🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 19 Nov 1999 at 16:32:25, Tim Haynes
<piglet@glutinous.custard.org> wrote in demon.tech.pc:
(Reference: <slrn83ausp.fs6.piglet@pigsty.td.micromuse.co.uk>)

>Oz <Oz@upthorpe.demon.co.uk> doodled in uk.comp.os.linux:
>
>> You aren't supposed to believe textbooks, you are supposed to understand
>> them.
>
>You obviously haven't read a textbook on (S)ML, then. They take some believing
>AND some understanding, IMHO :)
>Yes, you are supposed to believe a textbook, at least as insofar as believing
>what it tells you is true. Understanding is essential but a lower layer.
>
I can think of plenty of text books from which, because I do know a
little about the subject, I have refused to believe anything. If you
have a teacher, you may accept that the teacher's recommendation is a
good guide to the reliability of the text book. Otherwise your own
knowledge must inform you to its reliability as a reporter of facts and
then the reliability of its interpretation of those facts.

I agree that understanding is essential and a lower layer - the basis of
everything else, perhaps. Without it the rest is meaningless.

However, this discussion looks like going the way of its predecessor. If
you would like to discuss this further, perhaps elsewhere might be
better. However, if you only want to tell me I am stupid because I
differ from you, hold up a mirror.
-- 
John Underwood