; I'm simply saying that The Discovery Channel is about 90% garbage
> and 10% questionable.
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_.
> > 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.
And further, video is an obviously superior tool for teaching surgical
techniques since you have to see the meat across time to really get what's
happening. Line drawings, or even copious photographs just won't do it. But
obviously, as you say, live training would be superior.
> 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 agree that the fact that people don't do it much does mean that they think
they have better things to do. But not that they think it's hard. Surely some
people do. But I don't think that most people have to strain to read street
signs or restaurant menus.
> > > > 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.
Is it? I guess I misunderstand the term.
> 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?
It was asserted essentially that people couldn't do anything better than
reading. I was merely pointing out that this might not be true. Really, I
think my goal was very close to yours in pointing out the futility of such
hypotheses.
> > > > 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.
Certainly not while I live.
Chris
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
