There is something solemn and awe-inspiring about famous people voicing their opinions in public. It is even more so when famous authorities in a given field voice their opinion in their book, with the bibliography section full of learned texts and a few intellectual heavyweights in the list of people thanked. I see something gravely dangerous, however, when an unquestionable scholar gives his/her private opinion on a subject only roughly related to his/her field of expertise. The danger, obviously, being wide acceptance of the scholar’s authority in the new subject based solely on his/her fame.

This, I truly believe, is the case with Hubert Lederer Dreyfus, professor of philosophy, particularly renowned for his insight into phenomenology, existentialism, Martin Heidegger’s understanding of “Being” as well as the philosophical implications of artificial intelligence (http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/). And it’s this last bit that can make some believe incontrovertibly in prof. Dreyfus’s expertise in whatever subject connected with computers. The bigger, then, was my relief to read an academic article by Burbules, Professor of Educational Policy Studies, supporting my few concerns and adding many more of his own. From overgeneralizations, through ignorance of certain benefits of on-line interaction, through demonization of the internet as such, Dreyfus builds a very grim future for e-learning. What is perhaps the most striking to me as a teacher is prof. Dreyfus’s readiness to criticise matters of education while it is clear his views are based on elaborated comparisons and philosophical assumptions rather than classroom experience and knowledge of pedagogy. It is no wonder, than, that Dreyfus is reputed as a Luddite (http://www.beingintheworldmovie.com/ph-dreyfus.html), trying to oppose not only the inevitable but also the beneficial.

It is true that as a representative of a 1983 generation and a student of this course I am to a large extent biased by my conviction of the importance of omnipresent technology. And I acknowledge the fact that critique of the new is as needed as producing experts in the field. Still, I find more restrained commentaries such as Ray Land’s much more acceptable.

To finish my short disquisition I wish to reveal a comparison that comes to my mind when thinking of Dreyfus. Namely, I picture him as an experienced and mature sports journalist and a commentator. No matter how great his authority and expertise in the sport is, however, he still has very little chance of becoming a famous footballer or even a football team manager.

I appreciate Dreyfus’s book nonetheless, mainly for reassuring me why I want to be involved in e-learning at all.