From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sun Jun 01 2003 - 10:20:45 MDT
Brett Paatsch wrote,
> Almost certainly. But a problem with this sort of discussion
> is that those that really understand this stuff well are probably
> grinding their teeth at the oversimplification and errors and yet
> if we don't try and popularise this stuff in ways that make
> sense to non-experts we don't learn. (Apologies to all
> teeth grinders).
It is a poor method of teaching that deliberately teaches erroneous facts
because it is easier than teaching the truth. If we start spreading
erroneous sound-bites that sound good instead of real science, then we
become a pseudo-science. I have been disappointed at how much pseudoscience
I had seen on this list, but I didn't realize that some people thought this
was a good thing. Maybe this explains why so much of the "science" I read
on this list is crap. People are learning the "simplified" versions, and
building theories and future plans on them, never realizing that they are
not dealing with reality.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jun 01 2003 - 10:34:36 MDT