Theory and/or fact. The theorist says - we need philosophy, as we stumble to a solution. The pragmatist say - show me the facts, and we'll stumble to a solution. The theorist is the ivory-tower academic. The pragmatist is the lowly 'shop tech' and apprentice. The theorist must be very good, or will really know nothing. The pragmatist must be very good, if he's in a competitive field.

It generally can be both. The apprentice may learn some 'perspective' from his master. The theorist may learn how to operate equipment to put his theories to the test. So it's both. There's an 'overlap'. One needs to learn the peculiarities of the equipment - how to 'coax it along', even. One can benefit from knowing how best to use it, even by theory. In either case, one can attempt, in different ways, to employ the technology and notions in new and productive ways.

So how does one achieve this? If it's both, then an assortment of methods is implied, and certainly not just one. And apart from it all is the intangible - of gift, insight, intuition, the a-ha! - whatever one calls it. As in anything in life, people 'plateau', 'hit a ceiling', cannot seem to learn or produce beyond a certain point. And others, conversely, seem to have the knack, for whatever it is. Part of acheiving all this, then, goes beyond any pedagogy, and simply to recognizing that 'fit', and the differences, between all of us and for a particular avocation or occupation. Does whatever it is - really suit you?

For either the 'academic' classroom, or the 'trade' classroom, or however the two are combined, rote must be a part of any instruction. One must not only learn what others have done, but even just the mere terminology and encapsulated discoveries and methods. It can be boring. Or it can be interesting - as to a young boy who obsesseses on the mere detail of WWII era tank armaments, or the minutia of the Star Wars myth, when it was popular. One might be encouraged to the idea of - collecting. One collects this arcana, as simply details, and descriptive gloss. One familiarizes themselves with the existence of terminology, if not its competent application. The rote, in other words, goes to terminology, and detail, of both organizing principles and theory, and operational details.

The apprenticeship is a rote exercise. Examples are presented by the master, or someone filling in for him as it were, after which the student is expected to repeat or copy the example. A musician listens to the music, and attempts to read the notes by ear, to mimic the cadence and techniques, and to play roughly as the example which interested him. It doesn't require a master's presence. But the encouragement, or threat, of another actual person might be beneficial, if not in every case; someone to 'push you'. Along the lines of a single 'master', one might discover, particularly in a competitve field, or directly in some organized competition (even gambling, or the like), a host of 'masters' who excel at the occupation or pasttime, at least for the moment. It's the same apprenticeship, of learning by observation and mimicry, but with a 'thousand masters' at once, perhaps.

Directed study, then, is where the pure apprentice begins a study of tradecraft. The master creates the curriculum, based on what he considers, in hindsight, and upon reflection and study of other's opinions, the best way to produce the best practitioner, eventually. It's not that one simply observes the 'real world', the real business in action, but that one sets aside time to learn basics, rote included, and particular examples, not necessarily part of the mature practice, in order that a novice might learn bit by bit without confusion. The newspaperman is told to report his story, gradually, teasing the reader by repetition, and always adding a little more, each time, so that his victim must read it to the end. But to the extent the reader, some, might find this less confusing, there is an advantage. It keeps the reader interested, and allows him to understand, to some extent, and remember what he studied. It's the same for artificial primer examples given the apprentice.

In both, then, there is also no escape from the idea not merely of practice, but comprehension and wise use. Practice is a floor, to be relied upon in distress, or in the face of distraction. One can guarantee, that is, a reasonably professional performance. But comprehension is what builds on solid skill and practice, and uses it to a purpose, even not imagined by others. One takes the rote, and the study, the direction, the practice, and makes it uniquely ones own. This, again, is not to discount aptitude and luck, intuition and a 'feel for the job'. But together, it can make the difference between a master, and a mere tradesman. But even to be a mere tradesman, given the above, is perhaps in a sense to be a master in comparison with those who are still learning.

Part of that mastery surely must go to understanding what's important in a problem, and what isn't. It's seeing the real problem, and best way to go about solving it. One isn't distracted, any more than when presented the original primer examples, denuded so as not to be distracting, presenting only what seemed important at that stage of ones education. So I would present information, here, such as on programming, with an eye for rote, and example, and by such framework that can be created for sub-examples, and rebuilt when more information might be provided 'toward the end' of study. And I would like to consider that which is important along the way, and opposed to that which is not, in my opinion.

There will always be controversy, however, in any approach. Is it too much rote, for some? Is it too much at once, for others? Is it too confusing? Too simplistic? Is the example useful? How does one know which examples suit them, at a particular moment? (particularly in this context where this is no master, in the shop or the classroom, guiding their efforts day to day)

And I would reply that one must make allowances. Self-study is not directed study. It's particularly not in that a master is not there to guide you. You are 'in the game', yourself, learning at your pace and interest, from the masters you choose. It's different. As you confront others in a contest, say, you learn the 'hard lessons'. So you learn mastery from such mistakes. You learn from reading something you hadn't, previously. What you thought was true, is challenged. But you must be challenged, in some way. Learn the rote, and the terms, to be able to speak the master's language, or that of others learning. But challenge yourself, with other masters, and many other examples, particularly those very unfamiliar, to learn something of application, and experience. And take that, and return to the masters, and see if you speak their language any better. See if then, you can learn from them.