The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

Math Forum » Discussions » Education » math-teach

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Log Sense
Replies: 29   Last Post: Aug 27, 2013 2:55 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
GS Chandy

Posts: 8,307
From: Hyderabad, Mumbai/Bangalore, India
Registered: 9/29/05
Re: Log Sense
Posted: Aug 25, 2013 3:03 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Robert Hansen (RH) posted Aug 24, 2013 7:05 PM,
> On Aug 24, 2013, at 12:46 AM, GS Chandy
> <> wrote:

> >>>> "The tendency of 'uneducated' people to compress
> the number scale for big numbers is actually an
> admirable way of measuring the world, ..."

It would have been more accurate (assuming of course that you wish to pay attention to stuff like quoting accurately, making statements and claims clearly and correctly, etc, etc) to have noted that the above was actually a quotation from Philip Ball's column in 'Nature' [] - and that it was NOT something that GS Chandy had written (as you've incorrectly stated).

This is entirely clear at the post to which you have responded - see .
> (RH) People in general, especially uneducated people,
> are incapable of "compressing" a number scale. Clever
> people however are capable of devising numbers scales
> involving orders of magnitude. Once devised, people
> in general, even uneducated people, are able to use
> these (compressed) scales.
> Inventing a scale requires thought.
> Using the scale after it was invented does not.
> That isn't to say that a thoughtful person might not
> ponder the scale they are using. But, in general,
> people are not thoughtful and they will just use the
> scale as they would any other concrete thing or idea.
> Level 1 - Inborn sense (the animals)
> Level 2 - Concrete cultural knowledge (the talking
> tool makers)
> Level 3 - Abstract thought (the thinkers)
> Bob Hansen

At least we are not subjected to those torturous triple-negatives in the above (as we were in your post dt. Aug 24, 2013 6:52 PM) - so we're able at least to try to figure out what you believe you may want to state.

I do not agree with your 'analysis' above (in several respects).

In general, your classification is - as it stands - superficial.

- -- Level 1: Animals with inborn sense

and human beings:

- -- Level 2: humans possessing "concrete cultural knowledge" ("Talking tool makers")
- -- Level 3 - humans performing "abstract thought" ("Thinkers").

I'd tend to believe that a little more thinking into the matter may be helpful.

("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!")

Message was edited by: GS Chandy

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.