So far, Stephen Downes hasn’t attacked me like Batman (patrols his territory under his own power and initiative, strikes fear into the heart of wrong doers in the dead of night, and does these things with only the tools and skills he has acquired through training himself to extremely high levels) yet. While I have nothing against this man (he hasn’t even critiqued my previous blog post), I’ve decided that the best defence is a good offense. So, I will proceed to criticize the fundamental flaws in the logic of one of Stephen Downes’ articles.
Criticizing Downes’ Premises In A Hypothetical Syllogism
In relation to memorization and learning:
I agree with the validity in your argument. But your premise is completely and utterly false. I’ll show you why by plugging in an example. Keep in mind I have never taken AP Calculus before.
If one repeats and rotes, their brain will find patterns that they cannot. (If A, then B)
I repeated and roted AP Calculus for 4 minutes last night. (A)
Therefore my brain found patterns in the Calculus that I could not. (B)
Let’s be honest, that’s not true. Your statement is false for a few different reasons. First, you do not specify how long you must repeat and rote for. Secondly, you do not define what a pattern constitutes as. Thirdly, this does not apply to all scenarios.
Now Let Me Apply The Last Part Of Your Syllogism.
If your brain finds the patterns [that] you can’t find cognitively, you’ll remember. (If B, then C)
Let me tell you, I remember little of my Calculus last night, if any at all. Now, I do believe that if I had been trying harder to concentrate, understand and remember what I had been repeating, I might remember slightly more.
I think that a better way to phrase the original statement would look like this:
“That’s where practice and memorization comes in. By repeating and rote, your brain (which is a fantastic processing machine) will sometimes find the patterns you can’t find cognitively, and sometimes you’ll remember.”
Now, Let’s Do A Little Bit Of Error Analysis For Myself.
- I took this quote out of context from an article
- The article was not meant to be logically concrete, rather it was expression of ideas (I suspect)
Anyways, Stephen Downes, I don’t mean to harshly rebel against your recent comments, in fact, I don’t even suspect you are Batman in the slightest. I even think that we are a little bit alike.