5 ms·

I welcome opposing opinions but this itself doesn't present both sides of the argument, nor any context to the one example given, and sounds to me purely like a

by hnhg 15y ago

I welcome opposing opinions but this itself doesn't present both sides of the argument, nor any context to the one example given, and sounds to me purely like a bashing exercise.

jordanb 15y ago
I wouldn't expect an article named "The Dangerous Mr Kahn" to spend much type discussing the upside of the Kahn Academy. Going into it, it's obvious that it is an advocacy piece written by someone who's not thrilled with Mr Kahn's work. The OP's point is that hn is a discussion forum, which is most effective when the discussions are somewhat balanced. But since the Kahn Academy is a darling of this forum, this article is here just to be knocked down, and anyone not joining in is likely to be downvoted. That makes hn less valuable.
alain94040 15y ago
Seeing how the comments on this thread were so divided, I read the article, and I support the view that it's a criticism that is worth considering, even though it's not highly convincing. You can argue that covering WWII to Vietnam in 15 minutes is just mission impossible. But the way it's described in that article does raise concerns.
chaostheory 15y ago
> sounds to me purely like a bashing exercise. For the record, I like the Khan Academy and they do a lot of good; but I still think that's really unfair to say that given that the article brings up a really important point (regardless of its style of writing): Khan Academy history lessons are so abbreviated, that key, important points and figures in history are skipped. Why is this not good? One of the major key reasons we study history is so that major mistakes of the past are not repeated in the present or future. Now this is an extreme example that no Khan like outlet actually does, but what if they skipped over Jim Crowe laws in their history of the US? Going on somewhat of a tangent, reading this article reminds me of this TED talk about filter bubbles. http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bu... Essentially Khan Academy and other ventures like it, may be inadvertently creating dangerous filter bubbles.
- ThomPete 15y ago
  "One of the major key reasons we study history is so that major mistakes of the past are not repeated in the present or future." And yet we learn nothing from history even when we know what is considered factual. The things we learn from history that are important become implicit part of our culture, our DNA not our curriculum.
  - chaostheory 15y ago
    > The things we learn from history that are important become part of our culture, not our curriculum. How does it become part of our culture if it's not part of our curriculum? Given my own personal tastes (when I was a child), I would have skipped everything in history except for WWI, and WWII. Even with WWI and WWII, I probably would have only focused on the battles and not the social issues if given the chance. I wouldn't have learned about things like the Trail of Tears, the Japanese Internment camps in Hawaii, and so on.
    - ThomPete 15y ago
      And many people don't learn about those things because they are brought up in difference cultures. But to claim that some history books are better than others is just wrong. (I know you are not claiming that) You will naturally learn your countries history albeit not to the point where you can become a history professor but it's not the end of the world. History is perspective it can't be anything but perspective. There is no right or wrong teaching in history. Only survivors to tell the tales.
      - chaostheory 15y ago
        > You will naturally learn your countries history albeit not to the point where you can become a history professor How? Through video game blockbusters like Call of Duty or summer movie hits like Saving Private Ryan?
        ThomPete 15y ago
tptacek 15y ago
It is not the obligation of every article and every essay and every editorial to carefully present both sides of every argument. Sometimes, it's sufficient to carefully present your side of a new argument, just to stimulate discussion. I disagree with Josh that this thread demonstrates HN groupthink (I actually found the comments to be pretty well balanced). But your comment demonstrates a fallacy that is very prevalent on HN, which is that every bit of source material has to be judged in HN's context, and anything that isn't suitably lawyered up and deferential is automatically faulty. The world is a pretty boring place when it provides nothing to stimulate your thoughts and, yes, disagree vehemently with.

by hnhg 15y ago

I welcome opposing opinions but this itself doesn't present both sides of the argument, nor any context to the one example given, and sounds to me purely like a bashing exercise.

jordanb 15y ago

I wouldn't expect an article named "The Dangerous Mr Kahn" to spend much type discussing the upside of the Kahn Academy. Going into it, it's obvious that it is an advocacy piece written by someone who's not thrilled with Mr Kahn's work. The OP's point is that hn is a discussion forum, which is most effective when the discussions are somewhat balanced. But since the Kahn Academy is a darling of this forum, this article is here just to be knocked down, and anyone not joining in is likely to be downvoted. That makes hn less valuable.

alain94040 15y ago

Seeing how the comments on this thread were so divided, I read the article, and I support the view that it's a criticism that is worth considering, even though it's not highly convincing. You can argue that covering WWII to Vietnam in 15 minutes is just mission impossible. But the way it's described in that article does raise concerns.

chaostheory 15y ago

> sounds to me purely like a bashing exercise. For the record, I like the Khan Academy and they do a lot of good; but I still think that's really unfair to say that given that the article brings up a really important point (regardless of its style of writing): Khan Academy history lessons are so abbreviated, that key, important points and figures in history are skipped. Why is this not good? One of the major key reasons we study history is so that major mistakes of the past are not repeated in the present or future. Now this is an extreme example that no Khan like outlet actually does, but what if they skipped over Jim Crowe laws in their history of the US? Going on somewhat of a tangent, reading this article reminds me of this TED talk about filter bubbles. http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bu... Essentially Khan Academy and other ventures like it, may be inadvertently creating dangerous filter bubbles.

ThomPete 15y ago
"One of the major key reasons we study history is so that major mistakes of the past are not repeated in the present or future." And yet we learn nothing from history even when we know what is considered factual. The things we learn from history that are important become implicit part of our culture, our DNA not our curriculum.
- chaostheory 15y ago
  > The things we learn from history that are important become part of our culture, not our curriculum. How does it become part of our culture if it's not part of our curriculum? Given my own personal tastes (when I was a child), I would have skipped everything in history except for WWI, and WWII. Even with WWI and WWII, I probably would have only focused on the battles and not the social issues if given the chance. I wouldn't have learned about things like the Trail of Tears, the Japanese Internment camps in Hawaii, and so on.
  - ThomPete 15y ago
    And many people don't learn about those things because they are brought up in difference cultures. But to claim that some history books are better than others is just wrong. (I know you are not claiming that) You will naturally learn your countries history albeit not to the point where you can become a history professor but it's not the end of the world. History is perspective it can't be anything but perspective. There is no right or wrong teaching in history. Only survivors to tell the tales.
    - chaostheory 15y ago
      > You will naturally learn your countries history albeit not to the point where you can become a history professor How? Through video game blockbusters like Call of Duty or summer movie hits like Saving Private Ryan?
      - ThomPete 15y ago

tptacek 15y ago

It is not the obligation of every article and every essay and every editorial to carefully present both sides of every argument. Sometimes, it's sufficient to carefully present your side of a new argument, just to stimulate discussion. I disagree with Josh that this thread demonstrates HN groupthink (I actually found the comments to be pretty well balanced). But your comment demonstrates a fallacy that is very prevalent on HN, which is that every bit of source material has to be judged in HN's context, and anything that isn't suitably lawyered up and deferential is automatically faulty. The world is a pretty boring place when it provides nothing to stimulate your thoughts and, yes, disagree vehemently with.