Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jun 18, 2014 6:40 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9490744): > > On Jun 17, 2014, at 3:46 AM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > (GSC): To make it clear (if possible): > > > > A: You had stated: "I think the reason is that we > >are dealing with a pretty static design (humans) that > >hasn?t changed in a very long time". > > > > B: I had claimed: "you have alas failed to realise > > that human beings are blessed (or cursed) with the > > power of (human) thinking and rationality, which is a > > characteristic that has been scientifically proven to > > be pretty dynamic, fluid, able to change itself > > according to the circumstance". > > > > There's a difference. Do you see the difference? > > (RH): Yes, I am a realist and you are dreaming. The > world does not appear to be changing. > I see. All the scientific and technical developments over the past century, computers, mobiles, cell-phones, games, etc, etc - and you claim "The world does not appear to be changing"! GSC is dreaming, and you're the realist!!
OK, you will now claim that's not what you're saying, that *people* are the same, or that they think in the same way now as they did a century ago.
Just google for "how technology changes human thinking" and you'll get some 19 MMMMillion references - at least several thousand of which will show that people (and the way they think) have changed *very* significantly indeed over the past 100 years.
Here are a couple of links that you may like to check out so that you become somewhat aware of reality:
(And there are thousands and thousands of other references available. Of course, you will now claim you meant something else, or that I need to take a course in [American] English poetry to understand the 'subtleties' of your thinking).
But I really don't need to google for it. I recall that, when I was a child, the Brits still ruled us and a great many Indians were of the opinion (implanted in them and then strongly supported by the Brits, of course) that Indians *needed* Brits 'to rule them because Indians were incapable of ruling themselves'. Today, I'd be surprised if you'll find one person in 500,000 who believes that nonsense.
People DO change in response to historical developments, in response to technology - these are facts of life and if you're not aware of the facts of life, I can only suggest you need to revisit school.
The rest of your post, which I've read through, is just the same rubbish theory (VERY badly expressed, by the way).
And didn't you claim somewhere that you needed to PUSH and/or GOAD children in order to make them learn math?
I'm afraid you contradict yourself at every turn, RH.
I just quote the conclusion of this astonishing posting of yours: > > Furthermore, people think that evidence > proves things in mathematics, although if given the > choice of proof by implication in science or proof by > evidence in mathematics, I would wholeheartedly take > the latter over the former. > I really don't know what you want to mean in the above: I guess it may have something to do with your statement "I and other experts know everything about 'implication'" (words to that effect) - all I can say is that it does appear to me that you may need to have your circuits tested.
(The rest of RH's amazing post follows for ready reference below my signature).
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!") > >I am not saying I > don?t wish it would, just that it isn?t. And by the > way, that isn?t science. You don?t do an experiment > or two and then make a bold prediction that people > are malleable and that be the end of it. The next > step has to be to show people being malleable. > > The way the term *science* is thrown around these > days is just crazy. It is a testament to the notion > that a little education is a dangerous thing. People, > even people with PhD?s, think that science is proving > hypothesis A, making up an argument that A implies B, > and then proclaiming B is thus true. In science, B is > only ever true if you prove it true with evidence. If > you prove A and then make an argument that A implies > that the sky is green, the sky is only green if the > sky is actually green. People don?t understand that > in science, there is no such thing as proof by > implication. That only works in mathematics. In > science everything must be proven with physical > evidence. Furthermore, people think that evidence > proves things in mathematics, although if given the > choice of proof by implication in science or proof by > evidence in mathematics, I would wholeheartedly take > the latter over the former. > > Bob Hansen > > ------- End of Forwarded Message