<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Reading with both ears open</title>
	<atom:link href="http://techticker.net/2009/01/27/reading-with-both-ears-open/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://techticker.net/2009/01/27/reading-with-both-ears-open/</link>
	<description>educational technology, eLearning &#38; emerging technology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:19:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Bogle</title>
		<link>http://techticker.net/2009/01/27/reading-with-both-ears-open/comment-page-1/#comment-3055</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Bogle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:41:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techticker.net/?p=1110#comment-3055</guid>
		<description>Hi Ed,

I do see your point.  Openness and objectivity are not the same.  I think perhaps during the initial stages of inquiry (e.g. when just starting to explore a concept) objectivity is wise as it enables people to make a more informed decision later on down the road, but at some stage of awareness or understanding we&#039;re likely to come to a conclusion about what we think.  As you say this will be based on a variety of factors.

So as an overarching ideal, perhpas Openness is indeed a better way to look at it.

Thanks for the thought :)

Cheers,

Mike</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Ed,</p>
<p>I do see your point.  Openness and objectivity are not the same.  I think perhaps during the initial stages of inquiry (e.g. when just starting to explore a concept) objectivity is wise as it enables people to make a more informed decision later on down the road, but at some stage of awareness or understanding we&#8217;re likely to come to a conclusion about what we think.  As you say this will be based on a variety of factors.</p>
<p>So as an overarching ideal, perhpas Openness is indeed a better way to look at it.</p>
<p>Thanks for the thought <img src='http://techticker.net/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Mike</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ed Webb</title>
		<link>http://techticker.net/2009/01/27/reading-with-both-ears-open/comment-page-1/#comment-3053</link>
		<dc:creator>Ed Webb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 23:34:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://techticker.net/?p=1110#comment-3053</guid>
		<description>Holistic and open, good: objective, bad.  No such animal, I fear.  Abandoning the myth of objectivity in favor of recognition of our and everyone else&#039;s locatedness, coupled to a commitment to open ears/minds/eyes, would be a boon to learners everywhere, I think.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Holistic and open, good: objective, bad.  No such animal, I fear.  Abandoning the myth of objectivity in favor of recognition of our and everyone else&#8217;s locatedness, coupled to a commitment to open ears/minds/eyes, would be a boon to learners everywhere, I think.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
