colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (12/28/84)
> I once had a store clerk who was going to ADD the dimensions of a > mirror to compute the square footage. Is this guy going to be help by > a computer? Only if it makes him realise the beauty and import of math, > science, literature, philosophy, history and the like. These are the > essentials of life, without which no man can claim to be wise. > Computers are tools to aid in the solution of problems, tools which > can, it is true, unlock the mind. But a mind which can not concieve of > problems, can not formulate problems, can not research a problem to > determine if it has been solved, can not debate about problems --- that > is not a mind which needs a computer. This is a shallow view of education. Do computer programmers care about the "beauty and import[ance] of math, science, literature ..."? Not more than other people. Computer programming is a _basic_ skill -- it does not require a knowledge of calculus, or number bases, or even the multi- plication table. It has nothing to do with literature and philosophy, except for making their existing forms obsolete. And it's condescending to speak of a tool as "unlocking the mind." Every tool _alters_ the mind. Machines made men slow, specialized, and repetitive; computers are making men quick, versatile, and intuitive. In a word, computers are programming people. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (12/28/84)
> > English majors would best be served learning word processing and things like > > the Writer's Work Bench. But they need more. > > No more than they previously needed courses in typing and bookbinding. > This notion of universal computer literacy is receiving rather more > support than it deserves. I agree. If computers are going to replace books, we should be teaching not prose style but computer graphics. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
macrakis@harvard.ARPA (Stavros Macrakis) (12/29/84)
> > [Computers in education are useful for illuminatiing] math, science, > > literature, philosophy, history.... These are the essentials.... > > Computers are tools to aid in the solution of problems... > This is a shallow [!!??] view of education. Do computer programmers > care about the "beauty and import[ance] [incorrect correction by Sicherman] > of math, science, literature ..."? Not more than other people. Then we are to evaluate the sciences and humanities by how much they help in training programmers? Who cares whether programmers care more about the humanities and sciences than do others? The question is the place of computers in secondary education, not the place of secondary schools in training programmers. > Computer programming is a _basic_ skill -- it does not require a > knowledge of calculus, .... Surely "basic" means more than "not having advanced prerequisites"? It has something to do with its general importance. > It has nothing to do with literature and philosophy, except for making > their existing forms obsolete. The insights provided through computers have made little obsolete, although of course they contribute to other fields. The computational model is one useful model among many, and surely at some level of education deserves to be presented to at least some students. But I would be reticent to encourage high-schoolers to base their philosophy on their Basic programming assignments. > And it's condescending to speak of a tool as "unlocking the mind." > Every tool _alters_ the mind. Machines made men slow, specialized, and > repetitive; computers are making men quick, versatile, and intuitive. > In a word, computers are programming people. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman Perhaps this is an example of the depth of philosophical discourse we can expect from the post-computer man: vast utopian generalizations with no coherent arguments and no suggestive evidence. Thanks, but I'll try to keep my mind from being altered by computers (Sicherman's, at least). - Stavros Macrakis
macrakis@harvard.ARPA (Stavros Macrakis) (12/29/84)
> I agree. If computers are going to replace books, we should be teaching not > prose style but computer graphics. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman Yes, and we should speak in (bitmap) pictures not words, and we should burn Shakespeare and digitize Picasso.
scooper@brl-tgr.ARPA (Stephan Cooper ) (12/30/84)
Computer science is not an essential at the high school level. True, it is an aid for those wishing to pursue into a field in which computer literacy is essential, however, the basis behind computer science is what needs to be stressed more. Programming (not the actual coding, but the thought process behind it) requires a sense of logical progression and organized thinking, does it not? The act of learning a specific language is irrelevent at the high school level, or anywhere else. That's the EASY part. The importance of programming comes in the efficient thought processes in problem solving. Aren't these the very essentials supposedly stressed in high school English (a good course, anyway) and ALL Mathematics? The course of programming in high school is a waste unless the concepts behind EFFICIENT progamming are stressed. I have seen many high school students too worried about getting their programs in on time, or what the syntax for a FOR-NEXT loop is, rather than understanding how these things work, and WHY they are used, and how they make the process efficient. Overall, this whole arguement is rather bogus. I think we all agree that it is the logic and organized thought processes that are important, not how to print "My name is Johnny" in 19 different computer languages. -Steve
mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (12/31/84)
> > I agree. If computers are going to replace books, we should be teaching not > > prose style but computer graphics. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman > > Yes, and we should speak in (bitmap) pictures not words, and we should > burn Shakespeare and digitize Picasso. Well seriously, we are at the start of a transition in communications technology. It wasn't very long ago that European culture was transformed by the printing press, there were undoubtedly people who argued against the introduction of that machine. In fact, we seem to have entirely lost our oral literary tradition, except perhaps for jokes. Perhaps our ancestors should have struggled against the introduction of writting altogether. Give the kids computers.
grunwald@uiucdcsb.UUCP (01/03/85)
"Giving the kids computers" when what the kids really want is a video-game is hardly going to solve the problems of the decline of social and intellectual skills in this country. My previous note, quoted by the Col., and his response to it, illustrate much of what I mean. I hope that the responses were tounge-in-cheek, although I doubt that they were. Computer people often commit great acts of hubris by thinking that their media will change the world. However, a world where people can talk to people at the other end of the globe at 10Mhz and yet lack sufficient skills or depth to say anything meaningful -- whatta Utopia! The example I cited, the person adding dimensions to produce area does not illustrate need a computer. Perhaps he could have used one to inspire him to learn about math when he was in school. Perhaps this is true, but that's a far cry from needing to know how to program. However, the main argument reduces to: In a school which has some available resources (money), should these resources be spent on reinforcing and extending basic skills or should they be used to start a program in some new field. Computers in education are tres trendy right now. Knowing how to locate the U.S. on the map is not trendy, and yet something like 20% of sixth graders can not locate their own country on maps. Usually, the maps are made in the U.S. and thus display the nationalistic tendency to have the U.S. be right in the middle. Under their noses. I assume that the school posting the original question has a well balanced program in the humanities. If they don't, they should shunt the money from the technophiles to the other departments to provide some dramatic illustration to the little tykes that the world is a big place and the more you know about all of it (not just machines), the more useful you are to the world and the world to you. Without such a proper education, the person who wishes to harness technology does not have the moral & ethical background to question their own work, nor do they have the broad awareness needed to apply their technological toys to the solution of problems. Which, after all, is one reason technology is developed in the first place.
kevin@lasspvax.UUCP (Kevin Saunders) (01/03/85)
>> Yes, and we should speak in (bitmap) pictures not words, and we should >> burn Shakespeare and digitize Picasso. > >Well seriously, we are at the start of a transition in communications >technology. > >It wasn't very long ago that European culture was transformed by the >printing press, there were undoubtedly people who argued against >the introduction of that machine. Just in case anyone wants to read the classic argument for this position, try _The Gutenberg Galaxy_ by Marshall McLuhan. The thread of the argument is difficult to follow--hell, it's not a thread, it's a *fabric*--but you can certainly draw some interesting conclusions about probable future events by extending McLuhan's logic. The basic point of the book is one that everyone should agree with: in order to rationally chart our future course, we have to understand the effects of commmunications technology on the way individuals think and interact in society. Kevin Eric Saunders lasspvax.kevin@cornell.arpa
jona@clyde.UUCP (Jon Allingham) (01/04/85)
> Yes, and we should speak in (bitmap) pictures not words, and we should > burn Shakespeare and digitize Picasso. We're well on our way. I have several digitized pictures by Picasso and they are actually quite good. Jon A. -- Jon M. Allingham (201)386-3466 AT&T Bell Laboratories-WH "Beam me up Scotty, no intelligent life down here!"
marie@harvard.ARPA (Marie desJardins) (01/07/85)
> > I once had a store clerk who was going to ADD the dimensions of a > > mirror to compute the square footage. Is this guy going to be help by > > a computer? Only if it makes him realise the beauty and import of math, > > science, literature, philosophy, history and the like. These are the > > essentials of life, without which no man can claim to be wise. > > This is a shallow view of education. Do computer programmers care about > the "beauty and import[ance] of math, science, literature ..."? Not more > than other people. Computer programming is a _basic_ skill -- it does > not require a knowledge of calculus, or number bases, or even the multi- > plication table... Yeah, but if this store clerk writes a simple program to calculate the area of a rectangle by adding the lengths of the sides together, he hasn't accomplished much, even if he can get the program to work. In other words, what *useful* computer programming requires is a grasp of what approach to take to solve a problem. Marie desJardins marie@harvard
mr@hou2h.UUCP (M.RINDSBERG) (01/08/85)
There is a difference between programming and computer science !!!!
== Mark