Re: Sarah Palin- creationist VP candidate?

On Sep 12, 11:30�am, tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 11, 1:11�pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:57 am, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Sep 9, 4:54 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article
<8f1fc5e8-6b1c-47e7-8cad-75a83a4c8...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tim Norfolk <timsn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

An interesting leap of faith. As I have said before several times, the
experiments have mostly been failures. Fame and money awaits you, if
you can improve understanding and learning for any reasonable portion
of the population.

Such a person would probably be put the death in the most painful manner
possible.

That's exactly right. Consider how vehemently and irrationally any
suggestion of change is attacked. Information and the tools to use it
are too empowering to be entrusted to the general population.

-tg

I believe that Mr. Bushnell's comment refers to the powers that be,
who don't want a thinking electorate, rather than the 'mathematical
mafia'.

This is now the third thread this year in which you and I have
discussed this issue. In each case, you have repeatedly made the
assertion that we can replace classical paper-and-pencil mathematics
with technology. I have discussed several cases where this has been
tried in earnest, and failed miserably.

What you've done is to offer vague anecdotes, or references to some
study or other, while failing to apply the three basic rules of data
analysis---to wit:

1. Correlation does not imply causality.
2. Correlation does not imply causality.

And, of course:

3. Correlation does not imply causality.

When challenged on this, you irrationally snip everything and try to
change the subject. If we were discussing evolution, your behavior
would mark you as a creationist. You also follow their practice of
moving goal-posts and non sequitur responses.

I wrote a very clear exposition of my views above; there is nothing
there that needs any more verification than observation and experience
in any number of fields over the last several decades. Well, make that
*objective* observation.

-tg

Those cases, and my personal
experience, lead me to believe that your approach won't work.

However, as above, I am quite prepared to be proven wrong, and it
won't alter my research much at all. Indeed, the work that I do in
zeros of polynomials is of interest precisely because the software
breaks down due to numerical instability.

You have yet to provide any solid evidence at all that your approach
is viable, and have demonstrated the kind of intellectual laziness
that makes learning real mathematics impossible. On the two occasions
when you attempted to do so:

1. You posted a Maple work*** to show that the classical analytical
technique for the pendulum was unnecessary. Unfortunately, the example
that you chose was constructed by first solving the differential
equation, and then plotting the various features of the solution,
meaning that the software supplemented the analytical solution.

2. In the second, you posted a question on a modified version of the
problem, then berated me for not answering it. Unfortunately, yet
again, you didn't check it out, as I pointed out that the problem as
stated was physically meaningless.

I would argue that the responses to your suggestion of change are only
vehement (and not irrational) precisely because such attempts have
been made, and you offer no evidence at all that you have anything new
to offer.

For what it's worth, the only reason that I snip the messages is that
they are getting rather long, and Google Groups has the annoying
feature of hiding much of the material.

I would argue that I haven't changed my position at all. I have
repeatedly referred to (admittedly anecdotal) evidence, including
large-scale programs, such as at VPI, which tried to do as you
suggest.

In addition to the informal fallacies I've mentioned, I will now add
Strawman.

1) I never said that you changed your position; I said the you moved
goal-posts and changed the subject. (Which you've demonstrated again
here.)

2) �Whatever VPI may have done, or any other study you may refer to,
it is highly unlikely that they have 'done as I suggest', and you are
just projecting your own version of that as it suits you.

I will repeat that I laid out my position clearly earlier in the
thread, **and if you deal with what I said instead of whatever is in
your head** you will see that it is supported by simple observation.





Every one has been a failure, when applied to a non-selcect
body of students. On the other hand, your claim is that it will work,
without any such studies, based only on your opinion. Please tell me
the difference between your approach and that of the Americans who are
convinced that drilling enough holes in the landscape and sea beds
will solve our energy problems for all time, in spite of the best
estimates by geologists.

As for my evidence, 'correlation not being causation', I will try a
slightly different aproach:

In the US and UK, there is a tremendous amount of money involved in
higher education, and thus a huge incentive for the universities and
colleges to keep and graduate students.

Whether it is correlation or causation, it is well-known that things
like math ACT scores and grades in college-level math courses are the
best predictors of college success. The data from the university at
which I work supports this correlation.

There is thus a massive interest in remedial math education. At a
conference on this two Summers ago, it was revealed that not one
institution has succeeded with more than 50% of students, regardless
of approach.

Whatever your skills, Tim, they don't include verbal scientific
reasoning. These last two paragraphs are completely irrational. And I
suspect that you will simply go off on yet another tangent instead of
trying to explain what you think you are demonstrating here.

-tg- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

For anyone with the stamina to wade through this thread for nuggets of
wisdom, I apologize for the length of this posting, but didn't want to
be accused of snipping relevant information to make select points.

I will leave it up to others to decide if I am being irrational, have
moved the goalposts or changed the subject, or am incapable of
constructing a verbal scientific argument.

However, perhaps you will agree with the following simplified synopsis
of the scientific process:

1. Make observations
2. Construct model
3. Make further observations
4. If evidence is found that completely refutes the model, go to 2.
If not, refine the model, and go to 3.

Throughout the threads in which we have contributed, your basic
hypothesis is that we can replace the learning of algorithms in
mathematics for all but (possibly) future researchers, using instead
software tools. The stated goals are to have a higher percentage of
the general population make reasoned decisions, as well as train
engineers better and more efficiently.

Your support for this thesis:

a) There are wonderful software tools that can be used to solve
mathematical models of various kinds. (Developed by mathematicians,
computer scientists and engineers)
b) So far in history, human society has survived and adapted to new
technology.

When pressed for more evidence, you gave a Maple work*** in which
the problem had been solved before coding, and asked a physics problem
which you worded in such a way that the question was meaningless.

You appear to be stuck on step 2. above, and insisting that we change
our complete curriculum according to your opinion.

In contention, my hypothesis is that traditional training in
mathematics is, for whatever reason, necessary for higher learning. In
addition, my observation is that attempting to do what you propose not
only will not generate a significant increase in 'critical thinking'
skills in the general population, but will hamper the learning of
those students who have that intrinsic skill.

I will also note that I do not suggest that the use of technology is
not justified, only that it should come after the basic skills and
algorithms have been mastered. I also do not claim that there is no
better way to train people in the analytical subjects, only that we do
not appear to have found one. Not that the mathematical community
haven't tried. Witness Euclid's comment to King Ptolemy, "Sire, there
is no royal road to geometry".

Observations in support of my thesis:

a) Successful experiments in replacing classrooms with computer labs
as places like VPI have so far failed to translate to the general
student population, and the effects in select groups have mostly been
transitory.
b) Even though the ACT and SAT supposedly are not dependent on
specific coursework, high math scores on these tests correlate
positively with college-level math success and graduation rates,
regardless of major.
c) Attempts at large universities with computer- and calculator-based
algebra-free statistics courses have given very poor results, in terms
of students being able to phrase questions properly after the courses
are completed.
d) It is in the interest of higher education to retain and graduate
more students. No attempt to improve this by honestly increasing
mathematics pass rates (using the distorted logic in b) above that
this would be a good thing) has yet been found.
e) Many colleges and universities have even eliminated mathematics and
science requirements, or watered them down to the equivalent of high
school Algebra I or below. These attempts have also not resulted in
much higher success rates.
f) Students in the US have, probably have more access to technology
than most students in the world. In spite of that, the US ranks around
Swaziland in 8th-12th grade science and mathematics achievement (cf.
TIMSS), and below most of the industrialized world.
g) My experience with Honors students who have been trained with
emphasis on calculators instead of pencil-and-paper since 1st grade
indicates that the ease of computation that they are used to makes it
more difficult for them to learn higher-level material, regardless of
their 'natural' skill.
h) A study in the UK found that passing the A-level math exam
translated into an average increase of 10% in salary, when every other
factor was taken into account. The US News list of 'best undergraduate
majors' reflects a similar trend, yet this has not translated into
more students graduating in the analytical fields.
i) In India, where education may be the only way for someone to move
up in society, there is such a shortage of technical specialists that
Bangalore is out-sourcing to Romania (Newsweek).
j) An AP newsfeed in May/June described Labor Department statistics
that current enrollments in science and engineering will meet only 50%
of the anticipated need.

.