The only bit of Frances’ comment I would disagree with at all is the comment “Attempting for precision of definition of things that are still a bit fuzzy for everyone doesn’t always help matters.” and even then, I am only “disagreeing” on the basis that I think the remark may give some people the wrong impression.

It is a true statement – it does not *always* help matters to attempt precise definitions of fuzzy concepts. On the other hand, there are almost always people who will find it helpful to engage in the debate involved, just as there are almost always people who will find it unhelpful, or, indeed, help-neutral.

One thing I have noticed is that there is a tendency for people to get involved in these discussions about a subject X, and then say they aren’t going to be drawn in to the debate, or aren’t prepared to discuss the meaning of such-and-such, despite there clearly being a difference in people’s understandings of whatever X is. It reminds me so much of someone I know who says they don’t care /what/ anyone tells them because they know they are right – a line used almost to exclusion, I am afraid to say, when they are demonstrably wrong.

With particular regard to the ‘what is knowledge’ and ‘what is teaching/learning’ discussions, I think it is very important for the debates to be had – not, necessarily, because any conclusions or consensus will be reached, but because it demonstrates that the questions are still open, and that there are passionate views held. Passion is a remarkable resource, and if it gets people thinking, that is a good thing, surely?