Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!lll-lcc!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!maestro!fransvo
From: fransvo@maestro.htsa.aha.nl (Frans van Otten)
Newsgroups: sci.lang,comp.cog-eng,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Effects of poor writing? (Long)
Message-ID: <876@maestro.htsa.aha.nl>
Date: 3 May 89 13:49:36 GMT
References: <39131@bbn.COM> <1982@trantor.harris-atd.com> <2947@tank.uchicago.edu> <17158@mimsy.UUCP> <2970@tank.uchicago.edu> <2880@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Reply-To: fransvo@htsa.UUCP (Frans van Otten)
Followup-To: sci.lang
Organization: AHA-TMF (Technical Institute), Amsterdam The Netherlands
Lines: 20
Xref: utzoo sci.lang:4439 comp.cog-eng:1076 sci.psychology:1774

Gilbert Cockton writes:

>Wayne's "knowledge" is "school knowledge" - book knowledge presented in
>a bookish way for regurgitation in a bookish manner.
>
>Richards "knowledge" is "action knowledge" - common sense knowledge
>gleaned from active interaction in a rich social and physical
>environment.

Basically, I agree with Gilbert (for once :-).  But I do have one
objection:  You imply that "book knowledge" can't become "action
knowledge" without the active interaction in a rich etc. environment.
I don't think this is entirely true.  I believe that "book knowledge"
can become "action knowledge"...  What else would "book knowledge"
be good for ?
-- 
	Frans van Otten
	Algemene Hogeschool Amsterdam
	Technische en Maritieme Faculteit
	fransvo@htsa.uucp