|
|
Re: If you really want math reform....
Posted:
Jan 8, 2007 6:12 PM
|
|
Surely it is a beautiful solution. I wish it had been an item I
noticed on the menu c. 1965.
But then I probably wouldn't have the background I needed to
appreciate the offering.
It's one of the difficulties with life: you actually seem to have to
have experiences in order to "learn from experience." And some of us
just bump into the "right" heuristic experiences later than others.
The old indifference and stochastic nature of the universe comes into
play.
I suppose we can try to design education (I'll eschew the word
"schools" here advisedly) so that we maximize the likelihood that a
given individual has the "right" exposure to enough experiences to
lead them to make good choices (good for them, not for some
government or other extrinsic body). That would seem like a
worthwhile problem to work on (I'll most pointedly avoid using the
word "solve" here). Sounds a lot more Kirby-like than not.
At any rate, the description you offer of the (b) track folks
continuing to hurl insults and discount the legitimacy or merit of
(a) reminds me of THE LIFE OF BRIAN. In fact, to some extent, the
whole Math Wars thing can seem pretty LOB-esque. No doubt the reason
that religious fanatic Bishop insists that all religions but his own
are, well, religions. What he thinks his own is would be, I'm sure,
"science," if only it didn't ultimately fail any reasonable test for
same. Then again, there's the recent two-part episode of SOUTH PARK,
set in a future where competing groups of "scientists" are fighting
over the "one true name" for groups of scientists (Richard Dawkins'
work have led to the death of religion and the supreme ascendency of
science). It's a riot. (Warning to Paul: do NOT watch it. There's
like real vulgar stuff in it, unsuitable for folks who have secondary
math certification or who've ever taught a college class.) (Warning
to Adrian: this show contains humor. You don't want to hurt yourself).
On Jan 8, 2007, at 5:38 PM, Kirby Urner wrote:
>
> Perhaps heretical, yes.
>
> But we have a beautiful solution.
>
> Two tracks:
>
> (a) "heuristic" math, includes proofs, lots of stuff from
> other disciplines, humanities majors welcome to teach it,
> including film majors, semioticians.
>
> (b) "proof factory" math, may import a little color, but
> mostly for math majors and definitely not teachable by
> any except math specialists.
>
> The people on the (b) track may continue to hurl their
> insults and consider (a) not even worthy of the name
> "math".
>
> The people on the (a) track will meanwhile self-organize
> to make sure their track continues to cover important
> essentials, minus some of (b)'s rigor mortis, and adding
> a computer programming component.
>
> I'm definitely an (a) track person, but welcome the
> prospect of competing with the (b) types, who haven't felt
> moved to self organize at the K-12 level hitherto -- more
> wanted to bitch and complain about what a lousy job we
> (a) people were doing.
>
> But now that we have an even playing field, thanks to
> technology, it's easier for the (a)s to be very up front
> with the parents, about not being (b)s. If you want (b),
> seek out (b). Don't come to us. We're proud to be
> different.
>
> Kirby
>
> ------- End of Forwarded Message
>
>
>
|
|
