Xref: utzoo comp.edu:2493 sci.edu:669 comp.cog-eng:1334
Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!sce!heraclitus!rayt
From: rayt@heraclitus.UUCP (R.)
Newsgroups: comp.edu,sci.edu,comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: What to know
Keywords: renaissance, knowledge, learning, effort
Message-ID: <7025@heraclitus.UUCP>
Date: 9 Sep 89 00:24:39 GMT
References: <5266@tank.uchicago.edu> <496@sunfs3.camex.uucp>
Reply-To: rayt@cognos.UUCP (R.)
Followup-To: comp.edu
Organization: Cognos Inc., Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 73

In article <496@sunfs3.camex.uucp> Kent Borg comments:

	[A number of points I agree with omitted]

>It is a red herring that many so-called teachers substitute the drilling
>of facts for teaching.  Rote learning is a largely distructive teaching
>technique which only works by a side effect: People are very bad at memorizing
>facts (compare them to computers to see how easy it is to out-memorize a
>person). Rote learning only works when the poor student attempts to cope
>with a volume of facts by trying to understand them. ... Spending much effort
>on memorizing has always been a waste, the availability of enormous online
>databases makes that even more true.

I agree with this to a point: rote learning _does_ have a place, however,
when one is trying to convey context and technique. The learning of a language
is a good example; you noted earlier that having a dictionary does not imply
having language use, but neither does theoretical grammatical knowledge do
any good without a vocabulary. Taking this somewhat further, _both_ of these
are still insufficient to become proficient in a language: reading widely and/or
listening to _competent_ speakers is the basis for developing a comparable
facility; a process that can be accelerated by the _memorization_ of passages
and the clear enunciation of text while reading aloud. Language is sound, tempo,
rhythm, in short, context. There is no real way that this can be assimilated
_without_ rote practice.
 
>Well, the renaissance is over, but I say that it is now *easier* to be
>multifaceted.  Two reasons:
>
>	=One, the infrastructure is so much better, there are
>	 reasonable libraries nearly everywhere in the developed
>	 world, these libraries are full of explanations of how the
>	 universe works.  (And National Public Radio is available in
>	 nearly all the US...)
>	=Two, many of these explanations are much simpler and more
>	 powerful than were their counterparts during the renaissance.

Again, I largely agree, but would like to qualify it somewhat: while the
renaissance _did_ involve a significant amount of new scientific investigation,
its main emphasis was upon the rediscovery of ancient Greek (and Roman) _art_.
A renaissance man like Leonardo Da Vinci, for example, played and composed
music, painted, sculptured, carried on innovative investigations in various
sciences, and was also a notable political entity. Granted, one can still do
this today, but it should be noted that he was on the leading edge in _all_
these activities: one can be more thoroughly multifaceted today, and the level
of scientific comprehension which we would classify as mediocre far outstrips
his understanding, but the ability to be on the leading edge in a constellation
of activities I consider to be lost. This, however, is not a repudiation of the
notion of a renaissance man, only an indication of what the term _must_ mean
to have relevance today.

>Does that mean you can't still do better than that poor Renaissance Man?
>No, learning is easier now.

Here we diverge considerably. Learning was only one aspect of the renaissance;
what characterized it most thoroughly, however, was the _activity_: the drive
toward personal excellence. I doubt very much that this has become easier since
we still deal the the same substratum - the biological organism. We may
accomplish more with less effort, but that is not the point; the point of
comparison is to determine what can be _achieved_ with the same effort; whether
we are _willing_ to exert the same effort.

							R.

P.S. Rene Descartes believed that if he could procure a couple of intelligent
     assistants, the _totality_ of scientific knowledge could be determined
     (under his direction) in his lifetime. This was only slightly post-
     renaissance, and it highlights the level of understanding that was
     available.
-- 
Ray Tigg                          |  Cognos Incorporated
                                  |  P.O. Box 9707
(613) 738-1338 x5013              |  3755 Riverside Dr.
UUCP: rayt@cognos.uucp            |  Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1G 3Z4