Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: CHAT(?): pedagogy (was: RE: [i:]=[ij]? (was Re: Pronouncing "Boreanesia"))

From:And Rosta <a.rosta@...>
Date:Sunday, November 5, 2000, 13:04
John Cowan:
> On Sat, 4 Nov 2000, And Rosta wrote: > > > But I view > > introductions to phonetics and phonology that make clear and > > principled distinction between them as an example of the latter > > approach. > > Should "make" be "fail to make"? If not, I don't get it.
Fuck. I really screwed up there, didn't I. It should be "fail to make". (Also when I'm teaching & tired I have this perturbing problem of stating propositions that are the truth conditional opposite of what I intend to say. I worry about it, but probably the students are even tireder than I am & aren't listening anyway.)
> > The apparent simplifications the blurring creates > > must inevitably lead to hopeless confusion until the pedagocial
[pedagocial? I'm turning into jack Durst]
> > ill effects have been expunged. Furthermore, if you simply say > > "Last Semester you were taught that p is the case. Now forget > > that p is the case. Now learn that q, not p, is the case", the > > students get pissed off, for various more or less good reasons. > > I think I appreciate your distinction, but how is the student supposed > to?
The student ideally shouldn't have to, if in the first place they're taught a preliminary approximation of the Right Thing.
> > I would add though, that, perhaps unlike Science students, the > > vast majority of the students I encounter are comfortable with > > the notion that some answers/analyses are true and some false, > > and with the notion that some answers/analyses are neither true > > nor false and only subjectively better or worse than one another, > > but they are deeply uncomfortable with the notion that some > > answers/analyses are false or of unknown truthvalue but > > nonetheless are objectively better and worse than one another. > > Two wisecracks from physicists, on the the theories of their students > or junior colleagues: > > "Your theory is crazy -- but not crazy enough to be true." (Nils Bohr) > > "This isn't right .... This isn't even wrong." (Wolfgang Pauli) > > > This makes it quite difficult to be upfront about the > > epistemological status of what one is teaching them. > > I have trouble with the notion of "objective" vs. "subjective" > in this context, but I can't quite articulate why. A theory > may be false but convenient -- and the convenience may be for > almost everybody, or only a few.
By "objective" I mean that there are a reasonably explicit set of criteria against which answers/analyses can be evaluated, such that the criteria rather than the evaluator determine the quality of the answer/analysis. Do you still have trouble? --And.