On Jul 8, 2013, at 11:37 PM, GS Chandy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> The way RH had learned math is in total contradiction to the 'teaching philosophy' he has been expounding here at Math-teach these many years.
You mean we can fix this by making all students smart? OPMS does that? Silly me, of course it must. Making the human race smart should be child's play to a tool that can stop war and famine. On the flip side, how much do you reckon you have lost because of OPMS?
> RH should perhaps also make himself aware that 'reading a good book' *SHOULD* (if one does it right) also be as 'creative' and 'constructive'** an activity as, say, 'learning math' (in the way RH has described above). It really COULD have a great many similarities with the way that RH described he had learned math.
They are very different. For example, everyone enjoys a good movie, but only a small fraction of everyone goes on to make movies. It has to do with whether the person is drawn to movies or to the art of making movies.
Joe, intentionally or not, talks about the art of mathematics as if it was something a bunch of dead mathematicians did. That is flat out incorrect. I am not against the hobby of "math appreciation" but some of us are more interested in the art behind the product.