|
|
|
|
|
|
by vharuck
1413 days ago
|
|
|
I disagree. I think anyone can learn anything, though it may take an unreasonable amount of time and effort for some. Learning a new concept can be complicated, especially for things introduced in high school and university. All those concepts rely on others, so those lemmas have to be learned first. I do believe some people are generally quicker learners than others. But it's a continuous scale, not a yes/no thing. And interest in the subject plays a big role. For a metaphor of education, I'd say people are like Turing machines. (A) If there is one person who can learn a concept, then any of them can; (B) some are faster than others; and, (C) the "optimal in practice" state is usually limited by need and not capability (i.e., using modern laptops too just check emails and browse the web). >but saying this in higher education circles is akin to burning a Koran in Mecca. I'm not a fan of preemptive impersonations of Copernicus. I'd rather read what people said and judge that. |
|
|
Anyone can learn anything. But to what depth and degree within the time they have on Earth? What can they accomplish with their present knowhow or lack there of? These questions have measurable outputs. It's not enough to rely on potential. At some point, one should know his bearings and limitations.
> But it's a continuous scale, not a yes/no thing. And interest in the subject plays a big role.
Ability itself may follow a continuum, however sufficiency is digital.