3 ms·
That is fair, but what we're left with are many more wrong explanations, and many of these wrong explanations are not more complicated than the correct one. And
by scott_s 9y ago
That is fair, but what we're left with are many more wrong explanations, and many of these wrong explanations are not more complicated than the correct one. And my complaint is not just the wrong metaphors, but the wrong technical explanations (such as, unfortunately, the submitted one, which I explain in another comment on this thread).
- taeric 9y agoAgreed that that is problematic. I'm asserting that it is just visibly problematic. That is, without people making these posts, it is likely many people were still reaching these viewpoints. Having the update at the post that says to read the original is vital. Getting more of the "peer review" mentality in all posts is also key, provided that people don't treat their posts as immutable and actually correct things that are in need of correcting.
- scott_s 9y agoI understand your points, I'm just skeptical it means we end up with less total confusion. Particularly since I don't think most of the confused texts will be corrected, lying in wait to confuse others.
- taeric 9y agoYeah, a cornerstone of my assertion has to be that references to original works are present and that documents are updated on errors found. Two things that I grant are not always the case. I don't feel this is much different from any other pedagogical practice, though. How many of us come at "imaginary" numbers with a given metaphor that severely fails us in some understandings?
- scott_s 9y agoMy primary concern is not actually bad metaphors, but out-and-out wrong explanations (such as this one).