CW:> "I'm sure there will be better and better tools > coming out all the time." > RH:> Kirby mentioned one. PDFs. They allow you to forgo > killing a tree. > CW: Not exactly a new tool. Or a new idea. Well, maybe to you. But then, you don't think "Synergetics" is a thing. What counts is what you think you understand and approve of. All else is a scam, a fantasy, or avoidance. When the world's educators commit mass seppuku, the survivors will have to turn to you and your ilk. Until then, not bloody likely.
> CW> "And you'll be just as successful in blocking his > work and influence as you have been with that of Dan > Meyer." > RH:> They don't have any influence. How much more blocking > do you want? You sound like Kirby and his imaginary > world where Synergetics is a thing.
CW: You clearly have no idea. Too busy 'checking' nothing and understanding less. The Math Twitter Blogosphere is quite real and followed far more than you, Wayne, Haim, Dom, or any other individual or group of 11th-century 'thinkers.' https://exploremtbos.wordpress.com/
You can't have it both ways, Bob: either there's an "Education Mafia" out there, vast, evil, powerful, influential, and constantly coming up with new ideas (or reviving old ones) to ruin the world and dumb down America's youth (which should be good news for Bob, Jr. Haim, Jr., and the various generations of Wayne progeny, yet you bemoan it all the time), or else the construct is a myth. You Club 1017 folks need to make up your minds. Heck, there are only three or four of you here. Can't even agree on whether your favorite conspiracies are real?
If people like Dan Meyer don't have influence, why are you so incensed about him? Why do you libel him every chance you get? Ditto Wayne's attacks on Jo Boaler, your collective attacks on Keith Devlin, ad nauseam? If these people have no influence, then shut up and they'll go away. If they do, then stop claiming that they don't. Because the entirely contradictory assertions you make here are more than a bit schizoid. She's my sister, she's my daughter? Please, figure it out and get back to us.
I'll leave Synergetics to Kirby, other than to state that if you think Fuller and his work are NOT a 'thing,' as you put it, you're not even worth talking to (well, not really news there). Evidence of his work and influence are everywhere. And if we're very lucky, not a moment too soon to override the willfully blind ostrich-like behavior of Club 1017. > > > "Here's a shock: tools can be used in loads of ways > besides those for which they were primarily > designed." > > And that has nothing to do with the point. Are you > making a Geico commercial?
That's funny! But of course, it is precisely the point. You look at the Desmos homepage, see that they post some favorite examples of art made with Desmos, and think that anyone but you believe that making art with Desmos is the entire or even main point. As you willfully ignore this <https://www.desmos.com/math> which precedes the art. Not by accident does the math come first. Not by accident do you not see it, or pretend not to, or - most likely - hope that you can fool others into believing there's nothing important to see. How futile.
Even if there are people doing nothing with Desmos but using it as a sort of Etch-a-Sketch, that doesn't do away with what most math teachers who use it are doing. Or kids. And that's why I point out the quite relevant issue of tools being used in ways they weren't designed to be used. But if you see a Geico commercial in it, by all means sell it to their ad agency and collect your money. I won't mind. > > Point -> Tools are pedagogically inert.
In your hands, everything is inert. It's a function of being stuck a millennium in the past and thinking you're cutting-edge. The only edge you're likely to be cutting with is a dull plowshare. > > > Bob