Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Topic: Of Interest
Replies: 38   Last Post: Nov 5, 2012 7:48 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Louis Talman

Posts: 4,620
Registered: 12/27/05
Re: Of Interest
Posted: Oct 30, 2012 12:23 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (4.3 K)

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Robert Hansen <bob@rsccore.com> wrote:

>
> 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 third-rate journal.
>
>
> Because it publishes research that can be refuted?
>


Historically, the conclusions of a great deal of research has been
falsified. And even the best journals publish such research, because that's
how science works.


>
>
> 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.
>
>

No, you say you have fried it because *you* find it unreasonable.
Conclusions are checked by demonstrating that they lead to false
predictions. You haven't performed an experiment that falsifies the
conclusion.

You make a great deal of comparing certain conclusions with the cold fusion
example. But cold fusion was discredited by attempts to replicate the
phenomenon, and no good scientist was willing to say that cold fusion was
wrong until it was demonstrated to be unreproducible.

The conclusions and predictions of quantum mechanics are, as you yourself
pointed out, unreasonable, and easily refuted on that basis. But the
experiments are reliably reproducible. The unreasonable conclusions provide
the best explanations (so far) for the effects, and the predictions have
proved useful.

And there are quite a few papers in quite a few excellent journals that
will prove to have been refuted if a better model is developed.

If you want to "fry" somebody's conclusions, do an experiment that fries
them. Simply saying that the conclusions aren't reasonable because you
disagree with them, or because you think the experimenter's purposes are
shady, doesn't "fry" a slab of bacon.

The experiments reported here, and the model suggested, agree well with
experiments reported by S. Dehaene in "The Number Sense". (And, it is worth
noting, none of the experimenters in either case is a member of Haim's
rather amorphous and ill-defined "Education Mafia"---contrary to your
innuendoes.)

--Louis A. Talman
Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Metropolitan State College of Denver

<http://rowdy.mscd.edu/%7Etalmanl>


Date Subject Author
10/29/12
Read Of Interest
Louis Talman
10/29/12
Read Re: Of Interest
Robert Hansen
10/30/12
Read Re: Of Interest
Louis Talman
10/30/12
Read Re: Of Interest
Robert Hansen
10/30/12
Read Re: Of Interest
Paul A. Tanner III
10/30/12
Read Re: Of Interest
Louis Talman
10/30/12
Read Re: Of Interest
Robert Hansen
10/31/12
Read Re: Of Interest
Louis Talman
10/31/12
Read Re: Of Interest
Robert Hansen
10/31/12
Read Re: Of Interest
Louis Talman
10/31/12
Read Re: Of Interest
Robert Hansen
10/31/12
Read Re: Of Interest
Louis Talman
10/31/12
Read Why Dehaene is Wrong
Robert Hansen
11/1/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
kirby urner
11/1/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Robert Hansen
11/2/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Robert Hansen
11/1/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Louis Talman
11/1/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Robert Hansen
11/1/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Louis Talman
11/2/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Robert Hansen
11/2/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Louis Talman
11/2/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Robert Hansen
11/2/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Robert Hansen
11/2/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Louis Talman
11/4/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Wayne Bishop
11/4/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Louis Talman
11/4/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Robert Hansen
11/5/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Wayne Bishop
11/5/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Louis Talman
11/5/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Wayne Bishop
11/5/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Robert Hansen
11/5/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Louis Talman
11/5/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Gary Tupper
11/1/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Wayne Bishop
11/3/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Robert Hansen
11/3/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Robert Hansen
11/3/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Louis Talman
11/3/12
Read Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Robert Hansen
10/29/12
Read Re: Of Interest
Robert Hansen

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.