Talk:Learning Learning/Parable 2/Bites
There were some comments inserted into this article on September 4 2006 by an anonymous vandal. I have relocated them here where it's appropriate
Additional bite 1
(in reference to learning a language being nearly impossible without teachers who can speak the language):
(Comment: Oh, please! Lots of people learned Latin from books. Still do.)
Rebuttal (Sinewalker 23:39, 5 December 2007 (EST)): “Lots of people” study Latin from books, yes. Little of them learn it. Still fewer enjoy it or apply it. Most important: none would be able to apply the learning of Latin towards learning other languages. There is no Learning learning in a book-based training, and precious little in instructive learning either.
Additional bite 2
(at end, in reference to nothing in particular on the article):
(Comment: here's a bite for you -- substitute "cocaine" for "writing" in your parable, and see what you get. Or "whole language"...)
Rebuttal (Sinewalker 23:39, 5 December 2007 (EST)): This is just a silly argument, because the scenario that Foobar teachers could concieve that cocaine is somehow productive towards education is patently ridiculous. Perhaps substituting “LSD” would make a humorous rendition of the parable, but it would be equally ill-considered.
I think the implication here of substituting “pencil and paper” for “cocaine” is that the commenter is alluding to computers being as dangerous to the user as cocaine is. This allegation can be soundly rebutted by Papert's published works at least. Additionally would the commenter submit that computers are also dangerous in society at large (whether developed or developing?) I can't imagine any way that this comment should be taken seriously.