I haven't been reading these as a "slinging match". Just as a bunch of
contrasting approaches with no attempt at taking the others into account.
That, however, seems like some kind of learning to me as long as the
dialogue continues.
What I'd offer is distinctions in questions. The main area of distinction
might be the intention of the question. The language of "true questions"
or "real questions" is beggin for argument. It is legitimate - and
frequently useful - to create an operational definition for something (ie.
question) and then to dialogue within that definition. To begin without
an operational definition and to argue about what _is_ a question is a
different order of dialogue. And one, I think, not likely to work in this
medium.
There are questions for single answers, there are questions for multiple
answers, there are questions to be explored with no "answer" intended,
there are questions to elicit new thinking, there are "Zen" questions to
create mental states, there are leading questions. There are no shortages
of kinds of questions nor intentions for questions.
As far as I can tell, the power in a question is in a clear purpose or
intention for the question and a crafting of the question to match that
intention.
And I love the quotes.
--
Mike McMaster <Michael@kbddean.demon.co.uk>
"Postmodern society is the society of computers, information, scientific
knowledge, advanced technology, and rapid change due to new advances in
science and technology." Postmodern Theory, Best & Kellner