Non-IT News Thread
-
@nadnerb said in Non-IT News Thread:
@jaredbusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@coliver said in Non-IT News Thread:
@mlnews said in Non-IT News Thread:
Thank goodness they took her license. It's scary that she's been allowed to be a doctor for so long!
This is just insane!
The doctor is basically saying that she shouldn't need to be literate to be a doctor.
“two file cabinets in a tiny waiting room"
say what? your patient records are in the waiting room?
That part is insane. Writing scripts without checking against existing scripts in a database is stupid.
But non of it means illiterate.
Could it be "computer illiterate"? If so, it needs to be stated as such, and not shortened to simply "illiterate".
One and the same. Computer literacy is a basic part of literacy. Just like reading literacy and writing literacy are part of basic literacy today.
-
literacy
[lit-er-uh-see]noun
1.
the quality or state of being literate, especially the ability to read and write.
2.
possession of education:
to question someone's literacy.
3.
a person's knowledge of a particular subject or field: to acquire computer literacy;
improving your financial literacy.In the case of the doctor, it is a lack of education and lack of knowledge in their field. Both 2 & 3 definitions, and in some ways, in 1 as well.
-
Yes, it can rightfully be used. However, context is critical. You know how people naturally assume things?
In this instance, the significant majority of people will naturally gravitate to the meaning of literacy being reading and writing as that is seen as normal literacy. Computer literacy is seen as specifically that and having little to no relation to reading writing literacy (how bazaar) even though the meaning is clearly there and completely contextual.
As a global society, we are not at the stage where computer literacy, and reading & writing literacy are accepted one and the same by the significant majority of people. As in, someone is accepted as (/marked/labelled/called) illiterate because they can't use a computer even though they can read and write.
When you make a statement that hinges on a definition of a word that is correct, yet not normally associated with it/used, you have to be specific.
Unlike words such as 'set' or 'run' which usually make sense depending on the sentence, 'literate' requires context as to what form of literacy you are referring if not meaning a persons reading & writing ability.
For example:
Susan couldn't use a computer because she is illiterate.
While it makes sense that Susan is computer illiterate and can't use the computer for that reason, it will be read as meaning:
"Susan can't use a computer because she can't read or write (illiterate)." -
@nadnerb said in Non-IT News Thread:
Yes, it can rightfully be used. However, context is critical. You know how people naturally assume things?
The inability of people to understand the language is of no concern. What I said was correct in spirit and in language. She is lacking in literacy, plain and simple.
-
@nadnerb said in Non-IT News Thread:
In this instance, the significant majority of people will naturally gravitate to the meaning of literacy being reading and writing as that is seen as normal literacy.
I would argue that believing so is a literacy problem - an inability to comprehend the language fully. Even in the most traditional or strict use of literate, that is covered.
-
@nadnerb said in Non-IT News Thread:
Computer literacy is seen as specifically that and having little to no relation to reading writing literacy (how bazaar) even though the meaning is clearly there and completely contextual.
That it is seen that way or that literacy is misunderstood is the problem of the person that doesn't understand it. We can't change our use of the language to accomodate the illiterate. How would that work?
-
@nadnerb said in Non-IT News Thread:
... 'literate' requires context as to what form of literacy you are referring if not meaning a persons reading & writing ability.
That is not at all correct. First of all, all needed context was there, so anyone that could read would know it was computer literacy being discussed. Second, literacy doesn't need that context.
You are assuming that 1) reading & writing takes some sort of precidence over other useage cases, this is false 2) that reading and writing is one of the defitions, it is not and 3) that the writing must provide clear context for a term of this nature, they do not, the reader should not inject unfounded assumptions.
-
@nadnerb said in Non-IT News Thread:
For example:
Susan couldn't use a computer because she is illiterate.
While it makes sense that Susan is computer illiterate and can't use the computer for that reason, it will be read as meaning:
"Susan can't use a computer because she can't read or write (illiterate)."It would only be read that way by someone who was illiterate and couldn't properly read what was written. If someone was literate (as to reading) they would know that that statement doesn't imply that. That many people lack the literacy level to know how to use the term literate is a different issue.
-
As you didn't supply your source for the definition for the word literacy, I went looking to fact check and I believe that this is it: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/literacy.
So with that in mind, may I get you comments on these additional sources in the context of what I posted (being that reading and writing is specified as part of the definition of literacy)?:
Source: Google search: Define Literacy
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/literacy
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literacy
Which then goes to this source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literate#h1
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@nadnerb said in Non-IT News Thread:
For example:
Susan couldn't use a computer because she is illiterate.
While it makes sense that Susan is computer illiterate and can't use the computer for that reason, it will be read as meaning:
"Susan can't use a computer because she can't read or write (illiterate)."It would only be read that way by someone who was illiterate and couldn't properly read what was written. If someone was literate (as to reading) they would know that that statement doesn't imply that. That many people lack the literacy level to know how to use the term literate is a different issue.
I know people who are both computer illiterate and reading & writing illiterate, so my example stands.
-
@nadnerb said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@nadnerb said in Non-IT News Thread:
For example:
Susan couldn't use a computer because she is illiterate.
While it makes sense that Susan is computer illiterate and can't use the computer for that reason, it will be read as meaning:
"Susan can't use a computer because she can't read or write (illiterate)."It would only be read that way by someone who was illiterate and couldn't properly read what was written. If someone was literate (as to reading) they would know that that statement doesn't imply that. That many people lack the literacy level to know how to use the term literate is a different issue.
I know people who are both computer illiterate and reading & writing illiterate, so my example stands.
These days I’d expect them to go together.
-
@nadnerb said in Non-IT News Thread:
As you didn't supply your source for the definition for the word literacy, I went looking to fact check and I believe that this is it: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/literacy.
So with that in mind, may I get you comments on these additional sources in the context of what I posted (being that reading and writing is specified as part of the definition of literacy)?:
Source: Google search: Define Literacy
Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/literacy
Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literacy
Which then goes to this source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literate#h1
All of those agree and use computer literacy as an example.
-
Well, yes. Computer literacy.
May I draw you attention to the example from Oxford.
"Knowledge in a specified area."
You may notice that their provided example specifies computer.
Your original usage did not.Also the second example from Merriam-webster, I nabbed this from their page
Examples of literate in a Sentence
She is literate in both English and Spanish.
What percentage of the population is literate?
The job requires you to be computer literate.The example does not simply say literate but it specifies an area of literacy (/knowledge/competence).
-
@nadnerb said in Non-IT News Thread:
Well, yes. Computer literacy.
May I draw you attention to the example from Oxford.
"Knowledge in a specified area."
You may notice that their provided example specifies computer.
Your original usage did not.Also the second example from Merriam-webster, I nabbed this from their page
Examples of literate in a Sentence
She is literate in both English and Spanish.
What percentage of the population is literate?
The job requires you to be computer literate.The example does not simply say literate but it specifies an area of literacy (/knowledge/competence).
Yes, if you want to specify an area of literacy for a job listing that isn't implied but the job, you must be specific. That doesn't apply to my use case where the literacy involved isn't computer literacy but medical literacy for her specified field. The entire article and discussion was about how she was no longer qualified to do her career field. Her medical professional state was no longer literate.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@nadnerb said in Non-IT News Thread:
Well, yes. Computer literacy.
May I draw you attention to the example from Oxford.
"Knowledge in a specified area."
You may notice that their provided example specifies computer.
Your original usage did not.Also the second example from Merriam-webster, I nabbed this from their page
Examples of literate in a Sentence
She is literate in both English and Spanish.
What percentage of the population is literate?
The job requires you to be computer literate.The example does not simply say literate but it specifies an area of literacy (/knowledge/competence).
Yes, if you want to specify an area of literacy for a job listing that isn't implied but the job, you must be specific. That doesn't apply to my use case where the literacy involved isn't computer literacy but medical literacy for her specified field. The entire article and discussion was about how she was no longer qualified to do her career field. Her medical professional state was no longer literate.
/sigh.. yeah I have to give Scott that one. Though not many people would instantly go there, like Scott did. So he's not wrong, but also, not in the common view either.
Scott could have removed the ambiguity of the comment by stating medically literate - though undoubtedly someone would have said - what does medical literacy have to do with computers? To which Scott would likely claim that to be literate in medical practices today, one must be able to competently use a computer to navigate medical resources.It would be like an auto mechanic who's 80+ refusing to use any computerized gadgets to work on cars - would they still be automechanic literate?
-
@dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
It would be like an auto mechanic who's 80+ refusing to use any computerized gadgets to work on cars - would they still be automechanic literate?
If they worked on computerized cars, definitely.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
It would be like an auto mechanic who's 80+ refusing to use any computerized gadgets to work on cars - would they still be automechanic literate?
If they worked on computerized cars, definitely.
So taking that further, how does that relate to the human body.. it's not like it's had huge evolution in the past 60 years. Cars and other tech I totally get. But talking directly the stuff from the article - the ability to send a prescription - using a computer to send it is a convenience, the pharmacy itself can tap into the back end system to ensure that other issues don't arise.
-
@dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dashrender said in Non-IT News Thread:
It would be like an auto mechanic who's 80+ refusing to use any computerized gadgets to work on cars - would they still be automechanic literate?
If they worked on computerized cars, definitely.
So taking that further, how does that relate to the human body.. it's not like it's had huge evolution in the past 60 years.
No, but the means of working on them has.
Example: We used to bleed people out and use leeches or even poison people hundreds of years ago. If you kept doing that today thinking it was medicine, you'd be medically illiterate.
Today we have means of storing, protecting, relaying, monitoring, baselining, and diagnosing people that require computers. not using computers is akin to using leeches. Once upon a time it was good enough, today it is not.
Once upon a time, painting pictures of deer on cave walls was written literacy. Today we expect you to know thousands of words and sentence structures. What is literacy changes over time for the written language, as it does for professions.
-
British Crown getting pulled through the muck more and more. First the Queen had questionable off shore investments in schemes to defraud the pool. Now Prince Charles has been exposed for lobbying for legal changes that benefit his secret off shore investments.
-
@mlnews Yeah, the British crown had such a spotless and stellar reputation before these stories... Truly a shining beacon of only doing the right thing for many centuries now.
