Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jun 12, 2013 5:19 PM: > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 2:16 AM, GS Chandy > <email@example.com> wrote: > > > It's not really rocket science. It's just simple > >'common sense' which, as we see all too often, is > >somewhat uncommon (as is evident at most forums where > >we discuss societal issues and problems). > > Did I put "common sense" on my list of defining > traits for humans? NO. Animals (non humans) are > endowed with common sense. According to most > thinking, including mine, we have at least what > other animals have. However, something on my list > nullifies common sense. It is both a gift and a > curse. Here is a hint. It isn't tools and it isn't > language. > > Bob Hansen > Were we discussing the "defining traits for humans"?
To the best of my understanding and recollection, we were discussing an article by Makayla Moore "When math makes sense - Teachers combine math with construction, cooking classes", suggesting (as I understood it) the following:
Math should be made more understandable and usable by students, by providing them with examples and applications close to them, such as 'construction', 'cooking', and so on - the article claimed that this was being done quite successfully at a new program of the 'Transitions Learning Center'. (The success was being gauged largely by the reactions of the students to their math studies and the understanding they seemed to be gaining of needed math).
My opinion on the above was along the following lines: By enabling them better to understand the math that they need to learn, we might be able to help students overcome the fear/loathing of math that all too commonly afflicts the great majority of students who go through 'traditional teaching of math'. (I seem to recall a remarkable statement not long ago from President Obama indicating some such feeling [fear/loathing] on his part for math - which I had thought was revealing [though regrettable] in respect of a very widespread attitude to math).
I believe (and had so stated) that the above-noted program at the Transititions Learning Center was not really "'rocket science', just mere common sense". I still stand by that.
We could of course go into erudite discussion (commonsensical or otherwise) of: -- the "defining traits of human beings"; -- whether "animals are endowed with common sense"; -- whether something on some list of yours "nullifies common sense"; -- whether "common sense is both a gift and a curse" (as you seem to believe it is), -- and so on and so forth. (I personally believe that - whatever 'common sense' might turn out to be - we should learn to use it better than we conventionally do. This is not difficult to do).
I'm sure links could be discovered/created between any or all of the above and the contentions of the article. However, in order to discuss any of this meaningfully, I shall probably require a bit more than the vague "hints" that you seem to be willing to provide (per your response to me).
It strikes me, however, that such a discussion might indeed tend to "nullify common sense" - which is something I'd prefer not to do at this stage (given your OK on the matter, of course).