On Jun 23, 2014, at 11:16 AM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
> The ideal mathematician, in fact, just sits in a room (black box) and solves completely meaningless (to the mathematician) problems, because hey, this is a "need to know" regime and we're looking for compliant never-question-authority types who'll just solve stuff for pay, the more meaningless the problems the better.
I guess that goes for musicians, painters, writers, etc. And all this time, I thought they were enjoying what they do for a living. Maybe we should ask them.
> As soon as you talk about looking at birds and bees and doing empirical measures of deltas, the M-specialized tend to roll their eyes and make scornful noises (as they've been taught), since real mathematics is not about empiricism. You shouldn't have to need an "environment" to learn any math.
Let?s be honest here. We roll our eyes when the activity is only busy work, and never about mathematical relationships and analysis. And that is only when the class is labeled *math* rather than *bird watching*. If the class was labeled *bird watching*, we wouldn?t have an issue. We do agree on one thing, sort of, the only reason they are even trying to pass off the bird watching class as *math* is because the political educational system mandates that everyone take *math* and not *bird watching*.
> That's where the "exercise exercise exercise" heads down approach is coming from.
It?s actually coming from mathematicians, just like music lessons come from musicians and writing lessons from writers. Obviously, they have a lot of insight into the activity and practice that hones their craft and skill. Forcing every kid to do these exercises however is a political thing. If students were allowed to choose, would you still have a problem? Would you have a problem if some chose algebra or calculus? What if some chose bird watching?