jabhatta2 wrote:
Hi
RonTargetTestPrep - From Para 2 - I dont understand how you believe "Clark is OPPOSED to "social constructivism"
Could you assist?
Sure.
Express summary of the first three sentences of ¶2:
• Clark makes
a point. (So this is definitely something that Clark believes/accepts.)
• Here's a stronger statement of
the same point.
• But there's a new, 'fashionable' idea—stated by Braverman—that's currently
OBSCURING that point.
At this point we know that,
according to Clark, a newfangled 'fashion' of an idea (this is not a compliment! Calling an academic idea a 'fashion' pretty clearly implies that it's an unserious idea that'll fade away soon enough....)
is distracting attention away from HIS point ("obscuring" his point).
It's quite clear that Clark does not hold a favorable opinion of the idea propounded by Braverman.
(Even if you didn't pick up this negative judgment here, you'll definitely get it once you reach ¶4, in which it's explicitly stated that Clark REFUTES the idea put forward by constructivists (Braverman's crowd).
Quote:
RonTargetTestPrep wrote:
P3: The constructivists gain acceptance by misrepresenting technological determinism...
—> "Social constructivism" is basically lies, then
I dont see how one can say the "New Social constructivism" is basically lies
P3, all i can gather is
(a) "New Social constructivism"
lies about Technological determinism
(b) Rest of the para is about how "Social constructivism"
lies about Technological determinism
From the red stuff, it looks as though you've figured out that the presentation here is "social constructivism = lies"... that's literally the content of both of those statements!