Re(2): beeeeutifully said, Genevieve

Gordon Wells (gwells who-is-at oise.utoronto.ca)
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 22:14:16 -0400

The trouble with the thesis that one needs 'background knowledge' is that,
when this knowledge is taught as such, it is quickly forgotten. In fact,
I wouldn't even call it knowledge- but merely free-floating information.

Of course you can't reason or problem solve without relevant
("background") facts. Usually, one has some of the relevant facts at one's
disposal. But it's almost always necessary to gather more information in
order to proceed with the inquiry or problem. However, it seems to me that
it is at this moment - when one has a real interest in thefacts - that one
is most likely to remember what one learned and to convert it into
knowledge. Learning facts for the sake of learning them is rarely
successful; they are forgotten almost as quickly as they were learned -
UNLESS they are put to some use in relation to a question or problem one
has a real interest in.

Gordon Wells
OISE/University of Toronto