I'll add a further comment... I am deeply offended that (especially in the US) the math ed wing of the Education Mafia has been able to destroy what I consider to be the greatest gift of the ancient Greeks to modern thought, deductive logic. Part of the reason is that lots of kids, including some very bright ones as well as the usual suspects, never really understand what's going on. For an important subset of these populations, it is exactly what got us "looked" on mathematics. The artificial formalism (usually abbreviated but always hiding the wings) is behind every conclusion in mathematics. Forgetting that is what Lou was pretending you are doing when, in fact, animated graphics (including Lou's nice ones) are used in ways that contribute to this destruction. If it looks good - and the computer assisted approximate values roundoff correctly, Voilá! The new "proof".
At 02:21 PM 6/21/2014, Robert Hansen wrote:
>On Jun 21, 2014, at 4:49 PM, Louis Talman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > If A implies that the sky is green, but the sky is blue, what you've > > really shown is that you were wrong when you thought you'd shown that > > A is true. > >That was exactly the point Lou. A lot of people >(reformers in this case) dont get that. They >mistake the trappings of science with proof. >They will submit an insignificant experiment, or >a hundred examples of the same insignificant >experiment, and claim that the sky is green, while everyone knows it is blue. > > > Science doesn't prove things are true. Not ever. It disproves, and > > thus leads us to better models---models that haven't been disproved. > >No, it doesnt. I wouldnt even say it >disproves. In science reality is the truth so >there is no need to prove or disprove anything. >Science builds models, the models predict, the >predictions are tested against reality, the >models are then adjusted or simply abandoned, and so on, and so on, and so on. > >A lot of people dont get this either. They >think that science is a tool with which to >define reality instead of a tool with which to >understand reality. The former view is actually >alchemy.. You pick a goal, the philosophers >stone for instance, and then you create a >science around that goal. In education, instead >of studying how smart students think, you pick a >goal to make all (or most) students smart, and >then create a science around that goal. > >Bob Hansen > >------- End of Forwarded Message