ChrisWebb Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 6268 days ago 181 posts - 190 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Korean
| Message 313 of 430 05 May 2008 at 2:18pm | IP Logged |
Quote:
How you can have approaches which have 'proved themselves as less effective' if you have lack of an objectively defined best method?
|
|
|
Quite easily. I think your inability to grasp this point probably lies at the heart of the error in your logic. We do not have any known point which is furthest away in space either yet we can still compare distances. I presume you accept that all points in space are not in fact at the same distance from any particular start point, even if we cannot name the furthest point?
Quote:
How can you prove or define something as less or more effective if you lack a OBJECTIVE point of reference? |
|
|
It's actually pretty simple to compare two things without an absolute point of reference, see above. In fact we do this most of the time. We can pretty much always find an objective point of reference and I'm a little confused why you would imagine otherwise. Perhaps yopu might consult a dictionary and see how the words objective and absolute do in fact differ in definition and usage.
Quote:
What's the best method then. |
|
|
The question isnt relevent and reveals a misunderstanding of the point being made.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
CaitO'Ceallaigh Triglot Senior Member United States katiekelly.wordpress Joined 6862 days ago 795 posts - 829 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, Russian Studies: Czech, German
| Message 314 of 430 05 May 2008 at 2:30pm | IP Logged |
ChrisWebb wrote:
Quote:
What's the best method then. |
|
|
The question isnt relevent and reveals a misunderstanding of the point being made. |
|
|
That is the point: there is no "best method". This is why Slucido and I agree, and the rest of you are arguing. You're not getting it.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
reineke Senior Member United States https://learnalangua Joined 6452 days ago 851 posts - 1008 votes Studies: German
| Message 315 of 430 05 May 2008 at 2:38pm | IP Logged |
slucido wrote:
reineke wrote:
The little logic fairy passed away this morning 05 May 2008 at 9:32am.
Chris is simply stating that that the lack of an objectively defined best method does not dictate that all methods are therefore of equal effectiveness. |
|
|
....and does not dictate that there are best methods either.
reineke wrote:
THE best method is different from choosing between a handful of excellent methods, mediocre ones etc. You can therefore have "best methods" assuming they work as advertised if you compare them with other approaches which have proven themselves as less effective.
This should be crystal clear and it somehow escapes you. |
|
|
How you can have approaches which have 'proved themselves as less effective' if you have lack of an objectively defined best method?
How can you prove or define something as less or more effective if you lack a OBJECTIVE point of reference?
|
|
|
reineke wrote:
Also, how can one choose an inefficient method if methods are all the same, simply decoration etc.? |
|
|
You have chosen an inefficient method if:
-it don't have input and output and repetition.
-you don't get motivated by it.
Is it so difficult to grasp?
[/QUOTE]
If you have ineffective methods and effective ones, then how can you claim all methods are the same? If all methods are the same and difference in performance is based on belief, don't you by your argument ultimately aim to destroy this belief? Since belief is crucial to sticking with a particuar program, you're ultimately converting people to your own philosophy even though you're telling them they can do whatever they want. The problem is that you're not providing much of an answer.
What cuts best? Knife? Sword? Chain saw? Methods are tools used to carve out that white whale you call "input". If you insist on sucking the blubber through a straw, go for it. Methods are often imperfect by design, meaning highly specialized and designed to target one specific skill or target audience. This qualty makes it obvious all methods are not the same and that it's difficult to talk about the best method. And even within their narrow scope some methods may perform better than others for a varety of reasons - subjective ones included.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
ChrisWebb Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 6268 days ago 181 posts - 190 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Korean
| Message 316 of 430 05 May 2008 at 2:51pm | IP Logged |
CaitO'Ceallaigh wrote:
ChrisWebb wrote:
Quote:
What's the best method then. |
|
|
The question isnt relevent and reveals a misunderstanding of the point being made. |
|
|
That is the point: there is no "best method". This is why Slucido and I agree, and the rest of you are arguing. You're not getting it. |
|
|
Slucido isn't simply arguing that there is no best method, he's arguing that all methods are equally effective. Perhaps you are not reading his posts carefully enough and that is why our disagreement is confusing to you.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
CaitO'Ceallaigh Triglot Senior Member United States katiekelly.wordpress Joined 6862 days ago 795 posts - 829 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, Russian Studies: Czech, German
| Message 317 of 430 05 May 2008 at 2:51pm | IP Logged |
reineke wrote:
If you have ineffective methods and effective ones, then how can you claim all methods are the same? If all methods are the same and difference in performance is based on belief, don't you by your argument ultimately aim to destroy this belief? Since belief is crucial to sticking with a particuar program, you're ultimately converting people to your own philosophy even though you're telling them they can do whatever they want. The problem is that you're not providing much of an answer.
|
|
|
Who said they were all the same? Well, let me clarify: the methods might differ, but it's still the same language. Am I not right?
Just what is Slucido's philosophy anyway. That all methods are the same? No, but in the end, they yield the same result: you know more of a particular language than you did before.
It's just a reality, if your aim really is to learn a language, that over time, your needs will change. What works for you today might not be so great tomorrow.
There is no one best method. You guys know this, you keep saying it time and time again, and still, all this bickering.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
CaitO'Ceallaigh Triglot Senior Member United States katiekelly.wordpress Joined 6862 days ago 795 posts - 829 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, Russian Studies: Czech, German
| Message 318 of 430 05 May 2008 at 3:03pm | IP Logged |
ChrisWebb wrote:
Slucido isn't simply arguing that there is no best method, he's arguing that all methods are equally effective. Perhaps you are not reading his posts carefully enough and that is why our disagreement is confusing to you. |
|
|
No, I get exactly what he's trying to say. I've paraphrased what I understand he's saying, I've asked him if I got it right, and he said YES.
All methods can be broken down to the same common demoninator: input + output + time.
Input + output + time is NOT a method. It is the base formula for any given method.
Perhaps that is where the confusion lies. I suspect that people confuse this as being a method in and of itself. No. It just happens to be all you need, regardless of whatever method you choose.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
slucido Bilingual Diglot Senior Member Spain https://goo.gl/126Yv Joined 6680 days ago 1296 posts - 1781 votes 4 sounds Speaks: Spanish*, Catalan* Studies: English
| Message 319 of 430 05 May 2008 at 3:33pm | IP Logged |
CaitO'Ceallaigh wrote:
ChrisWebb wrote:
Slucido isn't simply arguing that there is no best method, he's arguing that all methods are equally effective. Perhaps you are not reading his posts carefully enough and that is why our disagreement is confusing to you. |
|
|
No, I get exactly what he's trying to say. I've paraphrased what I understand he's saying, I've asked him if I got it right, and he said YES.
All methods can be broken down to the same common demoninator: input + output + time.
Input + output + time is NOT a method. It is the base formula for any given method.
Perhaps that is where the confusion lies. I suspect that people confuse this as being a method in and of itself. No. It just happens to be all you need, regardless of whatever method you choose. |
|
|
Yes, it's that simple.
All the methods are NOT the same, because one person can get motivated by method one , but not method two. If your method, whatever, has the formula (input+output) the most important factor is MOTIVATION and TIME.
If you feel motivated and good, it's a good method.
If you feel unmotivated an bad, it's a bad method.
Example:
Maybe Assimil is good for you today, because you feel good, but next semester you feel bad about it and it's a bad method for you.
Maybe you feel good about FSI studying French, it's a good method for you. Maybe you feel bad about FSI studying German, therefore is bad for you.
The same with Arguelles methods, Listening Reading methods, Rambo method, TPR and whatever.
In fact, not only methods are different, but one method can be different between itself in different moments and with the same person.
1 person has voted this message useful
|
CaitO'Ceallaigh Triglot Senior Member United States katiekelly.wordpress Joined 6862 days ago 795 posts - 829 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, Russian Studies: Czech, German
| Message 320 of 430 05 May 2008 at 3:38pm | IP Logged |
I'm exhausted and it's too early in the day for a beer. :)
1 person has voted this message useful
|