SEE ? (veiled treath + underestimating intelligence + ad hominem attack)
You presume facts are others things, and try to take away my credibility,
without any argument for that, but the moral attack intention its clear and indefensible (try again)
This is kind of embarrassing to explain in public, but since there is an insistence on groundless attacking this thread contents, I think it is better to clarify the facts with some more culture and intelligence, indeed.
Functional illiteracy are insufficient skills to manage tasks that require intelligent comprehension beyond basic level of reading and writing sentences. It is contrasted with illiteracy in the strict sense, that means the inability to read or write simple sentences in any language.
Functional illiteracy its an inability of the inteligence use and not the basic understandment of the words used to transmit intelligent comprehension beyond the simple words used to do so.
The characteristics of functional illiteracy vary from one culture to another, as some cultures require better reading and writing skills than others. For example, a reading level that might be sufficient to make a farmer functionally literate in a rural area, might qualify as functional illiteracy in an urban area of a technologically advanced country.
The same thing happens in scientific discussions,
like this thread proposed, when a person does not understand the intellectual qualities necessary for a good scientific understanding of the subjects under discussion, a functional illiteracy make utterly inappropriate things, and
still think their erroneous, unfounded opinions and first myopic impressions are the most correct.
Bookmarks