Subject:
|
Re: The value of reading (was: If you could leave any book on Kjeld's nightstand...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 7 Apr 2002 15:57:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1563 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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 not reasonably imply anything more.
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 indicates that a person is engaged in farming; just as a fun,
part-time activity.
> > As it was, I wasn't exactly sure what he was driving at when he got into
> > some of the statistical jargon. I still don't. :)
>
> I guess I'd need you to be more specific. At each turn when you seemed unclear
> as to my meaning I attempted to further elaborate. If I have the progression
> straight, it went like this:
I was clear on many of your points. But somewhere along the way (I'll try
to find it below in your summary) I got this feeling that you were throwing
out statistical terminology for the purpose of making a specific point. I
was just trying to openly admit that I didn't understand what point it was
you were trying to make. I'm not a super genius..... just a regular one. ;)
> 4) To which I clarified:
>
> "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."
>
> 5) And you asked for clarification on causality with:
>
> "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 can elaborate?"
That was the point. I simply didn't understand what you were driving at. I
wish I could explain my lack of understanding better. Sorry. :(
> Which kind of makes it sound as if you didn't actually want (or need) to know.
> So I don't know what the deal is.
I think it's gotten bigger than the original debate, and for that I
apologize. I didn't mean to make it into such an issue. I was honestly
trying to understand your point of view better.
> Reading is a means to acquire information and no more. It is one that I
> personally have a sentimental attachment to, but I refuse to allow this
> sentimentality to color the way that I think of reading as a parent or an
> educator. (Which I am technically not.)
And therein you have hit upon the biggest difference in our two opinions on
reading. I am fully willing to allow my sentimentality on any issue to
color my perspective. That's why I adore reading (despite newer
technology), that's why I am such a music fan, that's why I harp continously
about the current state of LEGO. I'm a sentimental old fool, but that's ok
with me.
> > Further to my note above.... I guess I was trying to get Christopher to
> > realize that perhaps it's not possible to quantify the value of reading.
> > Perhaps it's something that's out there, like music, films, paintings etc.
> > that really doesn't fit into a research model or a pie chart.
>
> Everything that is, can be described. This is a basic philosophical tenet with
> which I am comfortable. I'm vaguely surprised to find that you don't think so.
Yes, they can be described. I said they can't necessarily be 'quantified'.
Why is Beethoven more interesting to me than Mozart? There are not enough
facts and figures on the planet to explain it. It just is. That's what I
mean by that paragraph. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
And to go back to reading..... what I meant was that to me reading just *is*
extremely important. I can't back it up with fact, I can only argue my
passion as I see it. I think I was getting confused because you were trying
to bring some of this statistical jargon into the conversation. I saw it as
an issue that perhaps couldn't be quantified, and therefore the X and Y and
causes and effects etc just didn't apply.
> When I detected that you might not understand correlation and causation as
> statistical terms I wrote:
>
> > A correlation says that when you observe X, you are to some
> > extent likely to observe Y as well. Y might be phrased as _not_
> > Z which means that X and Z are inversely correlated. Level of
> > formal education and childhood socio-economic status are inversely
> > correlated.
> >
> > To demonstrate a correlation between two factors does not at all
> > demonstrate a causal link. I can't look at the data, pronounce the
> > correlation between education and SES, and say that poor families
> > don't have equall access to education. There are tons of other
> > causal and non-causal explanations that have to be explored.
>
> Which I thought was an English explanation.
Perhaps for some. I will be the first to admit that it does little to
explain your point of view to me. I would still claim that it includes a
fair bit of jargon (not likely to be heard in everyday conversation) and is
therefore an explanation written in English, with specific terminology
applied which may make its meaning unclear to some.
> Looking at it now, I just can't figure out what to
> change...but maybe I'm too close to it.
Let me say that I don't think your explanation is 'wrong'. It's just that I
think it's well above the level of debate of which I'm capable. Maybe I
should have stayed out of this debate.
I like analogies, anecdotes, and real world examples. That's how I learn
best, that's how I teach best and that's how I debate best. I am just
trying to tell you that X and Y correlations don't help me to understand
your reluctance to promoting reading at any level.
All the best!
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
