hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
>>>>Nice in theiry, difficcult to imposssible in real life.
>
>Easy in real life, if one concentrates on understanding,
>and asks steps to be given. Do you remember your geometry
>course, where you had to give proofs with statements and
>reasons?
I remember the course, and I couldn't do a geometry proof today if I
wanted to (and I don't have any reason to want to).
>>I put myself through college turoring amth to business students, and
some
>>took two or three tries to pass. Not because of how they were taught,
but
>>because oftheir attitude. Soem even were forced to delay graduatoin for
one
>>omre summer schools ession because they kept blowing off the work.
>
>Did you get these simple concepts across? If they ever use
>their business courses, they will have to FORMULATE problems,
They won't. They'll make a lot of money and pay someone else a
pittance to do it.
>not solve routine stuff. They need to use algebra as a language,
>not as a means to get numerical answers.
They won't use algebra at all.
>>I have found that wandering, meandering processes are indiciative of a
lack
>>of knowedge. OOne of the things I am required to *****s is the ability
to
>>accomplish a list of taks in a certain time frome.
>
>A lack of knowledge of tricks. The practice should come
>after the understanding; memorizing the multiplication
>tables teaches nothing about multiplication.
It teaches them to get the answer quickly (and time is money).
>>>>> This precision in mathematics is also needed in ALL of the
>>>>> sciences, and alas the public seems unable to understand that
>>>>> the government cannot just legislate in violation of the laws
>>>>> of nature, and achieve miracles.
>
>>>>This would severly restrict what can be defined as a "science".
>
>I see no such restriction. "Social science" is a stupid
>term selected by the educationists who did not think
>students had learned geography if they needed to consult
>works to find the geographical features involved in a
>history course.
"Social science" is a term invented by academics, not by teachers, in
order to try to gain the intellectual respect that accords the word
"science".
The term used in education is "social studies" not "social sciences".
>>The subjects I listed are inherently incapable of achieving the level of
>>precision required in math, physics, etc.
>
>Again, you do not understand precision.
In this context, I think we are referring to the result of practicing
rigor.
In the non-sciences, the standards are "good enough", and no one much
cares how you get there, so long as no laws are broken (or sometimes,
so long as you don't get caught breaking the law). In science and
math, failure to follow the rules rigorously and achieve the most
precise result possible is general anathema.
>>Generalization requires biological advancement.
>
>Generalization requires mental advancement, not biological,
>and luck.
The "mind" is a product of biological development more than it is of
educational development.
>>> They are incapable of understanding symbolic representation,
>
>>> This is utter baloney.
>
>>Nope. It is current understanding of hiuman development.
>
>That current understanding does not include the idea that
>an abstract concept can be taught. It is like teaching
>the complete rules of a game, but without all the details.
As has been noted. Kids don't care to learn the complete rules of a
game, details or otherwise. They want to learn a couple of things,
and make up all the rest as they go according to what makes sense to
them.
Eventually they reach the point where they will follow the rules made
by others for social reasons, but that takes socialization and
maturity.
>>But the rules are not immutable. In fact, chaging hte rules is the rule,
not
>>the exception. Watch kids payng a ganm, they cahnge the rules to meet
>>cir***stance. Their worlds are flexible, fungible, variable.
>
>SOME games. They recognize that the rules are immutable
>until a specific change is made.
The rules are those that THEY choose to follow. There is no such
thing as "immutable", only trying things and hoping not to get caught
and/or punished
>>How many kids do you know that don;t add house rules to Monopoly, don;t
>>argue over the rules for hide-'n-go-seek, amke up crd games rather than
>>play the staid old maid or war?
>
>This did not happen in my day.
You must have lived in an especially authoritarian family.
Kids NEVER follow adult rules if they can get away with it.
>>Strict adherence to rules is an impediment to early childhood
development,
>>not a goal. They are experimenting, experiencing, evaluating, learning.
>>Rigorous attention to rule shuts down this process.
>
>They do not have the tools to evaluate.
They don't care. They do have the tools to TRY things.
>They do not change the rules of arithmetic.
If they want to, they will. Only authoritarian adults can stop them.
>They are able to understand that some
>rules are unchangeable. The ones who can't believe in magic,
All kids use magical thinking. Eventually some gain the maturity to
outgrow it. But all of us (including you when you post on this topic
in these newsgroups) still engage in magical thinking when we feel
like we can get away with it.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lojban language www.lojban.org
|
