Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:First Access Revisited |
Posted by: | nj |
Date/Time: | 03/11/2003 07:08:30 |
Hi, Pete. You wrote: (1) "...I have no business designing applications involving it, speculating about it, or representing my "knowledge" of it to others (myself)." I disagree that you shouldn't speculate about, or represent your knowledge of, your knowledge of the disciplined know-nothing state. Rather than hold back from posting to the forum, you could follow actions (2) and (3). (2) Represent your personal knowledge, and present additional evidence you have that supports the knowledge, at the time you represent your knowledge. (3) When the source of your personal knowledge is another person's writing, make that explicit. Let your reader know that you are interpreting someone else's writing. Then, after quoting what you will interpret, and after stating your interpretations of the quote, personally evaluate the propositions in your interpretations. The evidence you present when you perform action (2), the evidence for your personal knowledge of the know-nothing state, might support your personal knowledge of the know-nothing state. A WITW_author-evaluated interpretation of your reading from WITW might not support your personal knowledge of the know-nothing state. Gaining that personal knowlege from the authors' modeling training, rather than relying on the writing in WITW, is obviously the thing to do. Using actions (2) and (3) will let you feel better about what to write to the forum. BTW, the term "qualia" is very valuable. I looked it up. Thank you for using it in the post that I reply to with this post. -nj |