/edu/ - Education

Education, Literature, History, Science

catalog
Mode: Thread
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


Comrade 04/27/2020 (Mon) 06:51:53 No. 1360 [Reply] [Last]
My problem focuses on history and humanities, but I guess it could apply to other subjects. How do you guys "use" sources? How should leftists approach primary and secondary sources when studying or debating? How should we approach anticommunist ones? How do you make sure sources are correct? For example: Say you have 2 books on the Russian revolution, the first one is more left wing and the second is more anticommunist. How do you prove who's right and wrong? What do you do if the two books contradict each other? Sorry if that's too many questions, but I have a lot of doubts when it comes to learning from books and using them for debates.
>>1360 >How do you guys "use" sources? By quoting them in the text, referring to them, and then listing them in the bibliography. The key here is to be true to the sources. It is bad historic writing to use a source that does not say what you want it to say, but pretend like it does. >How should leftists approach primary and secondary sources when studying or debating? Critically. >How should we approach anticommunist ones? Even more critically. >How do you make sure sources are correct? You don't. You can never know something for sure, but corroborating sources are usually a good sign. When reading historical works you have to be aware that a lot of it is conjecture. Not made up, but kind of pieced together to make sense, often by generalising what we know of the time. Like for example you can say a particular Consul in 50 CE Rome had a bath in his house without having evidence of that Consul having a bath, but having evidence that rich people in Consuls in Rome in 50 CE generally had a bath. >Say you have 2 books on the Russian revolution, the first one is more left wing and the second is more anticommunist. How do you prove who's right and wrong? You don't "prove" anything, but you can do two things: 1) attack the book you disagree with, which can be anything from attacking the sources, criticising the way the author uses sources, criticise the author himself (ad hominem, despite its bad rep is a legit argument, e.g. Ancient aliens guy has no business speaking about aliens cause he has a bachelor in communication, not history or something relevant); 2) find sources that corroborate an opposing view. >What do you do if the two books contradict each other?

Message too long. Click here to view full text.

>>1361 Much appreciated, comrade!

/cybersoc/ critical edition Comrade 04/15/2020 (Wed) 07:28:15 No. 1063 [Reply] [Last]
ITT we post links and pdfs to critical or constructive takes on Cockshott and cybersocialism, as well as works or authors who wrote in the fields of cybernetics, systems theory, or operational research in general. >>>/leftypol/438911 >>>/leftypol/438923 >>>/edu/850
14 posts and 10 images omitted.
>>1078 >>1079 >>1080 Lit! /edu/ is a pretty slow board so I think we should be able to keep it alive.
>>1077 I think there are a couple different takes you could have on that. I don't exactly think Cockshott's framing is coherent as it relates to that question, and I'm not really sure if he fully grasps what democratic centralism means, at least as I understand it. MLs will probably disagree with me, but I think there is a distinction between centralization as it relates to the vanguard, and centralization as it relates to the state that he is missing. This gets into a major sectarian issue in interpreting Lenin: is democratic centralism meant strictly for the vanguard, or is it also a principle that the workers state is supposed to follow? Or put a different way, is the vanguard supposed to retain control of the workers state after the revolution? I think this distinction between vanguard and workers state is important, but some might not agree. Whether you read Cockshott's conception of centralization as coherent or not is going to depend on that to a large degree.
>>1063 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-96kJSFFVI A scientific defense of the LTV. I am skeptical of his model of planning, but for this alone he is extremely based IMO.
bump more pls
>>1345 I'll see if I can find something interesting. The project that inspired this thread is on the backburner rn in favor of >>882 but it is broadly related so I'll be contributing more to this thread in the future

(57.26 KB 616x440 MarkFisher-616x440.jpg)
Western Marxism Comrade 04/18/2020 (Sat) 23:09:09 No. 1170 [Reply] [Last]
What are some essential western Marxist works? Which work(s) would you classify as your favourite(s)
16 posts and 3 images omitted.
(924.69 KB 1577x2541 91rHVIJMOIL.jpg)
>>1170 Anybody have any thoughts on this? Seems really neat just to get a different perspective. The way it reconciles marxist thought and the individual seems fascinating. http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/critique1313/10-13/
>>1181 I guess being head of the Italian Communist party doesn't count.
>>1229 >He claims that they seek to draw a distinction between the theory of Marx and that of Engels. Lukacs points out some differences between Marx and Engels in History and Class Consciousness (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/), for example: >The statements of Marx and Engels on this point could hardly be more explicit. “Dialectics thereby reduced itself to the science of the general laws of motion – both in the external world and in the thought of man – two sets of laws which are identical in substance” (Engels). [5] Marx formulated it even more precisely. “In the study of economic categories, as in the case of every historical and social science, it must be borne in mind that ... the categories are therefore but forms of being, conditions of existence ....” [6] If this meaning of dialectical method is obscured, dialectics must inevitably begin to look like a superfluous additive, a mere ornament of Marxist ‘sociology’ or ‘economics’. Even worse, it will appear as an obstacle to the ‘sober’, ‘impartial’ study of the ‘facts’, as an empty construct in whose name Marxism does violence to the facts. <end notes: 6. _A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy_ , (my italics). It is of the first importance to realise that the method is limited here to the realms of history and society. The misunderstandings that arise from Engels’ account of dialectics can in the main be put down to the fact that Engels – following Hegel’s mistaken lead – extended the method to apply also to nature. However, the crucial determinants of dialectics – the interaction of subject and object, the unity of theory and practice, the historical changes in the reality underlying the categories as the root cause of changes in thought, etc. – are absent from our knowledge of nature. Unfortunately it is not possible to undertake a detailed analysis of these questions here. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm) The other work I see mentioned (although I haven't read it) is Marx and Engels: The Intellectual Relationship by Terrell Carver. I couldn't find a PDF of the book, but I have attached a review that should give you enough info to decide whether you want to read it or not. For what it's worth, it seems that Carver is somewhat of an Engels scholar. He published a book called Engels Before Marx this year (https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030423704). Other than that I found a paper called Engels as Interpreter of Marx's Economics, by Christopher J. Arthur: >This paper is concerned with Engels's work on Marx's critique of political economy. As is the case in general, Engels was originally taken as a reliable guide to Marx's work in this area; but the claim has been made that Engels's views as a commentator and popularizer are to be rejected, and that, in the editorial work Engels did on Marx's Capital, he abused (consciously or unconsciously) the trust Marx placed in him as the literary executor of the Marxian legacy. While the main interest of the paper lies in its consideration of Engels's interpretation of Marx's method, I shall first consider the charges pertaining to his work as Marx's literary executor. >Before considering such charges it is worth noting that the habit of taking Marx and Engels as one person is so deeply ingrained from earlier times2 that traces of it survived in places until very recently. As a prime example of this tradition let us take the well-known textbook by M.C. Howard and J.E. King on The political economy of Marx, which appeared in 1975. Treating of what they assume is Marx's 'logical-historical method', they give passages as if they quote from Marx (e.g. 'in history ... development as a whole proceeds from the most simple to the most complex relations') when the passages in question are really the work of Engels!3 They are from a review Engels wrote in 1859 of Marx's Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. (I deal with it extensively below.) (attached)
>>1290 Thank you anon! I will be taking a look at those.

(18.78 KB 477x413 left-center-right.jpeg)
What DEFINES left-wing, centrist and right-wing Communism? Comrade 04/14/2020 (Tue) 16:24:42 No. 1043 [Reply] [Last]
I hear Deng and Bukharin be described as right-wing, Stalin as center, Bordiga as left -- but then where the fuck would people like Lenin, Trotsky, Mao and Cockshott fit in to this? Lenin had a big shift in positions (before vs after the revolution), Trotsky was clearly very similar to Lenin in positions after, but he often gets called "left" by Stalinists. Mao clearly was more sympathetic to Stalin than either Trotsky or post-Stalin right-wing revisionists, yet he is occasionally slandered as "ultra-left" (which is ridiculous), and then Cockshott went through "ML" (centrist, I suppose) parties, get kicked out for "ultra-leftism" and subsequently writes his seminal work TANS, including a critique of the scrapping of soviet cybernetics in the USSR, bourgeois elements of democratic centralism, and proposes to move towards communism immediately via the DotP through the revolutionary utilization of cybernetics instead of any market mechanisms (market mechanisms seemingly being supported by both right-wing and centrist Communists). To me, intuitively, it sounds like Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin and Mao, in hindsight, had more in common than they were willing to admit (all "centrists", but how would one divide them into center-left-, center and center-right?), while Cockshott clearly drifted left (toward Bordiga). I may be missing something, That's why I want to open it up for collective discussion with you all here on /edu/.
22 posts omitted.
>>1201 Oh okay, excuse me.
Add Wolff next to Tito.
>>1193 Theorists and people who've never been in power shouldn't be on this list.
>>1193 Kim Il Sung: center-c Jong Il and Jong Un: center-r Laos: right
>>1193 Raul Castro and Khrushchev are more like center-r. They did not shift towards privatization as much as Gorbachev and Deng did.

/lit/ Comrade 04/12/2020 (Sun) 10:02:55 No. 808 [Reply] [Last]
What is your favorite book? What book influenced you the most? What do you like about books? what are you planning to read? What are you reading now? Saw this in /hobby/ but thought it fit more here
14 posts and 3 images omitted.
>What is your favorite book? Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said - Philip K. Dick or Lolita - Nabokov >What book influenced you the most? La región más transparente (Where the Air Is Clear) - Carlos Fuentes and Noticias del Imperio (News From the Empire) - Fernando del Paso >What do you like about books? The designs on the covers and how they smell. They can also make you look interesting, ngl >what are you planning to read? The U.S.A. Trilogy from Dos Pasos, some Magic Realism from Latin America and also any book on Alienation >What are you reading now? Revolutionaries for the Right, by Kyle Burke, it's about the internationalism from the Right that emerged in order the combat the "Communist Menace", it connects some dots and offers insight on how local conflicts and agendas ended up transforming the Cold War
>>808 >What is your favorite book? Harry Potter and the Order of Phoenix >What book influenced you the most? Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone >What do you like about books? They're great to be seen with in public. >what are you planning to read? The Fault in Our Stars >What are you reading now? Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, for like the fifth time!!
>>1312 What are the classics in magic realism? I remember having a conversation with a Chilean about South American literature and how there was none before the 80s or something, it must be interesting to read.
>>1313 Based
(634.85 KB spindler1993.pdf)
>>1315 The Reign From This World - Alejo Carpentier One Hundred Years of Solitude - García Márquez Pedro Páramo - Juan Rulfo The term is somewhat old, check the article if you're interested in its history

Prussian Language Luge Ushqimi 04/24/2020 (Fri) 13:17:18 No. 1317 [Reply] [Last]
So I wrote a pdf, on the reconstructed language of old Prussian. This language is actually going through a revival, from what I could gather. Since last year I found a YouTube channel where a family from Lithuania speak this language in a daily basis, and even their daughters speak it. So I got the dictionary of the language, read some posts on their facebook page, and listened to their speech. This pdf is mostly an overview of the language, I am not a linguistic or anything like that, I am just a random guy who likes languages. So I wanted to post it somewhere, and I decided to post it here first, I think that there are some people here that would be interested in this. The YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqhLH_SLh3apNZjSruEXZMg The dictionary https://wirdeins.twanksta.org/ A site with good resources https://bila.twanksta.org/

(132.84 KB 656x820 BestKorea.jpg)
Comrade 04/24/2020 (Fri) 01:59:37 No. 1311 [Reply] [Last]
https://maozhuyigongchandang.wordpress.com/2020/04/23/%E5%85%9A%E5%91%98%E6%9C%88%E6%8A%A5-party-members-monthly-13/ >Soon after the founding of the People’s Republic of China, Chairman Mao’s policies of improving sanitation and medical access led to a population boom that was previously inconceivable due to wars, famine and disease. Some people were worried that such a large population would be difficult for China to handle, in response to them, Chairman Mao declared: >> “It is a very good thing that China has a big population. Even if China’s population multiplies many times, she is fully capable of finding a solution; the solution is production. Of all things in the world, people are the most precious. Under the leadership of the Communist Party, as long as there are people, every kind of miracle can be performed. We believe that revolution can change everything and that before long there will arise a new China with a big population and a great wealth of products, where life will be abundant and culture will flourish.” >Mao taught us that China’s expanding population was a good thing, and that population control was a tool used by imperialist powers to weaken the rising states. Subsequently, import of contraceptives was banned, birth control was increasingly condemned. A few years into this campaign, China saw a large hike in population growth, in 1955, some areas briefly re-allowed birth control, but fortunately this was curbed by the Great Leap Forward, in 1958. According to the secretary of Communist Youth League Hu Yaobang: >> “A larger population means greater manpower, the force of 600 million liberated people is tens of thousands of times stronger than a nuclear explosion. Such a force is capable of creating wonders which our enemies cannot even imagine. Facts since the Great Leap Forwards movement have sufficiently proved this point.” Thoughts? Does quantity truly have a quality all of it's own?
There’s a great advantage in quantity, but at the end of the day, don’t you think it really comes down to the value of life? It seems that the more important thing Mao said was “Of all things in the world, people are the most precious.” Sure, the high population is great for production, soldiers etc, but what Mao really wants is life to be abundant and culture to flourish

(17.37 KB 474x346 christiananarchism.jpeg)
Comrade 04/22/2020 (Wed) 23:12:22 No. 1282 [Reply] [Last]
Educate me on weapons
>>1282 you can die from them
>>1284 sounds dangerous

(34.61 KB 778x519 458176297304^^23.jpg)
What is consciousness? Comrade 04/06/2020 (Mon) 00:36:25 No. 400 [Reply] [Last]
.
72 posts and 7 images omitted.
>>1176 I can see your points, to address them is not an easy task, but I will try. In my opinion, in the history of Marxist movement, Stalin by intuition is the one who arrived closest to the true dialectics, because he never let the abstract control him, but stayed with the concrete reality. However it necessary to remember Stalin can only see what historical conditions allow him to see. The first problem is the concept of contradiction, what is it and when to realise the situation is in contradiction or not. We use the word "contradiction", because it is a relic of Hegel, for that he posited an absolute being with contradiction and from that generate a whole world (he was really a mad genius!), but as materialists and practitioners, we must identify contradiction in reality, when it's in contradiction, when it's not. It's not an easy problem, so I think I need to carefully research it before saying anything. Most of the time, contradiction is hidden or even not forming yet. In thought, and in social science, now it's easy to identify contradiction, but how about nature? Diamat, from the existence of contradiction in thought, proceed to assume the existence of contradiction in nature. Why? Because Diamat holds the position that nothing is totally special, if there are contradictions in thought and thought is also a part of nature as other matters, then contradictions also must exist in others too. To find contradiction in nature, it is the job of practical engineering and science (I also list engineering, because most of the time, engineering is ahead of science), Diamat cannot do this job. However, without Diamat, the practitioners cannot identify the contradiction, because his philosophy forbids the existence of contradiction (metaphysics of non-contradiction). In modern history, Marx was the first one to success, as a social scientist, to identify the fundamental contradiction of our current society. To identify contradiction in nature, it's necessary to have enough data of its history, of which we are woefully lacking. The second problem is about laws. What's law and its role in the world? Law is a governing principle for which matter must obey. But it is really true? Are Diamat laws something invincible, something cannot be violate? No, not true, but Diamat forbids that itself! So allow me formulate a really heretic thought, which I think even Engels, Plekhanov, Stalin and many other Marxist scientists somehow intuitively arrived at, but didn't dare to/or clearly expressed: There is no such thing as concrete eternal law in nature. Every law must come into being from some basis, and disappear when its basis disappears. It's not Law that controls Matter in Motion, but Matter in Motion develops and expressed itself in form of Law. If there is a law, then there must be somewhere in universe this law doesn't hold, and sometime in the history this law didn't come into being yet. NO EXCEPTION. EVEN DIAMAT in concrete form. It's the development of nature, the development of material conditions that gives born to laws. Laws can influence, but cannot turn themselves against their material conditions. So the true eternal laws must contain in itself all aspects of nature, both positive and negative. If "Nature Connected and Determined", then there is also an implication "Nature Independently Divided". If "Nature is a State of Continuous Motion and Change", there is also an implication "Nature is a Static and Unchanging". If "Natural Quantitative Change Leads to Qualitative Change", then also "Natural Quantitative Change Does Not Lead to Qualitative Change". If "Contradictions Inherent in Nature", then also "Nature Does Not Contradict Itself". And so on... But such eternal laws have no power over anything, don't predict anything, they are nothing but empty laws, for what Hegel correctly recognised, Absolute Being is Absolute Nothing. However, those laws are still useful, as they remind us of the true reality, that questions of cognition cannot be solved by speculation alone, but necessary by real, practical action. Let take for an example, Newton's 1st Law: "An object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force" contain a hidden side to it, because there always exists environment, there always exist external forces, therefore "An object cannot remain at rest or in uniform motion, unless there is no environment." To recognise which side will apply, is the problem of actual research, which Newton's 1st Law cannot do for us, but only illuminate the way. I know at least one scientist is aware of this hidden side, and he had his own reformulation of Newton's 1st Law. Or for example, the law of universal gravitation. If by someday, we discover the underlying material mechanism and conditions of this law, then we can finally drop the prefix "universal" and can find a way to escape the phenomenon of gravity. But this again, is a problem of engineering and practical science and not pure thought. On the other points, which you talk about the importance of scientific method, and the criticism of Strong Emergence in the science of dynamic system, belong to the realm of concrete knowledge, so this I dare not to comment if I don't research them carefully, so I need sometime to prepare. In that time, could also clarify why you are against Strong Emergence and also the philosophy of Scientific Method?
>>1200 Thank you for the response. I will give a more in depth response once I have completed my study of Stalin's text. As a point of clarification, I do not believe in Strong Emergence, but I do believe in the scientific method as outlined by Karl Popper in "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (pdf attached). I think it is worth critiquing Popper since his work is a product of the bourgeois system of academia in which he operated within, but I do believe that most of the assertions in this book hold true at least up until the last two chapters. His book "The Open Society and It's Enemies" not so much, although that is worth reading. I will leave you with a quote from the general introduction of Anti-Duhring that I think is worth considering as it relates to your points about Dialectical Materialism and to laws of motion. >The perception of the fundamental contradiction in German idealism led necessarily back to materialism, but, nota bene, not to the simply metaphysical, exclusively mechanical materialism of the eighteenth century. In contrast to the naively revolutionary, simple rejection of all previous history, modern materialism sees in the latter the process of evolution of humanity, it being its task to discover the laws of motion thereof. With the French of the eighteenth century, and with Hegel, the conception obtained of nature as a whole, moving in narrow circles, and forever immutable, with its eternal celestial bodies, as Newton, and unalterable organic species, as Linnaeus, taught. Modern materialism embraces the more recent discoveries of natural science, according to which nature also has its history in time, the celestial bodies, like the organic species that, under favourable conditions, people them, being born and perishing. And even if nature, as a whole, must still be said to move in recurrent cycles, these cycles assume infinitely larger dimensions. In both cases modern materialism is essentially dialectic, and no longer needs any philosophy standing above the other sciences. As soon as each special science is bound to make clear its position in the great totality of things and of our knowledge of things, a special science dealing with this totality is superfluous. That which still survives, independently, of all earlier philosophy is the science of thought and its laws — formal logic and dialectics. Everything else is subsumed in the positive science of nature and history.
(59.05 KB 904x1360 s3e4rftgz.jpeg)
>>402 >video Danielle Dannets view is not is not out on a limb, and he does not deny consciousness experience, he just says that the way we think about it based on a perceptual illusion. >>404 >I think this question is what ultimately makes materialism nonviable. There is no good way to answer it from a materialist framework that I have found. No you are utterly wrong, you consciousness has physical effects on the world, for example you have a conscious experience of feeling thirsty and as a result you go get something to drink. This means that your consciousness experience is in part a cause for the glass of water being moved towards your mouth, and water flowing into it. The water that is being moved around is physical. All physical results must have physical causes. Hence consciousness must be physical, or else you claiming that physical phenomena have non-physical causes , which means that you are denying literally all of science, and are basically postulating that the world is moved by supernatural forces. In case of you trying to retreat to a position where consciousness is this extra bit that is magical but not interacting with the material world to avoid breaking physical causes for physical phenomena, you are basically denying any connection to the brain activity because that is all physical phenomena, and have reduce consciousness to a passenger audience from the movie Being John Malkovich: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpZknAZxSjU.
>>1244 >consciousness has an effect on matter >somehow this means that we have a materialist explanation for consciousness You're either not arguing in good faith or you didn't read my post carefully enough.
(407.89 KB 1038x519 policenaut.gif)
>>1244 >>1244 >No you are utterly wrong, you consciousness has physical effects on the world, for example you have a conscious experience of feeling thirsty and as a result you go get something to drink. You act like there are no steps in between. Why do you think I place such emphasis on will? >This means that your consciousness experience is in part a cause for the glass of water being moved towards your mouth, and water flowing into it. Wrong! Correlation does no imply causation. You are perfectly capable of feeling thirsty and not drinking water, so it is absurd to say that feeling thirsty is what caused you to drink the water. You may have been motivated to drink the water by the sensation of feeling thirsty, but it was ultimately an act of volition. Also note that sensation and consciousness are not the same thing. One is the subject of the other. >All physical results must have physical causes. Maybe, but this claim is unfalsifiable which is my whole point. There are physical results for which we do not know whether or not they have a physical cause, and to say that they MUST have a physical cause is simply taking materialism as an article of faith. No matter how many attempts to find the physical cause of consciousness fail, you can always say we just haven't found it yet. Emergence ever retreating. My claim on the other hand (that consciousness DOES NOT have a physical cause) IS falsifiable, because as soon as we find a physical cause for it then my claim will be falsified. >In case of you trying to retreat to a position where consciousness is this extra bit that is magical but not interacting with the material world to avoid breaking physical causes for physical phenomena, you are basically denying any connection to the brain activity because that is all physical phenomena, and have reduce consciousness to a passenger audience from the movie Being John Malkovich No, that position is called dualism. I think that matter itself can ultimately be explained in terms of something more akin to consciousness, but NOT the other way around.

(3.17 MB 7016x9921 nadezhda.png)
Comrade 04/16/2020 (Thu) 03:38:55 No. 1095 [Reply] [Last]
Does someone have to be skilled/proficient in a subject in order for their teachings to be taken seriously? Can you be mediocre, or even bad at something, but great at teaching it? Should you listen to someone of a low skill level in that subject? Does this answer vary among subject matters? Like do you have to be a good artist to be able to teach art? Do you have to be proficient in writing to be able to teach that? This is a continuation of the drawing thread I derailed on /hobby/: >>>/hobby/8436
5 posts and 2 images omitted.
>>1104 Based. Tank you anon.
>>1095 Knowing the formal rules, though processes, steps to take, fundamental principles conciously is not the same as being able to apply those things on autopilot. The former makes a good teacher, being able to explain exactly why and how, through concious effort, the latter makes a skilled person. You can have the former without the latter or vice versa. Often people who are very skilled have internalised the rules to such an extend they cannot seperate the rules from the whole and are thus unable to teach. Also often the people with the theoretical knowledge spend most of their time formalising those rules than applying them in day to day work, and as such aren't as skilled. So no you don't have to be a good mathematician to teach maths, you don't need to be a good programmer to teach coding. Being a good programmer is applying all those rules instinctively, quickly, without effort, you have to feel instinctually that a piece of logic is "not nice". But teaching requires the ability to apply all these steps conciously, out loud, step by step, formally, not quickly. Same for a mathematician, same for an artist, same for any job. Skill is not neccecarily knowledge and knowledge is not neccecarily skill.
>>1107 Does everything have to be explicitly said for the student to learn? You can learn a lot about good programming by carefully reading good programs, you can learn a great deal about dancing by carefully watching experts dance. In workplaces a good deal of training is often done simply by observing more experienced colleagues working.
>>1110 You can learn by trying to decipher what makes other works good but that is not what you pay a teacher for. It takes many times longer to get a feel for good code, and even then it's total bs to think you can learn good code from experience alone. Good code is build on strict principles, database designs have hyper formalised definitions to ensure it meets all qualities of good design. Solid dry and other quasi buzzwords have to be explicitly taught in order to be applied, even if the programmer later forgets which of the 20 buzzwords made him consider that choice. You could try to learn to draw or learn to code just by watching other people draw or other people code, but in reality that is not what happens. In businesses were programming happens, new colleagues are corrected with explicit mentions about why a certain choice is better than others. When drawing, or any other skill, trying to decipher the reason behind a choice will just lead you to 20 wrong ends. The total accumulated decisions obscure the reasoning and in trying to immitate it you end up with people who exhibit cargo cult mentality. Just look at people who for no reason try to apply certain coding patterns everywhere because "he saw someone else do it" or all the artists drawing horrible shaded drawings because "they saw other artists put in highlights". You can't learn well from just observing the end result. You have to know the reasons for all choices, so you know why it's there, so you know when to break the rules. That is what a teacher is for.
>>1171 Relational databases have well-understood mathematical properties but even those can't tell what a good database design is, only pinpoint some obviously bad ones. For example, you can calculate how much redundancy you store, but some extra redundancy may actually be desirable to speed up critical queries. It's not as black and white as you make it to be. There are some similar metrics for code but I don't think anyone actually makes use of them, since blind conformance to metrics is a sure way to ruin your code. Programs are written to be read, not to satisfy "cyclomatic complexity" targets. Design patterns are a good counterexample, because often they are taught to be a silver bullet for good programming when in fact they are not. They are just common solutions to common problems. Students will mindlessly try to apply them to every problem they come across even when there is a much better solution, because they were taught that this is what they should be doing. I never heard of this actually happening because "they saw someone else doing it", like you claim, but I can recall many cases where they did it because they were taught to. Maybe in drawing it is different, but I am sceptical. The problem with teachers is that they become the sole arbiters of what is considered good/desirable/acceptable and thus rob the student of their confidence in their own judgements. In industry if every code review you give ends up in a small lecture of coding practices, there's a good chance your poor colleague will forever remain a junior programmer because you don't even give them the chance to explain their reasoning. Anyway, they are going to learn a lot more from reviewing your code than from your code reviews. > You can't learn well from just observing the end result. Experience says otherwise.

Delete
Report

no cookies?