[IAEP] versus, not

[Edward Cherlin]

On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 2:31 AM, Albert Cahalan <acahalan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Around here
> it often seems I'm the only person willing to accept that the
> independently reviewed evidence favors Direct Instruction. It's
> like some kind of idealistic reality denial is going on.

By no means, Albert. You are the only person insisting that DI works,
and everything else doesn't. It's like some kind of Nominalist reality
denial is going on. ^_^

You argue in precisely the manner of the British ship captain who
conducted the _second_ clinical trial of orange juice against scurvy,
after the successful first trial. He had the juice boiled down "to
concentrate the active ingredient" (thus decomposing all of the
Vitamin C/ascorbic acid). His vigorous use of his tainted study held
back adoption of citrus in the British Navy for years, and killed a
significant number of sailors. The fact that _you_ don't know how to
use a method fails to make that method worthless.

DI works up to a point for appropriate subject matter. The point at
which it fails to work adequately, regardless of subject matter, is in
the development of the learner's ability to learn without further
instruction.
-- 
Silent Thunder (默雷/धर्ममेघशब्दगर्ज/دھرممیگھشبدگر ج) is my name
And Children are my nation.
The Cosmos is my dwelling place, The Truth my destination.
http://earthtreasury.org/worknet (Edward Mokurai Cherlin)