 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / November 2007Why Math?
Math education fails ... serves 'em right! http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/25taxnj.html?_r=1&re f=nyregionspecial2&oref=slogin GHD > Math education fails ... serves 'em right! [snip] Niggers and spics as groups are empirically ineducable, Head Start to diversity. So? http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/immig.htm  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 > > Math education fails ... serves 'em right! > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 Al, you're generally perfectly on target, but here not! Harry C. > Math education fails ... serves 'em right! > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/25taxnj.h... > > GHD Brother, If you cannot learn ti understand math, then you will never in a potter's damn know anything about even basic physics. If your education failed you, you could have always purchased a textbook and learned it on your own if you had any ambition or desire to become educated. Why didn't you, or better stated, why don't you. Listen to Uncle Al! You stupid a.s, when I started highschool I was, as a rural kid living in an agricultural community automatically enrolled in vocational agriculture. You likely don't know what that means, but quite lifely Uncle Al does. Even as a relatively poor kid, I had this attraction to science, particularly chemistry and physics which seem to make sense to me acter years of listeing to years of the radio adventures of "The Shadow" and some of the early detectives like "Sherlock Holmes". Damn, Holmes seem soo brilliant! I never owned a brand new Gilbert chemitry set, but I once acquired one from a seller that had likely stolen it and sold it to me for $3.00. I still have the experiment manual that it arrived with it. In fact, I still have that same chemistry set,as likely to others. We actually learned soimething from thes little toys, and a don't believe that I would me overstating in saying that many if not mosts of today senior chemistst started out on this identical path. Some of us evolved to become physicists, and others chemists. I suppose that my point here is that many, many of use went on to learn the basics, which I agree is college level stuff. We wanted to understand why the flash reaction in the Gilbert manuals resuted. It was only until college level classes, and a bit of mathematics that we began to understand. 'Nuff said. Harry C. > Brother, If you cannot learn ti understand math, then you will never > in a potter's damn know anything about even basic physics. If your > education failed you, you could have always purchased a textbook and > learned it on your own if you had any ambition or desire to become > educated. Why didn't you, or better stated, why don't you. Listen to > Uncle Al! Well - that's a great way to rediscover what's already been discovered, anyway. But most of physics remains undiscovered, so relying on the current art isn't a good way to learn NEW stuff. I've been trying to get some input on a newly discovered aspect of relativity. I approached a local college prof to talk about it - but he kept trying to dumb it down into the confines of what's already out there. He didn't want to explore the newness, he wanted to jam the shape into a wrong-hole. While I was talking to him, a kid was standing nearby - enraptured. A half hour of exploring this shape with the kid was FAR more productive than the hours spent with her prof. One need not understand calculus in order to grok physics. >> Brother, If you cannot learn ti understand math, then you will never >> in a potter's damn know anything about even basic physics. If your [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >One need not understand calculus in order to grok physics. If you don't use calculus, how do you communicate with another person? Trying to write about physics without calculus is like trying to describe the color orange to a blind person. You are foolish if you think that calculus is not required for analyzing the physical properties of nature. /BAH > In article <BHL2j.71440$YL5.70831@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, >>One need not understand calculus in order to grok physics. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You are foolish if you think that calculus is not required > for analyzing the physical properties of nature. That kind of thinking is how new ideas do NOT get created. Subject Matter Experts are *great* at assembling other people's discoveries into apparently new things. But it takes a less disciplined mind to come up with those discoveries in the first place. Throughout the history of mankind, the most innovative discoveries came from people who were NOT specialists in the field. Einstein's a great example. He became a physics guru as a *result* of his original ideas, not t'other way around. >[...] > Subject Matter Experts are *great* at assembling other people's discoveries [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > He became a physics guru as a *result* of his original ideas, not t'other > way around. What does that statement have to do with your claim that he was not a specialist in the field? Or had "a less disciplined mind"? (Einstein knew his physics. And it takes a very disciplined mind to pursue ideas to their conclusions the way he did.) Have you any better examples of discoveries by nonspecialists? --John Park >> In article <BHL2j.71440$YL5.70831@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >That kind of thinking is how new ideas do NOT get created. You are 100% wrong. In order to get a new idea, you have to know what doesn't work and what does work....mostly what does not work. >Subject Matter Experts are *great* at assembling other people's discoveries >into apparently new things. >But it takes a less disciplined mind to come up with those discoveries in >the first place. It takes a lot of hard work for a very long time. Madame Curie cooked tons of dirt for years in her backyard. Then she "discovered" a new element. To keep doing the same work year after year after year without any way of being able to read the last chapter of the book takes more discipline than you ever will have throughout your lifetime. >Throughout the history of mankind, the most innovative discoveries came from >people who were NOT specialists in the field. I suggest that you get out and go to work and notice who the real experts are. >Einstein's a great example. >He became a physics guru as a *result* of his original ideas, not t'other >way around. ARe you suggesting that he never used calculus and never learned how to use it before he wrote his papers? Are you really trying to suggest that he didn't know the theories of his time along with the lab work that produced them before he wrote his papers? I suggest that you read one of his books before you cause more embarassment for yourself. Do you need a reading list? /BAH > You are 100% wrong. In order to get a new idea, you have > to know what doesn't work and what does work....mostly > what does not work. That's a very conservative perspective of a very liberal situation. Indeed - the FIRST step in creating new solutions is to ignore the "can't be done" crowd. Nay-sayers are *terrible* researchers. : > You are 100% wrong. In order to get a new idea, you have : > to know what doesn't work and what does work....mostly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : done" crowd. : Nay-sayers are *terrible* researchers. Correct, unless it can't be done in which case it is a waste of time trying. Nay-sayers said man could not go to the Moon - they were wrong. You can tell me to go to Hell - and I can't, even if I wanted to. > "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message > : That's a very conservative perspective of a very liberal situation. > : Indeed - the FIRST step in creating new solutions is to ignore the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Correct, unless it can't be done in which case it is a waste of time > trying. That, again, is a very conservative perspective of a very liberal situation. In FACT, anyone who succeeds at great things MUST first pass through a series of failures. The TRUE waste of time is in thinking that you're experimenting when the result is already known. >> "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >In FACT, anyone who succeeds at great things MUST first pass through a >series of failures. So you are advocating that previous discoveries have to be rediscovered by an individual, with no text book help, before any new work can be done. Honey, humans don't live that long. >The TRUE waste of time is in thinking that you're experimenting when the >result is already known. Ah, now the truth comes out. You don't intend to "waste" your time in Physics 101 labs because you think you are smarter than everybody else. Well, you're not. And you will never learn how to use calculus to describe physics phenomena unless you take the freshman classes and slough through them like everybody else does. One reason to learn math is to be able to communicate your physics findings on paper to other people. If you don't have a common lanugage, in this case math, you cannot tell anybody about your innovations and your ideas will be lost when you die. Go do your homework and stop whinging. /BAH >>That, again, is a very conservative perspective of a very liberal >>situation. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > by an individual, with no text book help, before any new work can be done. > Honey, humans don't live that long. What a stupid conclusion for you to jump to. >>The TRUE waste of time is in thinking that you're experimenting when the >>result is already known. > > Ah, now the truth comes out. You don't intend to "waste" your > time in Physics 101 labs because you think you are smarter than Oh - I get it. You're a troll. Goodbye. : > "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message : [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : The TRUE waste of time is in thinking that you're experimenting when the : result is already known. Tell it to Michelson, he already knew the speed of light in aether was a universal constant, all he wanted to know was its value. Since the result was already known it was a waste of his time building an interferometer to measure it and he didn't find a value anyway. It turns out there isn't any aether, even though Maxwell knew there was. Amazing what you find out by wasting time experimenting, even when you know the result beforehand. There is a subtle difference between knowing and believing which can be found by experiment, and sometimes you don't know something can't be done until you try to do it. So... ignore the naysayers by all means, but heed those who have gone there before. > "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message > : > Correct, unless it can't be done in which case it is a waste of time > : > trying. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Tell it to Michelson, he already knew the speed of light in aether was > a universal constant, all he wanted to know was its value. That's exactly my point. He was experimenting not to find out IF it had a value, but rather what that value is. Experminents with predetermined results are *great* for teaching and evangelizing. But they're a lousy way to learn something *new*. : > "Sanders Kaufman" <bucky@kaufman.net> wrote in message : [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] : He was experimenting not to find out IF it had a value, but rather what that : value is. And failed. : Experminents with predetermined results are *great* for teaching and : evangelizing. : But they're a lousy way to learn something *new*. Here's something new. Dunno if it qualifies as an "experminent" though. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm >> You are 100% wrong. In order to get a new idea, you have >> to know what doesn't work and what does work....mostly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >done" crowd. >Nay-sayers are *terrible* researchers. I'm not talking about people who only flap their lips. I'm talking about people who did the work and know what, and why, certain things can't be done. /BAH > Math education fails ... serves 'em right! > > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/nyregion/nyregionspecial2/25taxnj.html?_r=1&re f=nyregionspecial2&oref=slogin > > GHD My Op: I am advocating MORE effective mathematics education, not less. Here, I am pointing out that the various review individuals and groups missed the difference between (dollar sign) and (cent sign). Casually, people make these errors all the time-- like typos in usenet postins--but, here, you know this is review of an important financial document! Anyhow, so goes human foibles--go ahead, cast the first stone. ;-) GHD |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.