Re: [Heartlogic-dev] Re: more RE procedural adequacy?

[William L. Jarrold]

On Thu, 18 Dec 2003, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:44:35PM +0530, Joshua N Pritikin wrote:
> > It would be cool to include this just to showcase our relentless,
> > pedantic attitude.
>
> Actually I should say "Socratic attitude".  We certainly do not match
> the definition of a pedant.

Sorry for taking so long to respond to the descriptive vs explanatory
adequacey email...I don't have a good response yet but will keep
percolating...My dissertation does mention the issue.....If I have
ready any Chomskly directly it has not been much, although I have read
secondary and tertiary sources on his stuff.

Regarding our attitude, pedantic or socratic....yes,
I would agree we are probably not being pedantic and it is even
more probably that we do not WANT to be pedantic.  As for Socratic,
I thought that the Socratic style was to continually ask questions,
to teach by asking the learner questions and having the learner reason
their way to the answer.  Are we working that way?  Maybe kinda sorta.
But whatever, I think I am taking what was meant as a sorta throwaway
line of yours (or something said in passing) way to seriously.

Bill

>
> --
> A new cognitive theory of emotion, http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/aleader
>