Replying to LO29857 --
Dear Don:
Don Dwiggins wrote:
>Mark wrote:
>
>>Declaring that there are many possible descriptions of such
>>systems may be true, but it still tells us nothing about which one, or
>>ones, Peter in fact had in mind. Thus, I am still left wondering about
>>this, and am also left incapable of judging the suitability or potential
>>effectiveness of his approach.
>
>It may be useful to know what Peter had in mind (perhaps Rick can lure him
>here to tell us!), but neither necessary nor sufficient for each of us to
>determine how much and which parts, if any, of his approach to adopt.
>That responsibility lies with us, unless we simply want to be accolytes
>and accept the Received Word.
It may not be necessary or sufficient, as you say, but it certainly is
reasonable and prudent. That is precisely how I suggest we avoid falling
prey to the 'Received Word' logic of truth. All I ask is that we have a
theory of how the system of interest to us purportedly works. Then I can
judge the potential suitability of the proposed means of improving its
performance. This is not too much to ask, I think. It may there, I just
don't see it. Do you? If so, what is it? Tell us.
>Definitely, question Peter (and others who have followed similar
>approaches) about the successes and failures of the practice, and let his
>(their) answers be your guide in deciding on your own approach.
Sorry, not good enough. I don't think it's too much to ask that a theory
of practice be tied to a corresponding theory of how a target system
purportedly works and how, therefore, a proposed body of practice, which
is aimed at it, should be seen as effective. Else, how are we supposed to
tell the difference between intended outcomes and (unintended)
coincidental outcomes? Absent that, we're left with guesswork. Is that
our standard of practice here?
>>The underlying theory of practice is, by definition, incomplete.
>
>And will remain so, until it's no longer useful. (Which doesn't imply
>that it's not a good idea to have a theory -- just be sure to keep it
>watered and fed with nutrients from experience. Once it stops growing, it
>won't be good for much. For even better results, plant it near other
>theories so they can cross-fertilize and give birth to vigorous hybrids.)
Come on Don, what theory? I'm asking what it is, not whether it needs
watering or is permanent. It's not incomplete, it's missing. Water what?
What is it?
Regards,
Mark
--"Mark W. McElroy" <mmcelroy@vermontel.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.