Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jun 20, 2014 4:18 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9495015) - GSC's remarks interspersed: > > On Jun 19, 2014, at 6:04 PM, Louis Talman > <email@example.com> wrote: > > > (Lou Talman): You seem to believe that you have, at > > one time or another, said something meaningful > > or profound. > > > > As I said: Dream on. > > (Robert Hansen): According to most others I speak with, > I have. > Talk of Serendipity and/or Synchronicity as well!
Right here is an instance of imprecision in Robert Hansen's writing and (I have little doubt) in the thinking that went on behind the writing, as well.
You have WHAT, Mr Hansen?
You have dreamt on? Or you believe you've said something meaningful and/or profound? Or what? > > (RH): According to the control of my son?s educational > future that I now posses, paid for with years of > research and debate, I have. > See above. You have just WHAT, Mr Hansen? (I'm not commenting on the incorrect spelling, that could well occur with a 'slip of the fingers', so to speak).
What I AM commenting on represents a 'slip of the mind', so to speak, a real 'lack of precision in thinking/ ability to express thoughts'. This is a relatively minor example of course.
The 7000-odd posts from Robert Hansen are littered with any number of specific instances of the imprecision in thinking and writing. Generally, these are just ignored by participants in the interests of 'getting on' to whatever useful things he *might* have to say. (In my opinion, there has not been much that is useful, I'm afraid, in the posts I've seen).
I recall that on one occasion even Haim - Robert Hansen's 'genius' guru, so to speak (who in fact does himself write rather well, I do accept) - was moved to comment somewhat humorously on one rather spectacular instance of the famous 'Hansenian imprecision' of thought and word.
In another (more recent) instance, Mr Hansen was so outraged at being called up on his 'imprecision of thought and word' that he even complained strongly to the Moderators against Professor Talman and GSC. (Not that Mr Hansen or the Moderators told us anything about this: I am only inferring that Mr Hansen made such a complaint from the course that the correspondence between us at this Forum took at that juncture). > > (RH): While you were > pretending to teach calculus to students pretending > to listen, > To provide a contradiction to Robert Hansen's claim by way of what Shakespeare's Touchstone called *The Seventh Cause* (*See Note, below), just glance at:
In my opinion, the single most convincing (though rather indirect) piece of evidence demonstrating clearly that Professor Talman has indeed understood what constitutes effective work in the 'learning + teaching' dyad is here:
- -- "Dream-Catcher Mandalas", http://rowdy.msudenver.edu/~talmanl/Mandalas.html - a potentially terrific 'teaching aid', I believe. (I'd look forward most keenly to any developments of these 'mandalas' linking them up to real 'learning issues').
(*Note: For *The Seventh Cause*, check out Shakespeares' "As You Like It", Act V, Scene 5, http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/asu_5_4.html) > > I was seeking the truth in all things > education, at every turn and at every level. > Wow! In fact, WOW! (Check out that *Seventh Cause* of Shakespeare's Touchstone. IMHO, this is truly a spectacular instance!) > >In my > line of work and at my level I have more *teaching* > moments in a day than you have in a semester. > Evidence needed to support this astonishing claim from Robert Hansen:
i) Number of *teaching moments* that Robert Hansen has each day;
ii) Number of *teaching moments* that Professor Talman has in a semester.
Have you ever made an actual count of either of the above, Mr Hansen?
Or I'm afraid we shall have to put this down as an instance of the overblown and empty 'Hansenian rhetoric' that's an essential part of the 'Hansenian 'imprecision in thinking (and writing)', of which we see instances in almost every post you put up here. > > And I > would have no problem finding a month to fly out to > you and teach your class calculus and show you how it > is done. > Considering the imprecise and often downright illogical thinking that Robert Hansen regularly exhibits at this Forum (not to mention the outright falsehoods told in support of his very 'fast and loose' arguments), I believe Professor Talman may find some difficulty in accepting Mr Hansen's 'kind' offer. >> > (RH): And unlike the king of tall tales with > multiple flats, I don?t need you to pay a dime. The > pleasure would be all mine. Because, unlike you, I > love teaching. And you might learn something. > Indeed. I'm sure Professor Talman AND his students will learn *plenty* from you!!
I believe much of what they may learn from RH may not be something of any use to them - to judge from what we've been seeing right here in this single post (and in all the other thousands of posts from RH)!
I do want to believe you, RH, when you claim that you "love teaching" - but you make it rather difficult, I'm afraid.
The underlying problem here is that 'teaching' alone - no matter how much you claim to "love it" - will not enable "learners to learn" unless the 'teacher' (/ guide/ 'facilitator') adequately understands that 'teaching' is only the second part of the 'silver dyad' of 'learning + teaching' (l+t).
This is a lesson that I would guess may not have gained ingress to your hermetically sealed mind (to judge from your many exegeses at this Forum) - see para directly below for another instance.
From your lack of awareness of the real and pretty impressive 'teaching work' that Professor Talman has done, it is clear that you haven't taken even the small trouble to learn about this essential background before you made your empty claim above. (Look at the several linkages provided earlier to find a fair bit of evidence). Even a casual glance at some of that would have helped you to avoid making such obviously phony charges as you've raised above in regard to Professor Talman's teaching. > > (RH): My wording is not imprecise enough to confuse > you. My > wording doesn't confuse other people I speak with so > how is it even possible that they confuse a PhD who > prides himself on his advanced language arts skills? > It is the subject you two have a problem with. > Teaching. > Offhand, I'd guess the above loosely argued paragraph above should itself be evidence in plenty of the 'imprecision' in RH's language (not to mention the incoherent thinking underlying that loose use of language).
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")