Just reviewing my notes of more than a few years ago in which Gary Stager commented on the "meaningless euphemisms" by Web 2.0 enthusiasts. As he noted,
a very small percentage of knowledge is constructed by talking. Much is not. ... With all due respect, talking about math or science is not the same as being a scientist or mathematician.
I sense that we have gone beyond the tipping point of what Seymour Papert calls "verbal inflation." We are terribly excited about so very little.
As I noted about one of Will Richardson's posts, Networks, Not Tools, although he spoke at length how he was connected via RSS, blogs, Twitter, and more, he never did say what it was that he learned from his networked conversation.
Again that's not to say that networks aren't important in learning, as noted in Dean Shareski's comment on Stager's post:
The social networking and collaboration to me is about personalizing learning. Even in your Papert driven thinking about using computers to create and design, there still comes a point where you need people. Traditionally you were limited to the people in the room. ... I don't think it's one or the other.
Shareski takes an appropriate and balanced perspective. Social networks and relationships motivate and engage learners; they expand and individual's knowledge and skills, and technology can expand those networks even more. Yet, we need to keep in mind that it is the individual that must move past talking about ideas and integrate those ideas into his/her practice to become "a scientist or mathematician" or any thing else.