|
|
Re: Why Dehaene is Wrong
Posted:
Nov 1, 2012 11:18 AM
|
|
|
|
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Robert Hansen <bob@rsccore.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 1, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Louis Talman <talmanl@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You'd be surprised at the number of college students who will tell you 7
> hours or 3.5 hours.
>
>
> No I wouldn't.:)
>
> Yes, this must be fixed. If we can fix anything we should be able to fix
> this! We just have different theories of what "this" is and why it is
> happening.
>
> I have always been curious as to why we are not just trying to fix this,
> before we move on to trying to fix algebra and calculus. Using your theory
> or mine, it makes no difference to me.
>
> Just show me that someone can legitimately fix something.
>
> Bob Hansen
>
At least we agree that it must be fixed.
But we disagree on what must be done. In order to fix something reliably,
we must figure out what's wrong. Dehaene's work offers a credible,
testable, hypothesis (another difference between his work and COTG). And,
it's important to note, he doesn't offer it as anything but credible and
testable---still another difference with CTOG.
I think that much of the difficulty with math education (small "m" and
small "e"---let there be no confusion with any putative "Education Mafia")
is that we don't have *any* tested models for why things do or don't work.
Or even for what "work" really means. We're still working with phlogiston.
And the problem is much more complicated than the problem of figuring out
heat.
--Louis A. Talman
Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Metropolitan State College of Denver
<http://rowdy.mscd.edu/%7Etalmanl>
|
|
