Constructionism (was Re: XP on OLPC - a contrarian view)
echerlin at gmail.com
Fri May 30 06:20:19 EDT 2008
On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 3:47 AM, Edward Cherlin <echerlin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 5:38 PM, Edward Cherlin <echerlin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Sorry, people can't learn Constructionism simply by reading.
>>> That is simply appalling. The words that come to my mind are:
>>> nonsense, unlearnable, faith-based, bullshit, and excuses
>> I'm sorry, I have no idea from this farrago of insults what your
>> actual objection is. If you don't understand what I said, you can ask
>> for clarification. If you think you do understand but you disagree,
>> you can state your case. But this is unacceptable.
> I couldn't find a less offensive way to describe my opinion of
> the idea that the concept is both valid and unlearnable by reading.
Nonsense. You just did. But you appear to have wished to express
something other than an opinion, apparently because I offended you.
> I wish I could have done better.
I don't get it. Vast multitudes of topics are valid but unlearnable by
reading alone. Playing music, or any sport. The nature of color, if
you are blind, or sound, if you are deaf. The importance of civil
rights. The beauty of mathematics. Skills, sensations, and values,
more generally. Among other things.
End Poverty at a Profit by teaching children business
"The best way to predict the future is to invent it."--Alan Kay
More information about the Devel