Date: Dec 31, 2013 10:48 PM
Author: Louis Talman
Subject: Re: Keith Devlin's Online Course

On Tue, 31 Dec 2013 12:58:37 -0700, Joe Niederberger  
<> wrote:

> R Hansen says:
> - ---------------------------------------------
> But we are talking about 8th graders, not Euclid. I didn't mean formal
> consistency and my statements were pedagogical, not mathematical. I mean
> whatever informal consistency is available to an 8th grader. Sometimes
> that takes the form of just ?It seems to work.?
> I hear your argument. My flimsy informal definition of consistency isn?t
> formal. But it suffices for high school aged students.
> - ------------------------------------------------
> I hear yours too. I agree more than disagree. Yet if one is introducing
> logic today, after all that has been learned in the last 100 years,
> somehow the formal, symbol manipulating, computational nature of a
> formal system must be also introduced, and the syntactic definition of
> consistency made clear. Maybe not in 8th grade, but I don't know why
> not. Certainly in high school.
> Cheers,
> Joe N

Nor do I see why Robert might disagree, because---by his own
admission---he's only interested in the "mathy" kids, who are certainly
ready for this discussion in 8th grade.

The take-away from this discussion seems to be that Robert is interested
in pedagogy only when it serves his purpose in discussions about how
things "ought" to be.

- --Louis A. Talman
Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Metropolitan State University of Denver