Re: What is understanding?

[Ludwik Kowalski <KowalskiL@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

1.
Rationalism is a logical glue which makes us feel good,
intellectually, but only if we are trained to appreciate it.
But many conclude that "why is it so?" should always
be emphasized before we show "how to do it"  (in
teaching science). That approach does not work when
needs to understand are absent. When such situations
are recognized we must depend on more primitive
needs to promote learning.

"Learn first (in order to succeed) and understand later"
is not always a bad thing. Yes, both approaches can be
abused.

2.
> If you don't know several independent ways to explain
> a concept, then you do not understand it.

I agree that there may be several ways to explain something
but "one way" is often better than others; and it is enough for
me. Perhaps it is a reaction to software descriptions which
say, "there are four different ways to do this ...". Who needs
so many alternatives? I know they want to be "backward
compatible", and accommodate many personal preferences.
But multiple ways conflict with needs to memorize.

It is clear that no effort is made to produce understanding
of software, only to describe clearly (not always !) where
to click in order to do this or that. What logical glue would
provide us with intellectual satisfaction from the process of
trying to master software tools? Is it possible to "explain"
such tools to non programmers?
Ludwik Kowalski