Re: Real world issue:- OT recreational interval
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:17:25 GMT
Message-ID: <p3iPg.21769$9u.255559_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
> The two are not antagonistic; in fact they are actually synergistic.
> Education and creativity reinforce each other.
>
>
>
> Widespread adoption of this technique would lead to every
> generation trying to reinvent everything that came before.
> It is directly counter to human progress.
>
>
>
> How would you know, if you hadn't studied the others?
> How would you even know how to compare different
> wheels if you only knew your own?
>
> This common idea is actually the fable the ignorant
> tell themselves to justify their lack of education.
>
>
>
>
> The greatest scientists reject this idea. The greatest artists
> likewise.
>
> Do you think any of the great computer scientists practiced
> ignorance? Just about every advance in CS I can think of
> was made by someone with a PhD. About the only exception
> to that rule is Robin Milner, who only had an undergraduate
> degree but did spend much of his adult life in academia.
>
> Andrew Wyeth's father made sure his son was extensively tutored
> in painting, drawing, and illustration. A reported once asked him
> if we wasn't afraid that all those classes might kill talent. His
> father replied, "If that had killed it, it deserved to be killed."
>
>
>
> Really, the only thing ignorance is fundamental to is in knowing
> less than the educated.
>
>
>
> I am glad that you recognize this, and I look forward to your
> realization that your attraction to ignorance was a severe mistake.
>
> Although actually I don't see any way you could realize that
> it's a mistake until you had tried it both ways. Why don't
> you?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:17:25 GMT
Message-ID: <p3iPg.21769$9u.255559_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Marshall wrote:
> pamelafluente_at_libero.it wrote:
>
>> In all my life, my constant inclination was to be *creative* instead >>of to be "learnitive".
>
> The two are not antagonistic; in fact they are actually synergistic.
> Education and creativity reinforce each other.
>
>
>>I always preferred to create my wheel instead of >>studying the others'.
>
> Widespread adoption of this technique would lead to every
> generation trying to reinvent everything that came before.
> It is directly counter to human progress.
>
>
>>And sometimes, it even turns out that my wheel run >>better than the existing ones.
>
> How would you know, if you hadn't studied the others?
> How would you even know how to compare different
> wheels if you only knew your own?
>
> This common idea is actually the fable the ignorant
> tell themselves to justify their lack of education.
>
>
>>Actually, I do think, seriously, that some (clearly "relative") >>ignorance [...] >>is fundamental be be able to give original contributions [...]
>
>
> The greatest scientists reject this idea. The greatest artists
> likewise.
>
> Do you think any of the great computer scientists practiced
> ignorance? Just about every advance in CS I can think of
> was made by someone with a PhD. About the only exception
> to that rule is Robin Milner, who only had an undergraduate
> degree but did spend much of his adult life in academia.
>
> Andrew Wyeth's father made sure his son was extensively tutored
> in painting, drawing, and illustration. A reported once asked him
> if we wasn't afraid that all those classes might kill talent. His
> father replied, "If that had killed it, it deserved to be killed."
>
>
>> "Ignorance" is, in my opinion, a fundamental ingredient for real >>originality.
>
> Really, the only thing ignorance is fundamental to is in knowing
> less than the educated.
>
>
>>Courage to be wrong and humility to recognize when you are, are >>essential to grow.
>
> I am glad that you recognize this, and I look forward to your
> realization that your attraction to ignorance was a severe mistake.
>
> Although actually I don't see any way you could realize that
> it's a mistake until you had tried it both ways. Why don't
> you?
Marshall, your reply to Pamela was persuasively worded yet has two fatal flaws:
- The willfully ignorant like Pamela have the necessary arrogance to hide from their errors behind the shield of their ignorance. You allowed her to confuse cowardice with courage and hubris with humility without any direct challenge to the absurdity.
- No argument will ever persuade anyone whose psychosis suffices in the first place to confuse cowardice with courage or hubris with humility.