Cyprus-Forum.com

[Niki]

This forum is a bit of light relief for me (apart from when GR slags me off) so I really don't feel like having to force the linear side of me out here!

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that mean "Says bad things about me" ?

Yes.

You lying cow!

NOW you've got something to complain about!

I'm not going into it, I just can't be ar**d to look back on posts!!

You big fart.

[phoenix]

The acquisition of knowledge IS understanding; think about it.

When the primary school child recites multiplication facts, e.g. 2 X 3 = 6, he has displayed knowledge. When he is capable of explaining why 2 X 3 = 6, he has displayed an understanding.

When a parrot recites "two times three equals six", does it display knowledge? . . . or merely the ability to recite?

I can teach a monkey to apply a lot of things but that doesn’t necessarily mean he understands what he is doing.

He understands that the application produces an effect.

Not necessarily.

Cheap sophistries… the world is full of them.

You're not familiar with Bloom's Taxonomy of Cognition?

Sunday supplement books for fast fodder junkies. . . .

The Three Types of Learning
There is more than one type of learning. A committee of colleges, led by Benjamin Bloom, identified three domains of educational activities:

Cognitive: mental skills (Knowledge)
Affective: growth in feelings or emotional areas (Attitude)
Psychomotor: manual or physical skills (Skills)

. . . but they don't really relate to your arguments

[Filitsa]

The acquisition of knowledge IS understanding; think about it.

When the primary school child recites multiplication facts, e.g. 2 X 3 = 6, he has displayed knowledge. When he is capable of explaining why 2 X 3 = 6, he has displayed an understanding.

When a parrot recites "two times three equals six", does it display knowledge? . . . or merely the ability to recite?

You are comparing the mental capacity of a primary school child with that of a parrot? There's something fundamentally wrong with this, Pheonix. Having mastered sequencing, addition, and subtraction, the primary school child has some previous knowledge of the dynamics of numbers before he attempts multiplication. Does the parrot?

I can teach a monkey to apply a lot of things but that doesn’t necessarily mean he understands what he is doing.

He understands that the application produces an effect.

Not necessarily.

"Pavlov's dog"

Cheap sophistries… the world is full of them.

You're not familiar with Bloom's Taxonomy of Cognition?

The Three Types of Learning
There is more than one type of learning. A committee of colleges, led by Benjamin Bloom, identified three domains of educational activities:

Cognitive: mental skills (Knowledge)
Affective: growth in feelings or emotional areas (Attitude)
Psychomotor: manual or physical skills (Skills)

. . . but they don't really relate to your arguments

Yes, it certainly did. Nevertheless, I believe the purpose of this thread ... that is before GR, the scattered thinker, broke off into a tangent, as he so often does with you in tow ... was to provoke thought on whether one is a linear or lateral thinker. Anyway, my original post simply suggested that creative thinkers can be linear thinkers too and not exclusively lateral thinkers.

[Filitsa]

Oh, Bloom's Taxonomy of Cognition – oh yes. 'Course, yer Bloom's Taxonomy of Cognition is a different class of Taxonomy all together, particularly when it's of yer Cognition. Definitely. Nice choice squire.

Filitsa . . . are you lost for words?

Yes, and the older I get, the more it happens.

[phoenix]

The acquisition of knowledge IS understanding; think about it.

When the primary school child recites multiplication facts, e.g. 2 X 3 = 6, he has displayed knowledge. When he is capable of explaining why 2 X 3 = 6, he has displayed an understanding.

When a parrot recites "two times three equals six", does it display knowledge? . . . or merely the ability to recite?

You are comparing the mental capacity of a primary school child with that of a parrot? There's something fundamentally wrong with this, Pheonix. Having mastered sequencing, addition, and subtraction, the primary school child has some previous knowledge of the dynamics of numbers before he attempts multiplication. Does the parrot?

Precisely.
This now supports the original term "acquisition of knowledge is understanding" as GR! states. Your disputation on "when a child is capable of explaining why... then he displays understanding" incorrectly fragments the two processes.
I used the parrot analogy to show the disparity between what you were saying.

I can teach a monkey to apply a lot of things but that doesn’t necessarily mean he understands what he is doing.

He understands that the application produces an effect.

Not necessarily.

"Pavlov's dog"

Filitsa please!
The experiments by Pavlov demonstrate the conditioned responses of salivation and gastric-juice production, to the sound of a bell, prior to the presentation of food.
This is a physiological response not under the cognitive control of the dogs. It is part of the "sympathetic" response.

The dogs did not "understand" what "effect" was being produced.
Only Pavlov!

Cheap sophistries… the world is full of them.

You're not familiar with Bloom's Taxonomy of Cognition?

The Three Types of Learning
There is more than one type of learning. A committee of colleges, led by Benjamin Bloom, identified three domains of educational activities:

Cognitive: mental skills (Knowledge)
Affective: growth in feelings or emotional areas (Attitude)
Psychomotor: manual or physical skills (Skills)

Sunday supplement books for fast fodder junkies. . . .

. . . but they don't really relate to your arguments

Yes, it certainly did. Nevertheless, I believe the purpose of this thread ... that is before GR, the scattered thinker, broke off into a tangent, as he so often does with you in tow ... was to provoke thought on whether one is a linear or lateral thinker. Anyway, my original post simply suggested that creative thinkers can be linear thinkers too and not exclusively lateral thinkers.

I believe that "thinking" cannot be categorized so simply. The concept of "thinking" pertains to, as far as we know, the uniqueness of Humans. It knows no boundaries and hence is forever evolving. The number of thinking processes should therefore be infinite, as are the different thoughts.

Filitsa I apologise for butting in, but your post remained unanswered, and was too tantalising to resist. I appreciate your reply.
Apologies too to GR! for my taking advantage of his absence . . . and I am sure he has his own more lucid responses to your points.

[Filitsa]

Acquisition of knowledge versus understanding. Knowledge: the teacher gives his students the definition of "paradox." The students memorize the definition. They successfully regurgitate it on a quiz the next day. Next, the teacher instructs his students to write a story that contains a paradox. Will they be as successful with this as they were on the quiz?

Regurgitating the definition proves only that the students know the definition. It has little bearing on whether or not they understand the concept of paradox. The ability to apply the concept successfully is what conveys the level of understanding.

The Parrot and Pavlov's Dog: The parrot recites and the dog responds. Both are unthinking behaviors.

I believe that "thinking" cannot be categorized so simply. The concept of "thinking" pertains to, as far as we know, the uniqueness of Humans. It knows no boundaries and hence is forever evolving. The number of thinking processes should therefore be infinite, as are the different thoughts.

Hmmm ... something to think about!

[phoenix]

Acquisition of knowledge versus understanding. Knowledge: the teacher gives his students the definition of "paradox." The students memorize the definition. They successfully regurgitate it on a quiz the next day. Next, the teacher instructs his students to write a story that contains a paradox. Will they be as successful with this as they were on the quiz?

Regurgitating the definition proves only that the students know the definition. It has little bearing on whether or not they understand the concept of paradox. The ability to apply the concept successfully is what conveys the level of understanding.

Not every error or contradiction is a paradox. Indeed your ambiguity was not "hidden" as minor reduction ad absurdum has proven.

The Parrot and Pavlov's Dog: The parrot recites and the dog responds. Both are unthinking behaviors.

Again you have failed to grasp Pavlovian conditioning but choose to parade it regardless.
Don't be so confident in labelling them "unthinking behaviours".

BTW ...... What do you get if you cross a parrot with a dog?
A walkie talkie.
(Sorry! )

I believe that "thinking" cannot be categorized so simply. The concept of "thinking" pertains to, as far as we know, the uniqueness of Humans. It knows no boundaries and hence is forever evolving. The number of thinking processes should therefore be infinite, as are the different thoughts.

Hmmm ... something to think about!

Don't waste too much time on it . . . I'll probably change my mind again.

[Get Real!]

This now supports the original term "acquisition of knowledge is understanding" as GR! states.

Thank you dear... unfortunately some people never learned how to cut corners in life let alone in thought.

Apologies too to GR! for my taking advantage of his absence . . . and I am sure he has his own more lucid responses to your points.

Be my guest, I wasn't planning on wasting anymore of my breath with Filitsa...

[Get Real!]

BTW ...... What do you get if you cross a parrot with a dog?

A Filitsa that posts someone else's lousy sophistries and thinks they’re hot.

[Filitsa]

Hmmm ... something to think about!

Don't waste too much time on it . . . I'll probably change my mind again.

I'm sure you will.