
Re: Of Interest
Posted:
Oct 30, 2012 6:21 AM



On Oct 30, 2012, at 12:51 AM, Louis Talman <talmanl@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. You seem to be suggesting that the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science is a thirdrate journal.
Because it publishes research that can be refuted?
> > 2. You seem to be suggesting that you can "fry" someone else's conclusions without showing that they aren't repeatable.
Results are repeatable (or not repeatable). Conclusions are checked for reasonableness.
I fried it on reasonableness.
If I wrote a lengthy paper with experimental results etc. and my conclusion at the end of all that is that the sky can't be blue, would that be reasonable? If anything, it would mean simply that I don't understand how the sky gets its color.
If every living creature has some measure of quantitive sense, yet only a very small fraction (a subset of only one species, humans) develop mathematical sense, what does that say for the correlation of quantitive sense and mathematical sense?
These researchers are attempting now to correlate the level of early quantitive sense to the level of later mathematical sense, supposedly to show that quantitive sense somehow acts as the foundation for later mathematical sense. I have two issues with this, the nature of the experiment and the nature of the conclusion.
If I was testing quantitive sense I would use piles of jelly beans or toothpicks. The researchers are using rather intricate images. They may be correlating a higher and more rational spatial sense with mathematical sense, not quantitive sense with mathematical sense. But I am not at odds with a correlation between quantitive and mathematical sense. It is the cause and effect part that concerns me. Why test kids quantitively when they are young and mathematical when they are older? To give credence to a cause and effect relationship between quantitive and mathematical senses. If we had tested the kids mathematically, both when they were young and older, it would spoil the plot. Our conclusion would be that kids that are mathematically advanced when they are older were mathematically advanced when they were younger. Big whoop.
If I were to present a mathematical proof with even 1/10th of the fallacy found in some of these "scientific" papers on education, you would rip me to shreds. Why do you hate it so when I challenge this stuff? I support the quest more than you think. But it is a quest at this point. A fledgling and tedious endeavor. They need to stop trying to win this thing with one race.
This is what I wrote on another thread...
"The researcher is allowed to suppose but those suppositions must be accompanied by caveats and counter explanations. When doubt exists a true scientist never puts the responsibility of that doubt on the reader, ever. The researcher doesn't conclude unless there is an irrefutable chain of evidence to back up those conclusions. Leaps of faith do not count (except in quantum physics). Education research is fledgling, but science is a tedious business and the truth comes grudgingly."
Bob Hansen

