Mar 16, 2013
Mathematics and Language 6
Marty Stoneman :
I have read this thread, at least the later portions of the posts by Doug, David, and Dr. Marsigit, and I have the following comments to offer, not as a pure mathematician but as a widely interdisciplinary modeler of human cognitive behavior.
First, I quote partially a brief component of some previous posts in the order in which they were posted:
Doug : How children learn the truths of mathematics and how they become, when they do, proficient mathematicians, is still an open question.
We as yet know little of how the brain works, and there are multiple ambiguities when it comes to discussing teaching and learning mathematics.
David : Unfortunately, so far no one pedagogical theory has come up with a pudding worth eating, and so we will be depending on the ad hoc hybrids that characterize most education today -- including in those schools which give lip service to a singular concept but are then forced to alter these ideas in the face of the reality of the classroom.
David (to Dr M): you are contradicting yourself in saying that you are against introducing logic but are for helping the students to think.
Second, my brief comments (and apologies to Dr. Marsigit. if he has meant what I will say)---
I disagree with that we know little of how the brain works â€¦â€¦ I 90/10 think Doug is speaking only for academia and academia sucks at (1) SHARING measurable raw evidence collected in that field and terms used to describe same from one field (say, literature or music) with other fields (say, anthropology or linguistics) and also sucks at (2) FUNDING supporting or questioning any science about human behavior which might threaten any major power structure.
Models (like mine, not very humble!) which purport to link natural language evidence - about how people actually talk/write - with mathematics or thinking or logic, even if measurable and falsifiable, are not challenged with examples to explain, they are called too complex to exist yet, etc.
My brief example ---- cultural and other approvals and disapprovals are deeply embedded in natural language use all over the planet; but scientists discussing measurables that are relatively neutral (typically, in math) can have many international conferences (e.g., geophysics) where cultural differences may be set aside and even clan differences.
The youthful can understand some of these math benefits, like neutrality, even in terms of war and peace.
David Reid :
Marty, you make reference to your model to link natural language to logic. There are a great number of interesting ones (one need only to glance at an issue of any of the journals that devote themselves to this -- several of them by the Association of Symbolic Logic). As you have worked (if I understand correctly) in Artificial Intelligence, I would be interested in your model. Could you provide a link to said model?
Marsigit Dr MA :
@Marty: I am just to grasp what is the kinds of your model. All mathematics concepts are kinds of models. So your model can be a concepts in which I should pursue to understand. Under pressure by uncertainty of your model, intuitively I found the solution i.e. about who and how the model (like yours) is to be constructed. Again, I found here that there are only two sides i.e subject and object of the model. You are my subject of your model; and I am your object of your model. This is exactly the same case of what happened in teaching learning of mathematics. So whatever of your model, the problem is who and how it is constructed. If you wish to develop your model to solve the problems of communicating mathematics, especially for younger learner, I worry that you use your own criteria as the indicators; while the object should follow your scheme. If it is true, I then found that you may being effort to build your own world as it tries to perform hegemony. I totally disagree with any effort of older people (power/capital) teacher/institution to dominate the younger (powerless) people. Pure mathematicians, powerful adult peoples (teacher) as well as powerful interdisciplinary modelers (you) have their potentiality to do hegemony. I may misunderstand with your points. If it did so, you need then make your clarifications or additional information. Further, my question is how the common people be able to develop such model contextually. Your sincerity may lead to uncover further enigmatic.