Do you have any evidence that it is valuable?viscousmemories wrote:I can see how it might seem like that, but do you have any evidence that it is? Do you believe that a 3000 word, decidedly sparse introduction to an educational theory gives you enough information to make such a determination?
Yes, I would say that if someone cannot articulate the general outlines of a theory in 3000 words they are either very poor communicators, or there is nothing there. I don't have any books right at hand, but last night when I read this topic I pulled the book "Bipolar Disorder" off my shelf and read the first 2 paragraphs. It starts by saying how difficult a disease it is to diagnose and test because of it's chameleon type appearance, but then quickly goes on and offers an outline of the disease. Two paragraphs in and you know _basically_ what bipolar is. By 3000 words you have a handle on the disease, and some idea of what you _don't_ know yet (which is a lot). You know enough to explain the disease to somebody else. This is pretty standard for psychriatic texts. I can summerize Freud, Jung, Gottmann, you name the therapist, in 3000 words. It's easy peasy.
In constrast, we have vaguely written introduction, and a poster (you) that states he is unwilling to defend or argue it. No evidence has been offered for the quality of the information in that site. It seems reasonable, given limited time, to walk away. Time is limited. Reading the introduction, and dipping into the various articles, reveals no emperical evidence, no labratory tests, no references, no peer reviewed papers, just more and more banal sentences. I admit to 'dipping', or sampling, but sampling, say, "Bipolar Disorder" reveals copious footnotes to other studies, significant emperical evidence, testable claims, case studies, charts, etc. A riffle (literally) through it will convince you that the book is at least serious. The data may be completely crap, the references could be made up - but a quick trip to the library will clear that up (as it turns out, the author is highly respected in the field, and the book is highly regarded). The site you offer gives me none of that (that I can find).
So, tenative conclusion - banal or wrong. I will give it another look if better evidence can be offered. I will not read 60 articles because someone who is unwilling to actually defend or define the concepts exhorts me to.