That's a... special way of interpreting that. Although it goes against every notion of reason and common sense that I am accustomed to, let me give your reasoning a try, as well. Clearly you would ban all non-fiction from schools, on the offhand chance that, one day, they might not grow up to be engineers.
I didn’t say that, and you know perfectly well that I didn’t. Explain to me again how giving engineering texts to a first-grader is going to help him learn to read.
Now, can we put aside the red herrings, or will you insist on an intellectual race to the bottom?
It seems to me that all you have to contribute are red herrings, and we’re already arguing at the bottom.
Ahh, because ALL non-fiction must be unreadable. That makes perfect sense.
I didn’t say that either, and you know it perfectly well. But ‘informational texts’, within the meaning of the proposed standards, are designed to convey information to people who already know how to read at an appropriate level. They are not designed for the benefit of people who are learning to read.
I must resist the temptation to go into full-blown snark...
I see. In other words, you can’t read the article’s simple declarative sentences without imposing your own straw-man interpretations, any more than you can with mine.
I find it significant (since you are not spelling out WHY you quoted the bit you did, or what your objection to it is) that the last sentence you quoted is this: ‘This is the kind of reflection that trains citizens capable of self-government.’
You, in your insistence that the other side MUST be made to look like idiots at any cost, appear to have considered this equivalent to your own words: ‘The author of the article would have us believe that literature is the key to well-informed citizens.’
No, that is not what the sentence said, and it is not what the sentence means. Information is not reflection. ‘Well-informed’ is not the same thing as ‘capable of self-government’. The article is talking about learning to use language to grapple with philosophical questions; you are talking only about learning bodies of fact as presented. There is no congruence whatever between the two, so you might as well stop pretending that the straw man you are beating is identical with the views expressed in the article.
I didn’t say that, and you know perfectly well that I didn’t. Explain to me again how giving engineering texts to a first-grader is going to help him learn to read.
Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were just being cynical. I guess I shouldn't make that mistake again. You see, I figured you could understand that the fact that I believe that we should have, as an end goal, the ability to read complicated technical work does not imply that I think that said complicated technical works should be given to first-graders.
Either that, or you believe that I'm teaching engineering to second-grades. It may feel like that, at times, but it is not the case.
That would be like assuming that you intend to expose first-graders to Chaucer. But, unlike you, I won't make that assumption just to try to score points.
I didn’t say that either, and you know it perfectly well. But ‘informational texts’, within the meaning of the proposed standards, are designed to convey information to people who already know how to read at an appropriate level. They are not designed for the benefit of people who are learning to read.
So, if you didn't say that, then I can only assume that you are unaware of "informational texts" (also known as non-fiction) that exist on all academic levels. You have to pick one or the other. Are you being disingenuous or are you ignorant of the variety of non-fiction?
I see. In other words, you can’t read the article’s simple declarative sentences without imposing your own straw-man interpretations, any more than you can with mine.
I'm sorry that literal readings of texts are so difficult for you.
I find it significant (since you are not spelling out WHY you quoted the bit you did
Can you REALLY not figure out why I quoted it? Seriously? Maybe you should look at the discussion around it, you might see that it's a citation backing up my interpretation that the author believes that a focus on fiction "will make one a better, more informed citizen" (see, it's right up there in my original post). You might also see that it is a direct refutation to your denial that the "author of the article would have us believe that literature is the key to well-informed citizens" (see, it's right there in your response). I quoted the author, verbatim, with all context included. If you really can't figure out why I quoted it, maybe the problem is in your own literacy.
You, in your insistence that the other side MUST be made to look like idiots at any cost,
Actually, I was just disagreeing with the author. Other than to say that I believed the article was self-importance, I made no effort to make the other side look like idiots. You're the one who brought the venom.
No, that is not what the sentence said, and it is not what the sentence means. Information is not reflection. ‘Well-informed’ is not the same thing as ‘capable of self-government’. The article is talking about learning to use language to grapple with philosophical questions; you are talking only about learning bodies of fact as presented. There is no congruence whatever between the two, so you might as well stop pretending that the straw man you are beating is identical with the views expressed in the article.
You know, I could go into a big, long-winded discussion about distinctions without a difference and the relation between understanding and being well-informed (which is more than just having facts), but I would be wasting my time, wouldn't I? You complain that I'm misquoting/misinterpreting the author when I used the term "well-informed." However, you have no issues, at all, with misquoting me when you say I'm only talking about "learning bodies of fact as presented."
I love talking with people whose views differ from my own, but I loathe to waste my time on those who are not acting in good faith. I seem to have done so, here. Alas, I've come to that conclusion only after investing more time than you deserve. So I'll hit the post button (because I want something to show for the time) and then keep in mind that you deserve no further consideration. I've not enough time to waste it on the dishonest.
In some situations, where people have manifested untrustworthiness too frequently for it to be chance, and where they can do great harm, it can do a lot of good.
"But ‘informational texts’, within the meaning of the proposed standards, are designed to convey information to people who already know how to read at an appropriate level. "
Well, some of them. A good number are designed to avoid conveying info.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2013-01-04 07:32 pm (UTC)I didn’t say that, and you know perfectly well that I didn’t. Explain to me again how giving engineering texts to a first-grader is going to help him learn to read.
Now, can we put aside the red herrings, or will you insist on an intellectual race to the bottom?
It seems to me that all you have to contribute are red herrings, and we’re already arguing at the bottom.
Ahh, because ALL non-fiction must be unreadable. That makes perfect sense.
I didn’t say that either, and you know it perfectly well. But ‘informational texts’, within the meaning of the proposed standards, are designed to convey information to people who already know how to read at an appropriate level. They are not designed for the benefit of people who are learning to read.
I must resist the temptation to go into full-blown snark...
I see. In other words, you can’t read the article’s simple declarative sentences without imposing your own straw-man interpretations, any more than you can with mine.
I find it significant (since you are not spelling out WHY you quoted the bit you did, or what your objection to it is) that the last sentence you quoted is this: ‘This is the kind of reflection that trains citizens capable of self-government.’
You, in your insistence that the other side MUST be made to look like idiots at any cost, appear to have considered this equivalent to your own words: ‘The author of the article would have us believe that literature is the key to well-informed citizens.’
No, that is not what the sentence said, and it is not what the sentence means. Information is not reflection. ‘Well-informed’ is not the same thing as ‘capable of self-government’. The article is talking about learning to use language to grapple with philosophical questions; you are talking only about learning bodies of fact as presented. There is no congruence whatever between the two, so you might as well stop pretending that the straw man you are beating is identical with the views expressed in the article.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-04 08:02 pm (UTC)Actually, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were just being cynical. I guess I shouldn't make that mistake again. You see, I figured you could understand that the fact that I believe that we should have, as an end goal, the ability to read complicated technical work does not imply that I think that said complicated technical works should be given to first-graders.
Either that, or you believe that I'm teaching engineering to second-grades. It may feel like that, at times, but it is not the case.
That would be like assuming that you intend to expose first-graders to Chaucer. But, unlike you, I won't make that assumption just to try to score points.
I didn’t say that either, and you know it perfectly well. But ‘informational texts’, within the meaning of the proposed standards, are designed to convey information to people who already know how to read at an appropriate level. They are not designed for the benefit of people who are learning to read.
So, if you didn't say that, then I can only assume that you are unaware of "informational texts" (also known as non-fiction) that exist on all academic levels. You have to pick one or the other. Are you being disingenuous or are you ignorant of the variety of non-fiction?
I see. In other words, you can’t read the article’s simple declarative sentences without imposing your own straw-man interpretations, any more than you can with mine.
I'm sorry that literal readings of texts are so difficult for you.
I find it significant (since you are not spelling out WHY you quoted the bit you did
Can you REALLY not figure out why I quoted it? Seriously? Maybe you should look at the discussion around it, you might see that it's a citation backing up my interpretation that the author believes that a focus on fiction "will make one a better, more informed citizen" (see, it's right up there in my original post). You might also see that it is a direct refutation to your denial that the "author of the article would have us believe that literature is the key to well-informed citizens" (see, it's right there in your response). I quoted the author, verbatim, with all context included. If you really can't figure out why I quoted it, maybe the problem is in your own literacy.
You, in your insistence that the other side MUST be made to look like idiots at any cost,
Actually, I was just disagreeing with the author. Other than to say that I believed the article was self-importance, I made no effort to make the other side look like idiots. You're the one who brought the venom.
No, that is not what the sentence said, and it is not what the sentence means. Information is not reflection. ‘Well-informed’ is not the same thing as ‘capable of self-government’. The article is talking about learning to use language to grapple with philosophical questions; you are talking only about learning bodies of fact as presented. There is no congruence whatever between the two, so you might as well stop pretending that the straw man you are beating is identical with the views expressed in the article.
You know, I could go into a big, long-winded discussion about distinctions without a difference and the relation between understanding and being well-informed (which is more than just having facts), but I would be wasting my time, wouldn't I? You complain that I'm misquoting/misinterpreting the author when I used the term "well-informed." However, you have no issues, at all, with misquoting me when you say I'm only talking about "learning bodies of fact as presented."
I love talking with people whose views differ from my own, but I loathe to waste my time on those who are not acting in good faith. I seem to have done so, here. Alas, I've come to that conclusion only after investing more time than you deserve. So I'll hit the post button (because I want something to show for the time) and then keep in mind that you deserve no further consideration. I've not enough time to waste it on the dishonest.
no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 12:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 01:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 02:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-01-05 12:40 am (UTC)Well, some of them. A good number are designed to avoid conveying info.