recentpopularlog in

jerryking : disagreements   25

Godwin's Law
Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies)[1] is a saying made by Mike Godwin in 1990. The law states: "As a discussion on the Internet grows longer, the likelihood of a comparison o...
argumentation  comparisons  disagreements  Godwin's_Law  logic_&_reasoning  Nazis  rhetoric  rules_of_the_game 
september 2019 by jerryking
Six rules for managing our era’s oversupply of non-stop news, high-decibel outrage
May 11, 2019 | The Globe and Mail | editorials.

Rule No. 1: You don’t need to have an opinion about everything. Shocking but true. ....It’s perfectly fair to say, “I don’t know enough to have an opinion on that," or, “I will leave that to others to debate,” or even, “Both sides have some good points.” You might not please everyone, but see Rule No. 2.

* Rule No. 2: You can’t please everyone. Get over it.

* Rule No. 3: Embrace ambivalence....often misinterpreted as indifference, or derided as indecision. In fact, the ability to entertain contradictory but animating ideas goes to the heart of what it means to be a mature and civilized human being. It’s also central to preserving political freedom. The most dangerous person in a democracy is the blind partisan who outsources her opinions to politicians or an ideology, and who sees those who don’t agree as enemies to be righteously chased from town by a torch-wielding mob. The biggest threat to such black-and-white partisanship is the person who keeps her mind open, is not blindly loyal to any one team and sees people with different opinions not as monsters to be slain but as human beings to be understood, especially when you disagree with them, and they disagree with you.

* Rule No. 4: When you take a stand, be forceful. While the process of reaching a conclusion should involve a lot of “on the one hand” and “on the other,” at some point you have to make a choice.

In a criminal trial, the decision to convict an accused person can only be taken if the evidence is persuasive beyond a reasonable doubt – in other words, if the evidence is irrefutable and the conclusion is certain. But in politics, business and life, most decisions must be taken under conditions that cannot meet that exacting standard. Reasonable doubts are reasonable. Only the extreme partisan is without them.

* Rule No. 5: Set your bottom line. How far are you willing to let another person go before you feel obliged to offer a counter-opinion? Not every take you hear deserves the energy required to argue against it. Sometimes, you have to just let people say things you don’t agree with. You might learn something.

And remember, just as there is no obligation to have an opinion on every subject, there is also no rule that says you must express your opinion every time the chance presents itself. But when someone or something does cross a line, sometimes you can’t hold back. It may be as lofty as a matter of justice, or a simple as a question of common sense, but there comes a moment when your opinion will matter.

* Rule No. 6: Opinions are not the same thing as empathy. Empathy is what makes it possible for people who disagree to live together in peace and harmony – to agreeably disagree. And in a multicultural, multireligious, multiracial, multiparty democracy, people are going to disagree about all sorts of things, all the time.

The world has enough opinions. What it really needs is more empathy. Without it, life isn’t possible.
21st._century  agreeably_disagree  ambivalence  commoditization_of_information  disagreements  disinformation  dual-consciousness  empathy  hard_choices  incivility  incompatibilities  indecision  information_overload  news  opinions  open_mind  outrage  partial_truths  partisanship  partisan_loyalty  political_spin  propaganda  rules_of_the_game 
may 2019 by jerryking
The Dying Art of Disagreement
SEPT. 24, 2017 | The New York Times | Bret Stephens.

The title of my talk tonight is “The Dying Art of Disagreement.”.......But to say, I disagree; I refuse; you’re wrong; etiam si omnes — ego non — these are the words that define our individuality, give us our freedom, enjoin our tolerance, enlarge our perspectives, seize our attention, energize our progress, make our democracies real, and give hope and courage to oppressed people everywhere. Galileo and Darwin; Mandela, Havel, and Liu Xiaobo; Rosa Parks and Natan Sharansky — such are the ranks of those who disagree......The polarization is geographic.......The polarization is personal........Finally the polarization is electronic and digital, .......What we did was read books that raised serious questions about the human condition, and which invited us to attempt to ask serious questions of our own. Education, in this sense, wasn’t a “teaching” with any fixed lesson. It was an exercise in interrogation.

To listen and understand; to question and disagree; to treat no proposition as sacred and no objection as impious; to be willing to entertain unpopular ideas and cultivate the habits of an open mind ....uChicago showed us something else: that every great idea is really just a spectacular disagreement with some other great idea....to disagree well you must first understand well. You have to read deeply, listen carefully, watch closely. You need to grant your adversary moral respect; give him the intellectual benefit of doubt; have sympathy for his motives and participate empathically with his line of reasoning. And you need to allow for the possibility that you might yet be persuaded of what he has to say........there’s such a thing as private ownership in the public interest, and of fiduciary duties not only to shareholders but also to citizens. Journalism is not just any other business, like trucking or food services. .....But no country can have good government, or a healthy public square, without high-quality journalism — journalism that can distinguish a fact from a belief and again from an opinion; that understands that the purpose of opinion isn’t to depart from facts but to use them as a bridge to a larger idea called “truth”; and that appreciates that truth is a large enough destination that, like Manhattan, it can be reached by many bridges of radically different designs. In other words, journalism that is grounded in facts while abounding in disagreements.

I believe it is still possible — and all the more necessary — for journalism to perform these functions, especially as the other institutions that were meant to do so have fallen short. But that requires proprietors and publishers who understand that their role ought not to be to push a party line, or be a slave to Google hits and Facebook ads, or provide a titillating kind of news entertainment, or help out a president or prime minister who they favor or who’s in trouble.

Their role is to clarify the terms of debate by championing aggressive and objective news reporting, and improve the quality of debate with commentary that opens minds and challenges assumptions rather than merely confirming them.

This is journalism in defense of liberalism, not liberal in the left-wing American or right-wing Australian sense, but liberal in its belief that the individual is more than just an identity, and that free men and women do not need to be protected from discomfiting ideas and unpopular arguments. More than ever, they need to be exposed to them, so that we may revive the arts of disagreement that are the best foundation of intelligent democratic life.
assumptions  Bret_Stephens  civics  Colleges_&_Universities  courage  critical_thinking  dangerous_ideas  demagoguery  difficult_conversations  disagreements  discomforts  dissension  dual-consciousness  free_speech  good_governance  high-quality  identity_politics  journalism  liberalism  open_mind  polarization  the_human_condition  uChicago 
september 2017 by jerryking
What Kal Penn, Actor and Obama White House Alumnus, Loves About Toronto - The New York Times
By JOHN L. DORMAN MAY 3, 2017

Actor Kal Penn is the former associate director of the Office of Public Engagement under President Barack Obama, and currently stars as the press secretary Seth Wright on the ABC drama “Designated Survivor.”........Is there an area in Toronto that you gravitate toward?

There’s a neighborhood called Parkdale that I really like, which has an interesting Tibetan population. There’s a lot of great food, and I don’t mean fancy places where you dress up and go to dinner, but really great hole in the wall, authentic places to grab food. It’s a really nice neighborhood, in the West End of the city. Little Portugal is another great neighborhood, with really nice shops and restaurants........Talking to people whom we disagree with is more important now than it has been before, and I don’t mean just ranting on your Facebook wall. A conversation tends to go very differently when you’re having a beer with someone that you disagree with, compared to sending a nasty tweet to someone because you want to make yourself feel better.
actors  White_House  Toronto  public_discourse  Parkdale  disagreements  neighbourhoods  Queen_Street 
may 2017 by jerryking
On campus, it’s good to be bothered by a diversity of ideas - The Globe and Mail
KONRAD YAKABUSKI
The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Sep. 05, 2016

consider the advice U.S. President Barack Obama gave last spring to the graduating class of Howard University, a historically black college in Washington, D.C.

“Don’t try to shut folks out, don’t try to shut them down, no matter how much you might disagree with them,” Mr. Obama said in May. “There will be times when you shouldn’t compromise your core values, your integrity and you will have the responsibility to speak up in the face of injustice. But listen. Engage. If the other side has a point, learn from them. If they’re wrong, rebut them. Teach them. Beat them on the battlefield of ideas. And you might as well start practising now, because one thing I can guarantee you, you will have to deal with ignorance, hatred, racism, foolishness, trifling folks … at every stage of your life.”

Better yet, students should, in Prof. Levinovitz’s words, see university as a “boot camp, not a hotel.” You’re there to toughen up for real life, not shield yourself from its infuriating injustices, painful conflicts and, yes, even the Donald Trumps of this world. Because they’re everywhere.
Konrad_Yakabuski  Colleges_&_Universities  diversity  ideas  intellectual_exploration  political_correctness  censorship  political_orthodoxy  free_speech  hate_speech  safe_spaces  civility  polarization  intellectual_diversity  disagreements  argumentation  heterogeneity  core_values 
september 2016 by jerryking
How I learnt to love the economic blogosphere
July 27, 2016 | FT.com | Giles Wilkes.

Marginal Revolution
Econlog
Cafe Hayek
Stumbling and Mumbling
Brad Delong
Nick Rowe - Worthwhile Canadian Initiative
Steve Randy Waldman - Interfluidity
Slack Wire - JW Mason

"Sympathetic opinions coalesce in clusters of mutual congratulation (“must read: fellow blogger agreeing with my point of view!”). Dispute is often foully bad-tempered. Opposing positions are usually subject to a three-phased assault of selective quotation, exaggeration and abuse.'..."Lacking an editor to roll their eyes and ask what’s new, many writers soon become stale... Editors exist not only to find interesting pieces to publish but also to hold at bay the unstructured abundance of bilge that we do not need to read."....."...nothing as reliably good as the (eonomics) blogosphere. Some of its advantages are simply practical: free data, synopses of academic papers that the casual dilettante is unlikely to ever come across, a constant sense of what clever people are thinking about. But what is better is how its ungated to-and-fro lets a reader eavesdrop on schools of academic thought in furious argument, rather than just be subject to whatever lecture a professor wishes to deliver. No one learns merely by reading conclusions. It is in the space between rival positions that insight sprouts up, from the synthesis of clashing thoughts. Traditional newspaper columns are delivered as if to an audience of a million, none of whom might reply. The best blogs are the opening salvo in a seminar rather than the last word on the matter. They dumb down less "....."Ancient thinkers such as Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes and Iriving Fisher were deployed not as some sort of academic comfort blanket but because their insights are still fresh, and beautifully written."..."Reading the economic blogosphere in 2008 felt to me like the modern equivalent of watching Friedrich Hayek, Keynes and Friedman quarrelling in front of a graduate class about how FDR should react to the depression. "...."Interfluidity is where to find such brilliancies as “the moral case for NGDP [Nominal Gross Domestic Product] targeting”, a political look at a seemingly technical subject, and “Greece”, a furious examination of how the term “moral hazard” is being traduced in the euro crisis. "..."Waldman’s thoughts go far beyond such a crude duality. After a long discussion of measurement problems, the institutional constraints on innovation and much more, he zeroes in on how governments build institutions to handle the disruption wrought by technological change. In a few hundred words he flips around Cowen’s stance and, instead of looking at the growth of government as the problem, makes a case for its opposite. Technological change creates concentrations of power, which “demands countervailing state action if any semblance of broad-based affluence and democratic government is to be sustained”. We have always needed institutions to divert spending power to those left behind, otherwise social disaster beckons. "....When reading, look for sources with something new to say!
economics  economists  blogosphere  Tyler_Cowen  Paul_Krugman  Adam_Smith  information_overload  social_media  Brad_Delong  blogs  Friedrich_Hayek  Milton_Friedman  political  economy  editors  tough-mindedness  FDR  Great_Depression  insights  John_Maynard_Keynes  sophisticated  disagreements  argumentation  technological_change  innovation_policies  moral_hazards 
july 2016 by jerryking
Why You Will Marry the Wrong Person
MAY 28, 2016 | The New York Times | By ALAIN de BOTTON.

We all fear marrying the wrong person...Partly, it’s because we have many latent problems that emerge when we try to get close to others (we seem normal only to those who don’t know us very well. In a wiser, more self-aware society, a standard question on any early dinner date would be: “And how are you crazy?”)....The problem is that before marriage, we rarely delve into our complexities. ...Our partners are no more self-aware although we make a stab at trying to understand them....we seek a (false) sense that we’ve done our homework. We haven’t.....What matters in the marriage of feeling--romantic love--is that two people are drawn to each other by an overwhelming instinct and know in their hearts that it is right.....we believe ourselves to be seeking happiness in marriage, it isn’t that simple. What we really seek is familiarity — which may well complicate any plans we might have had for happiness. ...as grown-ups find ourselves rejecting certain candidates for marriage not because they are wrong but because they are too right — too balanced, mature, understanding and reliable — given that in our hearts, such rightness feels foreign. We marry the wrong people because we don’t associate being loved with feeling happy....We make mistakes, too, because we are so lonely. No one can be in an optimal frame of mind to choose a partner when remaining single feels unbearable.....Finally, we marry to make a nice feeling permanent. We imagine that marriage will help us to bottle the joy we felt when the thought of proposing first came to us....We marry to make joyful sensations permanent but fail to see that there is no solid connection between these feelings and the institution of marriage....The good news is that it doesn’t matter if we find we have married the wrong person. We mustn’t abandon him or her, only the founding "romantic love" idea upon which the Western understanding of marriage has been based the last 250 years: that a perfect being exists who can meet all our needs and satisfy our every yearning....swap the Romantic Love view for a tragic (and at points comedic) awareness that every human will frustrate, anger, annoy, madden and disappoint us — and we will (without any malice) do the same to them. There can be no end to our sense of emptiness and incompleteness. But none of this is unusual or grounds for divorce. Choosing whom to commit ourselves to is merely a case of identifying which particular variety of suffering we're willing to sign up for.

This philosophy of pessimism--thinking tragically--offers a solution to a lot of distress and agitation around marriage. It might sound odd, but pessimism relieves the excessive imaginative pressure that our romantic culture places upon marriage. The failure of one particular partner to save us from our grief and melancholy is not an argument against that person and no sign that a union deserves to fail or be upgraded.

The person who is best suited to us is not the person who shares our every taste (he or she doesn’t exist), but the person who can negotiate differences in taste intelligently — the person who is good at disagreement. Rather than some notional idea of perfect complementarity, it is the capacity to tolerate differences with generosity that is the true marker of the “not overly wrong” person.

Romantic Love has been unhelpful to us; it is a harsh philosophy. It has made a lot of what we go through in marriage seem exceptional and appalling. We end up lonely and convinced that our union, with its imperfections, is not “normal.” We should learn to accommodate ourselves to “wrongness,” striving always to adopt a more forgiving, humorous and kindly perspective on its multiple examples in ourselves and in our partners.
Communicating_&_Connecting  conflict_resolution  disagreements  disappointment  expectations  forgiveness  generosity  grace  humour  imperfections  intimacy  marriage  perspectives  pessimism  relationships  romantic_love  serving_others  thinking_tragically 
may 2016 by jerryking
How cosmopolitans can win the argument
9 April/10 April 2016 | Financial Times | Simon Kuper

1. Don't lead with facts. They rarely persuade anyone any more.
2. DOn't use elite spokespeople
3. You win arguments by winning over the middle.
4. Talk mainstream values
5. Don't repeat the other side's story, not even to refute it.
6. Avoid "Them and Us" stories
7. Show, don't tell.
8. Don't call people racists.
9. Don't be boring
Donald_Trump  cosmopolitan  howto  Simon_Kuper  logic_&_reasoning  nationalism  rhetoric  buy-in  emotional_commitment  counterintuitive  skeptics  disagreements  argumentation 
may 2016 by jerryking
Schumpeter: The network effect
Jan 17th 2015 | The Economist| Anonymous.

How does one make the most of a networking opportunity, whether it is in a charming village in the Swiss Alps or in the conference hall of a soulless hotel next to a motorway? The first principle for would-be networkers is to abandon all shame. Be flagrant in your pursuit of the powerful and the soon-to-be-powerful, and when you have their attention, praise them to the skies...But shamelessness needs to be balanced with subtlety. Pretend to disagree with your interlocutor before coming around to his point of view; that gives him a sense of mastery. Discover similar interests or experiences. Go out of your way to ask for help. Lending a helping hand allows a powerful person to exercise his power while also burnishing his self-esteem....The second principle is that you must have something to say. Success comes from having a well-stocked mind, not just a well-thumbed Rolodex....Go to the main sessions and ask sensible questions. Reward the self-styled “thought leaders” in each session by adding them to your Twitter “follow” list....The third principle is that you need to work hard at networking. Swot up in advance on the most important people who will be at an event. If you manage to meet them, follow up with an e-mail and a suggestion to meet again...successful networkers must be calculating, ruthless and shameless, they do better when they somehow make it all seem spontaneous, accidental even (Sprezzaturra)...One of the best guidebooks on this subject, by Keith Ferrazzi, is called “Never Eat Alone”.
howto  Communicating_&_Connecting  networking  shamelessness  Davos  conferences  preparation  WEF_Davos  WEF  books  Keith_Ferrazzi  asking_for_help  first_principle  disagreements  soulless 
january 2015 by jerryking
Lunch with the FT: Jeremy King - FT.com
September 26, 2014 | FT | By Susie Boyt.

“Great restaurants should not define things, they should be the catalyst for things to happen.”...The thought that goes into his establishments, King tells me is, designed to create atmosphere and possibilities, leaving star billing to the diner. ...What, I ask him, is the secret of such a longstanding partnership?
“I always think the secret of a great relationship is [that] when one of the pair asserts an opinion and the other disagrees, the other examines and looks for the virtue in the person’s argument before looking for the downside.”
restaurants  restauranteurs  hospitality  hotels  partnerships  disagreements  argumentation  dining 
september 2014 by jerryking
Kelly: Sports scribes take themselves seriously at their own peril - The Globe and Mail
CATHAL KELLY
The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Jul. 28 2014

Hitchens was a very good writer, but he was a truly great debater. He thought in logical arcs. He was ruthless. Most of all, he was preternaturally articulate.

Regardless of whether you were his target, it was very nearly a physical pleasure listening to him talk....There is a species of this debate that can be fun to take part in or listen to. Reasoned, friendly, inflected with humour and – crucially – the knowledge that none of this is actually very important. A good sports argument is the sort you have with a friend and, eventually, agree to disagree over.

A while ago, someone on the broadcast side of this business asked me how I would change sports radio if I could. I said I’d make it a little more thoughtful and a lot less angry. I think I mentioned This American Life. He looked at me with the sad solicitousness we reserve for the simple-minded....This is the ne plus ultra of where we’ve been heading – a culture of sports argumentation so divisive and compulsively contrarian, it no longer has anything to do with sports. It has no idea what it’s about. Its only requirements are brute force and volume.
agreeably_disagree  Christopher_Hitchens  sports  journalists  journalism  Cathal_Kelly  disagreements  argumentation  divisiveness  sports_journalism 
july 2014 by jerryking
Chemistry In The War Cabinet
Jan 27, 2002 | Newsweek and The Daily Beast

Rice plays down her role as a mere "coordinator," but Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, a sometime participant in the war cabinet, says she is much more. "She's really talented at dealing with people who are not timid about voicing their opinions, at coaxing us in a way that isn't grating," says O'Neill, who is known for his outspokenness. "Strong personalities don't have to clash--they can reinforce each other," says Rice. "The hard thing is when you have people who won't say what they think." Rice does not always shoot for consensus. "She will know when we're not going to agree," says O'Neill. "She'll say, 'Let's sharpen the debate, put it on paper, and let the boss decide'.
Condeleeza_Rice  disagreements  cabinets  people_skills  APNSA  consensus  White_House 
july 2012 by jerryking
Bad at Complying? You Might Just Be A Very Bad Listener
September 25, 2007 | WSJ |By JARED SANDBERG.

understand the limitations of your listening skills. Bad listeners tend to tune out dry subjects, get into arguments, fake attention, react to emotional words and daydream. (Wow, do humans actually drink from that encrusted water tower on the building across the street?)

While allegedly listening, bad listeners often are rehearsing what they're about to say, grab every conversational opening and scout for flaws in an argument.

By the end of the first day, you're not simply looking at a second day of course work but a long, slow rehabilitation.

The trick to listening better begins with readiness to listen, which, concedes instructor Jennifer Grau, isn't easy in an age of interruption abetted by call waiting and instant messages. It also helps a lot if you can set your judgments aside....the task of listening to understand rather than simply to reply has three key elements: Involved silence (eye contact, vocal encouragements), probes (supportive inquiry using questions like "what" as opposed to the aggressive "why") and paraphrasing ("What I think you said is..."). That last step shouldn't simply be spitting back what people say, but integrating information about the speaker's attitudes and feelings, 55% of which is communicated nonverbally in body language (only 7% of feelings are communicated with words, Ms. Grau says).

When you consider that these skills are culled from a longer list (awareness, attending, perceiving, etc.) it's clear that listening takes an awful lot of time, which few of us have.

"Efficiency and politeness are inversely correlated,"
listening  Communicating_&_Connecting  soft_skills  interruptions  silence  open_mind  nonverbal  body_language  people_skills  disagreements  argumentation 
june 2012 by jerryking
Teaching High School Students Applied Logical Reasoning
2009 | Journal of Information Technology Education Volume 8,
Innovations in Practice | Dan Bouhnik and Yahel Giat

The rapid changes in information technology in recent years have rendered current high school
curricula unable to cope with student needs. In consequence, students do not possess the proper
skills required in today’s information era. Specifically, many students lack the skills to search
efficiently for information. Moreover, even when abundant information is available to them, students
are unable to critically read, analyze, and evaluate it.
To address these problems we developed a high school course designed to provide students with
applied logical tools. The course was developed for two different student groups: social sciencesoriented
students and exact sciences-oriented students. It is composed of several parts whose contents
depend on the students’ orientation. This course is part of a broader program whose purpose
is a comprehensive study and understanding of logical and concept-based systems....Thus, instead of utilizing this abundant information to produce better informed students, we often find that students are unable to distinguish true from false, separate fact from fiction, identify the underlying motives, and reach sound and reasoned opinions
agreeably_disagree  argumentation  commoditization_of_information  critical_thinking  decision_making  disagreements  education  high_schools  information_overload  Junior_Achievement  life_skills  logic_&_reasoning  rapid_change  rhetoric  students 
november 2011 by jerryking
Why conversation is as important to a marriage as sex ProQuest
Nov 26, 2005. Globe & Mail. Judith Timson. Family
therapists have a keen sense of how pivotal everyday low-key
conversation is to a good marriage, they can sense when a husband and
wife still respect and listen to what the other says..."sex is very
important, but that mutual respect for your mate and what they think is
the most important. You don't have to agree on things -- as a matter of
fact, I think good conversation often comes from the disagreement,"
family therapist Diane Moody says...Psychiatrist Cathi Borsook, says
conversation "is perhaps the major way couples find closeness with each
other." If conversation doesn't happen, even on a banal and casual
basis, there's little intimacy on any level...adds therapist Diane
Moody, " good conversation is an adventure and you have to plan it a
little by reading and thinking. In that way, I can see that it can be
compared to sex -- it takes good communication, a wish to please, some
planning and some creativity to keep it alive."
ProQuest  Judith_Timson  conversations  Communicating_&_Connecting  respect  listening  marriage  relationships  intimacy  disagreements  low-key 
june 2011 by jerryking
Unlearning 101: Study Carneades
July 09, 2008 | unlearning 101 | by Jack Uldrich. " I say that
I’m not entitled to have an opinion on this subject unless I can state
the argument against my position better than the people who support it. I
think only when I’ve reached that state am I qualified to speak.” "
F. Scott Fitzgerald who once said: “The test of a first rate mind is the
ability to hold two diametrically opposed ideas at the same time and
still function.”"
critical_thinking  history  philosophy  skepticism  strategic_thinking  Nassim_Taleb  opposing_actions  books  incompatibilities  Greek  Stoics  dual-consciousness  disagreements  F._Scott_Fitzgerald 
february 2010 by jerryking
Seth's Blog: How to lose an argument online
Posted by Seth Godin on November 23, 2009. Instead of arguing,
Seth advocates the following: "Earn a reputation. Have a conversation.
Ask questions. Describe possible outcomes of a point of view. Make
connections. Give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Align
objectives then describe a better outcome. Show up. Smile."
Seth_Godin  debates  howto  grace  reputation  conversations  questions  options  Communicating_&_Connecting  following_up  disagreements  argumentation  personal_branding 
december 2009 by jerryking
40 ideas we need now -- Unlearning the tyranny of facts
Nov. 2006 | This Magazine | DAVID NAYLOR. Engage in critical
thinking. Pinpoint flaws in logic, dissect rhetorical flourishes away
from the core of an argument, examine issues from different perspectives
and differentiate science from pseudo-science...We are still very
focused on facts—arrayed in patterns, conveyed passively, or uncovered
more or less predictably through cookbook experimentation and
unchallenging exploration. That emphasis seems incongruous. With
computers able to store and search vast amounts of information, facts
are cheap [JCK:the Web is really a source of "external knowledge"]...What might the next generation of learners do instead of
memorizing facts, you ask? Among other things, they could read and play
music. Play more sports. Write prose and poetry. Acquire a skeptic’s
toolkit of sound reasoning skills. Debate highly-charged issues and
learn the lost art of rational and respectful discourse. Study
inspirational biographies, not to memorize facts, but to promote
understanding of how one might lead a more meaningful life.

[From my own note: the presence of facts does not mean that the truth is present. The "truth" is a more complicated thing than mere facts alone]
agreeably_disagree  argumentation  biographies  commoditization_of_information  critical_thinking  David_Naylor  disagreements  external_knowledge  facts  ideas  infoliteracy  inspiration  logic_&_reasoning  poetry  public_discourse  rhetoric  skepticism  sports  uToronto 
may 2009 by jerryking

Copy this bookmark:





to read