That argument was months ago. Gues one becomes immortal, or near so, if one contributes here. Appreciate your agreement. Wish it were possible to teach the others here that ideas taken from mind rather than from material data are nought but ideas. All this talk about number sense without any consideration, as though by magic, of the material basis for that sense developing on the basis of the actual work of the brain.
Spelling Doug. Oh mine is generally better than that except I was so mad I just scribbled and dashed it off. At any rate, as long as it remains reasonably readable, spelling is not all that important except as show. Now we have spell checkers (But not on this version of Eudora) which look for regular words, never mind that sometimes the regular words mean nothing in the context. Thinking, conscious thinking based on material data addressed consciously to problems is what is important.
On 06 Apr 2001, Doug wrote: >On 10 Dec 1998, Jack Jersawitz wrote: >> INCREDABLE!!!!!!!! >> Had another read of your "number sense" note and had to say more. >> You want Joey to have number sense but want to substitute a >>circuit board and a few chips for computation instead of Joey >learning >>how to do it for himself. >> You are the reason Joey can't read, or rather your method of >>thinking is the reason. >> Just what do you think this "number sense" thing is? Something in >>the way of a conception that floats out there in air with no concrete >>connection to our physical reality? Does the physical brain have >>anything to do, materially, with this "number sense." >> Or is it just something like the rest of the world as seen by >>folks who think the way your comment on "number sense", learning >>computation, and calculators, makes me believe you think. >> Do you really believe all this is only a matter of our sensory or >>other invention. In that case "number sense" need be nothing more >than >>the spoken words enunciated in a classroom by idealists like you. >> Do you see no connection between the repetative work, say a >tennis >>player does, and the tennis players ability to accurately track a >ball >>trajectory and return it and the repetative work of computational >>exercise and the sense of number, or more correctly the neuron >>connections acquired by such exercise, so that like tracking the >>trajectory of a ball a person senses when it just don't add up. Is >>muscle and nerve development of the tennis player not in fact >>analogous to the development of the thinking "muscle," the physical >>brain. >> Do you guys ever really think? >> You guys just don't add up. For you ideas have no concrete >reality >>and existence beyond some ephemoral idea, beyond the "number sense." >> Jack Jersawitz > >Jack, >I totally agree that number sense must be developed in concrete, >physical ways. That takes work on the teacher's part, because they >need to spend real time with kids involved with real reasoning. Many >would rather shoot a skill page at the class and watch them trying to >figure out what you told them 10 minutes earlier. > >By the way, you might work on some real spelling practice. >Doug