I’ve learned through a never-ending process of building mental models, proving them to be wrong, and then adjusting those models to reflect new knowledge.
Is that not the definition of learning? It sounds weird to me to explain it redundantly like this, akin to: “I’ve walked 10 steps forward through a process of my neurons firing signals which cause contractions in the muscles of my body in a particular rhythmic way”
Unfortunately this is not the case. A lot of people leave school assuming that scientific discoveries are eternal, unfailable truth that we just know to be true. Few ever understand how we acquired our knowledge and how to lewrn to understand it. Many assume you ‘just have to learn it’. Those your play around with computers or other stuff have an advantage. They know how to gain understanding not just how to learn facts.
Very nice blogpost, thank you!
But this one part really grinds my gears:
Is that not the definition of learning? It sounds weird to me to explain it redundantly like this, akin to: “I’ve walked 10 steps forward through a process of my neurons firing signals which cause contractions in the muscles of my body in a particular rhythmic way”
Or am I misunderstanding something?
Cheers
XKCD. Ten Thousand.
Do some people need to read a definition of learning to learn how learning works?
I thought the process is intuitively understood by everybody who has ever learned anything.
Unfortunately this is not the case. A lot of people leave school assuming that scientific discoveries are eternal, unfailable truth that we just know to be true. Few ever understand how we acquired our knowledge and how to lewrn to understand it. Many assume you ‘just have to learn it’. Those your play around with computers or other stuff have an advantage. They know how to gain understanding not just how to learn facts.
If that were the case, the scientific method would not exist.
deleted by creator