On Monday, April 29, 1996 7:55 PM, William J. Hobler, =
Jr.[SMTP:bhobler@cpcug.org] wrote:
>Replying to LO7029 --
(RE: A global possibility ... LO7052)
snipped to one line taken (purposively) out of context:
>
>Not an easy task to get cloth merchants to relate to OO.
Do we (as teachers and as learners) need to get cloth mechants (among =
which I sometimes consult) to relate to OO or do we need to get OO to =
relate to cloth merchants? Is it important that people know the name of =
a field of knowledge or the field itself? Does a psychiatrist say "I'm =
now going to put you through a series of associative tests" during a =
conversation with a new acquaintance, when the point of the conversation =
is to find out which mental models they may share? Does a carpenter =
need to know the derivation of the English measuring system in order to =
use it? =20
And yet, the OO methodologies are derived from the subset of human =
perceptions & intellections based on the mechanics of language as =
extrapolated by mathematics and logic.
--John Zavacki The Wolff Group 900 James Avenue Scranton, PA 18510 Phone: 717-346-1218 Fax: 717-346-1388 jzavacki@epix.net
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>