Re: Sarah Palin- creationist VP candidate?

On Sep 17, 9:28 am, John McKendry <jlastn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:23:50 -0700, tgdenning wrote:
On Sep 15, 6:54 pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 15, 2:36 pm, tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Sep 15, 1:48 pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 15, 9:47 am, tgdenn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

Tim, get back to me when you can produce a simple declarative
sentence to the point instead of throwing up chaff as you do
below. You had a moment of lucidity when you summarized above but
now you're back to not making sense. Will the experiment I
carefully described turn out as I carefully described or not?
-tg

No, it will not.

Excellent. Now, could please you explain how you arrive at this
conclusion by discussing *the experiment itself*? Thanks.

-tg

The mean time per transaction (no automatic change calculation versus
machines) will go down very slightly, allowing for scanning and actual
payment. The variance will probably go down, but not to 0, as they
still have to count out the change, and the 'better' ones will still be
a little faster.

Anyone who reads my actual experiment will agree with me and disagree
with you as to the degree of difference in the mean, particularly when
they note that I include accuracy in my evaluation of productivity.

 I have been reading this series of exchanges, as I read the previous
ones, making a concerted and sincere attempt to see it your way, and
I'm afraid I just can't manage it. When I read your comment to Mr.
Gunzel that the word "understand" is "typical education-speak
flim-flam" I gave up trying to see it your way. If you really think
it's possible to perform math without understanding it, you're just
talking about something entirely different from actual math.


As I've said several times, my objection is that I don't know what any
individual means by "understanding", and when you use the term 'actual
math', what I hear is No True Scotsman. What I've been asking Tim and
anyone else who wishes to contribute is simply to offer a theory that
has a testable outcome and a causal narrative, which is what I have
done. You are free to use the word "understanding" as long as you tell
me what it means objectively, meaning that we can all look at the test
results and agree on the conclusion.

 The assertion that "anyone who reads my actual experiment will agree
with me" is pretty breathtaking, though. This kind of assurance
that "everyone agrees with me" is usually only seen among the truly
desperate trolls here on t.o., the ones who have given up on any
semblance of rational argument. I do not think you are that sort of
troll, and I wish you would not argue like one. I have read your
experiment, and I do not agree with you.

But
that's really beside the point.

 Oh, good.

The point is that this is a valid
experiment---if we wish to, we can control for variables like manual
dexterity in picking up bills and change, and we can observe whether the
cashier wastes the time gained by talking to the bag-boy, and so on.

 But you don't perform an experiment by describing how you think it
would go. You perform an experiment by actually performing the experiment..
Then you write it up, describing the actual methods you used, the
results you obtained, and the steps you took to control for all
those variables you mentioned, as well as the ones you failed to
mention. Then you submit it and wait for the experts to pick holes
in your methodology, your controls, your assumptions, your statistical
analysis, and your conclusions.

 If you were to perform your experiment, and if it turned out the
way you say it would, the conclusion would be that a random population
of supermarket cashiers can make change faster if they have machines
to do the arithmetic. That's not a very specific conclusion,

No the point is that it is exactly a very specific conclusion. That's
how 'real' science works, by doing very narrow experiments and seeing
how those results fit with the theory in question.


and
certainly doesn't justify the claim that using computers more in
math education will make students better at mathematics.


And I didn't say that it did.

And
when we implement the principle in the educational context, the same
will be true.

 Woh. Big hand wave there. Making change and designing bridges are
different kinds of skills. Really, they are. This is the "then a
miracle occurs" step in your argument, and you don't seem to be willing
to talk about it.


I thought my writing was quite clear there but perhaps I can do
better: What will be true in the educational context will be that
there will be a valid experiment as I described. That is, we have a
testable outcome and good controls.

What you've provided to contradict my position as stated earlier is
nothing like this. I would suggest that you propose an actual experiment
yourself that you think would make your point if it turned out the way
you predict.

 Here's mine; have your experimenter go to the supermarket and buy
a prespecified bundle of items with a total price of $14.77. After
the price is rung up, hand the cashier a ten-dollar bill and a
five-dollar bill. Wait for the cashier to punch $15.00 into the
register. As the cash drawer opens, hand the cashier two pennies.


How would that be the same experiment?

 You will see a range of results. Some cashiers will take your
pennies, drop them in the cash drawer, and hand you back a quarter.
Some will look at the two pennies, look at the "Change: $0.23"
displayed on the cash register, look thoughtful for a moment, and
finally give you two dimes and five pennies in change. Some will
do the same, but give you two dimes and a nickel. And some will
give you incorrect change, probably either 21 cents or 27 cents.

 My hypothesis is that if you perform this experiment enough times,
you will come to appreciate that there is such a thing as "understanding"
that applies to math performance even at the rudimentary level
of the arithmetic of making change.


All it demonstrates as far as I can tell is that some people are
better at adding and subtracting than others, which is part of my
theory in the first place. Are you saying that "understanding" is
equivalent to being better at mental calculations?

-tg






John

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Sarah Palin- creationist VP candidate?
    ... talking about something entirely different from actual math. ... cashier wastes the time gained by talking to the bag-boy, ... Making change and designing bridges are ... hand the cashier two pennies. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sarah Palin- creationist VP candidate?
    ... talking about something entirely different from actual math. ... cashier wastes the time gained by talking to the bag-boy, ... Making change and designing bridges are ... hand the cashier two pennies. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sarah Palin- creationist VP candidate?
    ... individual means by "understanding", and when you use the term 'actual ... the cashier wastes the time gained by talking to the bag-boy, ... education level of cashier's parents, ... pennies, drop them in the cash drawer, and hand you back a quarter. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Not Just the US With Education Problems
    ... do math, either. ...  Math is not rearranging symbols according to rules. ... I have to wonder whether you have ever had the experience of understanding ... Mathematics happens when you finally see why it is that the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: pointers?
    ... understanding by starting them out with abstract "fundamentals". ... mathematicians' fantasies does understanding of math procede from the ... in real life mathematical understanding ... I think this misrepresents what really happened: it wasn't the teachers ...
    (comp.lang.forth)