Posted-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 19:40:30-020
Received-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 19:36:04 -0400
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 17:42:29 -0500
From:         vwsetzer@IME.USP.BR
Subject: Re: Computers at elementary levels
Comments: To: ETHICS-L%UGA.bitnet@lion.cce.usp.br

I am frustrated for not having enough time to answer carefully the
answers we received to my thoughts about computers in  education.
Let me answer at laeast one of them.
John F.C. wrote:

>Children make meaning and react to the world from the moment of birth;
before
>actually.  On what basis do you make the claim that they are borm
without
>mental ability?  Certainly, the constuctivists would at least dispute
that
>claim.

I was not clear enough. Certainly babies have some "mental abilities".
I
was referring to conscious thinking, specially abstract thinking.

>And if I read you correctly, you equate "using" computers" with
programming
>computers.  But the whole point of much software these days is to make
the
>rigidity of the machine more responsive to the flexibility of the
human.
>Certainly applications like Bank Street Writer can be seen to provide
children
>woith a greater power to flexibly express themselves.  Do your
arguments apply
>to such uses of the computer as well.

I wrote:
"Let us take one of the extremes in terms of abstraction: that of
learning how
to develop computer programms, as in the LOGO system."

I do not equate "using computers" with programming. But when using a
text editor, you issue commands, eventually you write macros. In this
case you are using a formal language, and doing a sort of programming.

Speaking about text editors: some months ago, I provoked quite a bit of
discussion in this list when I stated one of my lates discoveries:
Computers
induce mental undiscipline. When writing by hand or with a typewriter,
one has
to organize one's thoughts in order to write an almost definitive text,
because the possibilities of making corrections are extremely limited.
The text editor makes it possible to make all sort of corrections, so
one
does not have to exercise such discipline as before. PLEASE, I am
not recommending the use of typewriters (though I recommend using
handwriting
from time to time); I am not a good typist, and would prefer to
handwrite
if I do not have a text editor at hand. What I am saying is that the
computer
allows one to write in an undisciplined way, because correction
possibilities
are unlimited.
Now, education certainly teaches us how to organize our thoughts in
order to
handwrite carefully, without making too many mistakes. I would
recommend
the use of text editors to addults, but think that children have to go
through the process of learning how to write a decent text by hand,
otherwise they
will miss some important mental developments. One more argument:
probably
exercising
handwriting has something to do with developing motoric coordinations
and
important nerve and mental abilities. This will not be present when
using
a typewriter of text editor. Moreover, how are you going to convince a
child that he should handwrite when he has experimented with the ease
(and sort of videogame fascination) of text editors?

>And as a personal observation, my experience as a teacher at levels of
public
>education from kindergarten to high school seniors, the Waldorf
Philosophy
>seriously unbderestimates the abilities of young children.

Please, do not judge Waldorf Education through my few, bad written
e-mail
words. I would say, it recognizes all the abilities any other system
does,
but also many more, because it regards the human being as a much richer
being.
I would also add, it tries to respect each child's age characteristics,
contrary to many other systemas. But for this, we would have to discuss
the way it regards the human being, its "Weltanschauung" ("Cosmovision")
-
in fact the need of a Weltanschauung in order to discuss Ethics was the
subject of my first intervention in this list, a long time ago...

As for AI, I do not object making machines simulate humans, when
necessary
(for instance, for cleaning nuclear reactors, ugh!). What I object is
using
AI programs to better understand the human being. But, let me advance
that
AI has a definitive contribution to mankind: any of those AI systems
show
that we do not "function" that way - and knowing what we are not is
already
something... Woody W. makes a citation of American Heritage Dictionary
about 4 meanings of intelligence. I am sorry, no written meaning of
intelligence will be a satisfactory one, because we simply do not know
what
it is. It we do not, let us respect ourselves and not use the same
denomination to programs which  we know exactly what they are. (Sorry,
this last words sound as awful English...).

Valdemar W. Setzer
Dept. of Computer Science
University of Sao Paulo
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU