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 16:26:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1590 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> From the way I read it here, you were gathering commentary and
> opinions in some loose research project.
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 kind. I think we were both stumbling over verbiage needlessly.
> > "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. :(
OK. You were supporting a correlation between reading and propensity for
self-initiated future learning experiences. I'm saying two distinct things
about that, which are: 1) such a correlation has not yet been demonstrated, and
2) even if such a correlation were demonstrated it would say nothing about the
cause of either or both of the two factors.
If it were demonstrated, we would have many hypotheses available. Maybe
reading causes more learning. Maybe those likely to enjoy reading are likely
to enjoy learning. Maybe peanut butter causes increased joy from reading and
jelly causes increased joy from learning and those two ingredients are
routinely served together.
> 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.
Oh...it vastly colors my opinion. And how could it not? I spend a huge amount
of time reading because I enjoy it. But I'm not willing to say that it's
necessary, or better than other media, or that I don't trust those who also
like it, based solely on my likes and dislikes. I want evidence that it's
necessary etc.
> > > 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'.
I think that I can quantify anything that can be described.
> 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.
I don't think so. I could design a study that would attempt to root out the
contributive causes for your preference of Beethovin. I would start by
analyzing the two musics, noting the "heavy emotion" that Beethovin plays with
compared to the lighter thematic content of Mozart. Then I'd look for people
who have an opinion developed and those who do not, poll their preferences,
find common threads and increase the scope of the analysis based on the
findings. Just because we don't know something now, doesn't mean that we can
not.
> 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.
But wait... Do you mean it's exremely important in your life? I would never
dream of disputing that. Your expressed stance was that it's important for
everyone else. And not just basic facility, but extreme literacy and even the
desire to read rather than engage in other activities. Those seem like very
different stances. If you're going to say that it's important for everyone,
then I think you should have reasons.
> Perhaps for some. I will be the first to admit that it does little to
> explain your point of view to me.
Maybe we thought those paragraphs were explaining different things. If you
thought I was expressing my views on reading, then I can see why you'd be
confused. I was explaining correlation and lack of causal evidence completely
aside from reading skill valuation. But I'm kind of grasping at straws with
this line of reasoning since it doesn't seem likely that this was why we're
missing.
> I would still claim that it includes a fair bit of jargon
correlation and causality? Or something else? I mean, correlation is what I'm
defining and then I use causality. Is that the jargon? Causality is simply
"the principle of or relationship between cause and effect" according to
American Heritage®.
> Maybe I should have stayed out of this debate.
I wouldn't say that, unless you think I'm being rude or something.
> 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.
OK.
Do you basically understand my stance now though?
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
59 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
