tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26673527.post115044009552518615..comments2024-03-25T04:40:28.281-05:00Comments on Dr. Z Reflects: Blueberries . . . Soft SemanticsDr. Zhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01420546861775303616noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26673527.post-76420257447784695282015-06-30T07:27:28.028-05:002015-06-30T07:27:28.028-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26673527.post-1152142662468489182006-07-05T18:37:00.000-05:002006-07-05T18:37:00.000-05:00Gentlemen,It appears that I am a month late for th...Gentlemen,<BR/><BR/>It appears that I am a month late for this provocative discussion. I was immediately reminded as I read through the previous posts of William James’s demarcation between tender-minded and tough-minded positions. Emotional connotations aside, James’s point was to separate positions that do and do not integrate necessary consequences. <BR/><BR/>In the case of Dr. Leigh Zeitz’s statements concerning the importance of measurement: (1) measures always exist in relation to something and (2) measures measure what they measure, meaning only inferences and hope grant them any further credence. An example of something in which a measure exists in relation to is the goal to which it is assigned. A goal, however, is frequently only as good as its means. For example, if one wishes to identify success in education as “the student's ability to succeed in the world in later life” means an identification of further goals for “later life” in order to measure such success. <BR/><BR/>Confusing examples aside, the point is that when goals are identified they do not exist in a vacuum but in relation to it means of attainment, whether explicitly stated or not, and other possible necessarily related goals. In closing, one either accepts the possibility of a success-less educational system due the problems surrounding goal naming, moves on and defines “success” on individual terms based on individual criteria or refuses to accept the context dependent nature of goals (and all language, including definitions) to feel success in terms of untenable, truly “soft semantics.” It could be said, therefore, that I neither agree with nor disagree with any of the previous posts in total, but wish to enter into this lively discussion from a different point of view.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,<BR/><BR/>AEKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26673527.post-1150440201665015622006-06-16T01:43:00.000-05:002006-06-16T01:43:00.000-05:00Dear Leigh, Well put, my friend. I agree that the...Dear Leigh,<BR/> <BR/>Well put, my friend. I agree that the second definition from the dictionary (the result being the product) makes sense and, in my cumbersome way, I was waddling in that direction (while still maintaining that the pedagogy and curriculum (definition 1) are major).<BR/> <BR/>In any case, I assume we are agreed that the children, themselves, are not the "products" of schools excepting, perhaps, for those conceived there.<BR/> <BR/>Thanks for keeping the thread alive. This would make a great panel session at a conference. Are you in? Anyone else on this list wanting to play along?<BR/> <BR/>Hugs,<BR/> <BR/>DavidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com