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: 4,548
Registered: 12/27/05
Re: Of Interest
Posted: Oct 31, 2012 1:32 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply
att1.html (2.9 K)

On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Robert Hansen <bob@rsccore.com> wrote:

>
>
> Irregardless of the title of his book and his intent, Dehaene doesn't show
> "number sense" in animals, he shows "quantitive sense". It would be as if I
> said that animals and humans share the innate sense of speech because we
> both are capable of making sounds. I opined then that this was a deliberate
> slight of hand by Dehaene. Talk about something that would catch the
> reader's attention (number sense), establish something else (quantitive
> sense), continue on as if you had established the other (number sense). I
> suppose that since this work is meant for popular appeal rather than
> science, Dehaene can use any plot device he wishes.
>
>

"Quantitive", or, the already existing word "quantitative" is fine with me
for what Dehaene calls "number". I think, though, that you're conflating
what Dehaene calls "number sense" with what is more commonly called "number
sense"---and the two are indeed different. And your use of the phrase in a
sense other than Dehaene's doesn't contradict his hypotheses. It simply
points out that they're about something you refuse to deal with.

I think Dehaene makes a good *experimental* case for an innate quantitative
sense, to use a phrase you prefer, in all higher animals and many lower
ones. And the hypothesis that "mathy" kids are the ones who manage to
connect that innate sense with the algorithms of arithmetic, while one
cause of non-mathiness is failure to do so, offers some explanation of
things I've seen in the classroom.

There are kids who don't know when addition is appropriate or when
multiplication is. That seems to me to be well explained by such a failure
to connect. This is exactly what one would expect of a kid who learns
algorithms because required to do so instead of as something connected to
the real world.

The issue then becomes one of devising *experiments* to follow up on this
hypothesis---not, as you seem to think, offering rationalizations for not
believing it. Most of those rationalizations can be easily defeated by
noting that humans have bigger, more versatile brains---which are capable
of extending innate qualities in ways that animal brains aren't.

What couldn't be so defeated is evidence from well-defined experiments.

--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.