I would like to ask how it came to this new type of workshops where people learn how to use a software without having any idea of what actually the software does. And this not because the participants do not have any background on the topic, the rules, or the theory behind the program, but rather because these classes are normally organized by experts employed by the software company itself. In this case, the interest of the workshop organizer is not to let people understand what they do, but how to do it with the software of the organizing company - possibly in such a way that it becomes extremely challenging doing it with eventual competitor's products.
Well, I do not agree.
First of all, I think there should exist "independent experts", who are not employed by some software company, but still know how to use the software. And they learnt mainly not because they worked for that company, but because they know the needs that the software should fulfill, and they can check that it fulfills them. Moreover, in this way, they can check and compare different softwares in an objective and user-oriented way.
Secondly, I never believe that you can use something properly if you don't understand at least the basics of how it actually works. If you can't understand what the software does, you can't evaluate whether it did it right, and therefore can not evaluate the results. Two scenarios are now possible: 1) you blindly trust the results (oooh, dangerous!); 2) you try to look at the results with a critical look, trying to cross-check them with basic logic, other information or expectations. This might result in a lot of work and still does not eliminate a kind of feeling of uncertainty.
So, for my way of thinking, people should try to get out from a lose-lose situation and just get enough knowledge to be able to understand what the software does. But apparently, nobody wants people to be too expert. If they really want to understand more, they will have to try to get some good books, review literature, or get the information in some other way.
I do not understand this new trend of being expert in using something, but not really in understanding it. I think it can be a bit dangerous if it is about getting out of it predictions or analysis.
On the other side, understanding something deeply enough for being able to roughly evaluate it always requires much more effort (and time) than just learning how to use it, which is normally more a kind of mnemonic process of commands to be combined in some way - especially if you use the software always for the same analysis. And in addition to this, there are so many new and newer softwares that even the formation of experts who can then form other people is in such a short time frame not really feasible. So, people have to learn when needed and by doing, maybe whilst the software is not fully developed yet.
I hear, I see, we are all more and more rushed, with no time. To learn how to use a new software without having the basics of the topic, rules or theory behind, or even without all bugs fixed in the code seems to be a fair compromise for many.
Well, I do not agree.
First of all, I think there should exist "independent experts", who are not employed by some software company, but still know how to use the software. And they learnt mainly not because they worked for that company, but because they know the needs that the software should fulfill, and they can check that it fulfills them. Moreover, in this way, they can check and compare different softwares in an objective and user-oriented way.
Secondly, I never believe that you can use something properly if you don't understand at least the basics of how it actually works. If you can't understand what the software does, you can't evaluate whether it did it right, and therefore can not evaluate the results. Two scenarios are now possible: 1) you blindly trust the results (oooh, dangerous!); 2) you try to look at the results with a critical look, trying to cross-check them with basic logic, other information or expectations. This might result in a lot of work and still does not eliminate a kind of feeling of uncertainty.
So, for my way of thinking, people should try to get out from a lose-lose situation and just get enough knowledge to be able to understand what the software does. But apparently, nobody wants people to be too expert. If they really want to understand more, they will have to try to get some good books, review literature, or get the information in some other way.
I do not understand this new trend of being expert in using something, but not really in understanding it. I think it can be a bit dangerous if it is about getting out of it predictions or analysis.
On the other side, understanding something deeply enough for being able to roughly evaluate it always requires much more effort (and time) than just learning how to use it, which is normally more a kind of mnemonic process of commands to be combined in some way - especially if you use the software always for the same analysis. And in addition to this, there are so many new and newer softwares that even the formation of experts who can then form other people is in such a short time frame not really feasible. So, people have to learn when needed and by doing, maybe whilst the software is not fully developed yet.
I hear, I see, we are all more and more rushed, with no time. To learn how to use a new software without having the basics of the topic, rules or theory behind, or even without all bugs fixed in the code seems to be a fair compromise for many.
No comments:
Post a Comment