|
|
Re: Of Sequence and Success
Posted:
Nov 4, 2012 11:22 PM
|
|
I also have seen Keith Devlin in person but what impresses me most is
that his real interest is self-interest in media stuff. He lives at
Stanford and the Stanford math faculty (that wrote the California
Mathematics Content Standards, including foundational mathematics
computational competence) has no idea what he is doing because he
never darkens their door.
Wayne
At 09:52 PM 11/2/2012, kirby urner wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Robert Hansen <bob@rsccore.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 2, 2012, at 6:05 PM, kirby urner <kirby.urner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > To this day, there's a sense among mathematicians (many of them) that
> > "arithmetic" as we call it is a vocational skill that, if not
> > orthogonal to mathematics, is certainly not its essential core.
> >
> >
> > No there isn't. Lou is the first I have met. Even Devlin is firmly in the
> > times-tables camp. I so often must remind you about exaggeration.
> >
> > Bob Hansen
>
>I have listened to Devlin in personal appearances, e.g. Oregon Math
>Summit ** as well as on the radio.
>
>His schtick when I saw him was "arithmetic" is basic numeracy like
>knowing how to weigh, use a fork, blow your nose, tie your shoes.
>
>All teachers in all subjects were equally responsible for imparting
>these basics, he was saying, as that would free the math teachers to
>teach what's really math, which isn't "the four operations".
>
>He ridiculed traditional schooling in the "four operations" as
>spending years making junior try to make himself a cheap imitation of
>a cheap plastic calculator, and still not being able to perform as
>well.
>
>These are necessary skills (add, divide, multiply, subtract), but so
>is buying toilet paper (alluding to Paul's obsession with "money" over
>"energy" when talking economics -- symptomatic of that discipline's
>out-of-touchness with reality).
>
>I'm surprised Lou is the first mathematician you've met with that
>attitude. I assure you Devlin somewhat shares it. I do not
>exaggerate. Plato shares it too.
>
>It's somewhat endemic in the culture, I'm surprise you haven't noticed.
>
>The comic book math mensch can visualize hyper-dimensional topologies
>rotating with ease but can barely balance a check book, because mere
>addition is boring/tedious/error-prone and he never bothered to get
>good at it (too busy getting good at math).
>
>Being good at arithmetic means you're a well oiled machine, like fast
>with an abacus, maybe you have lots of mental tricks and can add the
>grocery bill in your head. Good for you (applause!). But that's more
>under the heading of "salon trick" or "impress your friends at
>parties". Math means knowing lots of theorems and history and
>applications and...
>
>
>Kirby
>
>** http://www.grunch.net/synergetics/mathsummit.html
|
|
