Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jun 21, 2014 2:23 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9495839) - GSC's remarks follow: > > On Jun 20, 2014, at 9:15 AM, GS Chandy > <email@example.com> wrote: > > > (GSC): I wonder if there are any 'objective criteria' > > that > > could enable us to measure levels of 'profundity', > > 'superficiality', etc, etc. I attach herewith a > > document "Deep Logic" that may be relevant in this > > context. I shall be happy to explain the model if > > any such explanation is required. > > Objective? You? You have lied to us about so many > details. Not little lies, big lies. I know Indian > culture is not quite up to ours with regards to > ethics and openness, but your behavior here with > regard to the truth has been disgraceful by any > standard. How about this for objective. 5 years ago I > set out to do two things. Establish my son?s > educational and when associates ask me about > something educational I don?t even have to convince > them anymore. Too many times what I have said has > come true that they just take my word for it now. Do > you know what it feels like for people to take your > word on things? I seriously doubt it. The other goal > was to leverage the enormous amount of experience I > have in IT and CS and establish a consulting > business. Goal accomplished. > > What have you accomplished in the last 5 years? The > last 10? The last 20? The last 50? > > Never mind. After all of your stories, who would > believe any answer you provide to those questions. > > You and Lou are just going to have to put your heads > together to figure this all out. > > Bob Hansen > I had already responded to the above somewhat hysterical posting from Robert Hansen, and I trust that response would be appearing in due course.
On scanning my earlier response, I believe some further explanation may be appropriate to clarify issues a bit. Here it is:
RH's hysterical response demonstrates clearly that he has 'lost it' (as was suggested in my earlier response).
Yet, I'm pretty sure there ARE still some useful lessons to be learned from even hysteria. As follows:
The issue under discussion when RH 'lost it' is the possible improvement in US math education at elementary school level. As I recall, Liping Ma in the "Notices to the AMS" had suggested that the US should adopt the 'Chinese system'.
Mark Saul in his rejoinder to Liping Ma (also published in the "Notices"):
i) Denied that adopting the 'Chinese model' would do any good for US elementary school math education; and
ii) Suggested that a better approach would be to create a 'synthesis' of the useful 'elements' in the Chinese system with those of the US system would be of benefit. (Links to both Liping Ma's "Notice" as well as Mark Saul's are available at Lou Talman's post initiating this thread).
GSC from the beginning was uncertain about Mark Saul's No. i above and suggested that there could be some possibility of benefits from Mark Saul's No. ii above.
GSC probably suggested, as is his wont, that the systems aid to problem solvins and decision making called the 'One Page Management System (OPMS) would be of some benefit to do the needed 'synthesis', as that precisely is its function: to help put together (*integrate*) ideas in any complex system.
Robert Hansen disagreed strongly with GSC's suggestion, (as is his wont), without offering anything better.
After that, it didn't take long before hysteria descended and any chance of reasonable and reasoning discussion flew out of the window, as seen in Robert Hansen's response shown above.
As the attack of hysteria unfortunately prevented a any kind of reasoned response to the important issues raised, those issues are posed once again below:
QUOTE > > (GSC): I wonder if there are any 'objective criteria' > > that > > could enable us to measure levels of 'profundity', > > 'superficiality', etc, etc. I attach herewith a > > document "Deep Logic" that may be relevant in this > > context. I shall be happy to explain the model if > > any such explanation is required. UNQUOTE The document "Deep Logic" mentioned above is available as an attachment to that post of mine (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9495531, dt. Jun 20, 2014 6:45 PM).
I observe that the 'One Page Management System' (OPMS) approach could be most useful to prevent us from 'losing it' when a position taken in some issue is on the verge of being lost.
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")