Re: what is understanding

[LUDWIK KOWALSKI <kowalskil@alpha.montclair.edu>]

On 11 Jul 1997 Keith Tipton <kctipton@tenet.edu> wrote:

> > Ok, a reference to a lagrangian would leave highschoolers in the dust,
> > but what about context clues?  In some situations one can generally
> > understand, if an article is well-written, what an unknown term
> > generally means. In an actual conversation, however, one can always ask
> > for clarification without slowing the conversation to a halt.  I think
> > understanding, in this situation, depends on the persistence of the
> > person trying to understand.

Some people were trained "never to push that button" without knowing what
the consequences would be. They have a hard time with computers where the 
"try it and learn from what you see" attitude prevails. In the same way 
some people were trained not to accept scientific knowledge without 
understanding. They usually have a hard time in situations in which vague 
terms are used instead of clear-cut justifications (experimental, logical, 
axiomatic). 

A lagrangian in the text of an explanation, or a reference to a gluon
should, ideally, cause a highschooler to suspend the process of reading 
and direct him to further studying. In real life we do take shortcuts 
(accepting some science without understanding) but this is nothing to be 
proud about. Do you agree? 

Yes, understanding does depend on the persistence of people trying to 
make sense of information. Long reasoning chains should be recognized
as obstacles to understanding. Teaching should reward students with the 
pleasure of understanding as often as possible. The nearly instant 
gratification can be useful, sometimes. 
                                                   Ludwik Kowalski