[net-gold] "What do They Do in Math? #3
- From: "David P. Dillard" <jwne@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Temple University Net-Gold Archive <net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Temple Gold Discussion Group <TEMPLE-GOLD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Gold <net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Educator Gold <Educator-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Educator Gold <Educator-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K12AdminLIFE <K12AdminLIFE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Net-Platinum <net-platinum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, NetGold <netgold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Net-Gold @ Nabble" <ml-node+3172864-337556105@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, K-12ADMINLIFE <K12ADMIN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, net-gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 07:25:30 -0400 (EDT)
.
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2010 20:24:21 -0700
From: Richard Hake <rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: math-teach@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: AERA-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Net-Gold@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
PHYSLRNR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Net-Gold] "What do they do in math? #3
If you reply to this long (16 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
**************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my post "Re: What do they do in math?
(Ungarbled)" Haim of the Math-Teach list wrote (paraphrasing): "What
does Jatila van der Veen *mean* when she claims that her physics
course <http://bit.ly/9uFByX> ''WORKS?" To find the answer look at
'Higher Superstition' Gross & Levitt (1997); 'Fashionable Nonsense:
Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science' Sokal & Bricmont (1999);
and maybe 'A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About
Science' [Koertge (2000)]." Thus Haim seems to imply that Jatila
subscribes to post modernism's "rejection of the modern scientific
mentality of objectivity and progress associated with the
Enlightenment." But I can find no evidence of that in Jatila's
invited talk <http://bit.ly/8YF5kn>; her dissertation (van der Veen
(2007); or her academic articles (e.g., van der Veen (2010b), van der
Veen et. al. (1998), and van der Veen & Lubin (1991). I WONDER IF
HAIM COULD EXPLAIN HIS APPARENT IDEA THAT VAN DER VEEN SUBSCRIBES TO
"'POSTMODERNISM."
**************************************
In response to "What do they do in math? (Ungarbled)" [Hanson
(2010)], Haim (2010) of the Math-Teach list wrote [bracketed by lines
HHHHH. . . ."; replacing Haim's uninformative bare URL's with
definitive academic references; my insert at ". . . . [[insert]]. . .
. "];
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Robert,
You will find . . . . .[[the answer to your question "What does that
mean" in]]. . . . the "keys to the colors" [Welsing (2004)];
"Higher Superstition" Gross & Levitt (1997); "Fashionable Nonsense:
Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science" Sokal & Bricmont (1999);
and maybe here "A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths
About Science"[Koertge (2000)].
I have not yet read "A House Built on Sand," but it appears to be cut
of the same cloth as the other two . . . . [[Gross & Levitt (1997)
and " Sokal & Bricmont (1999)]]. . . . ; You may remember Alan Sokol
<http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/#papers > as the NYU physicist who
brilliantly exposed the post-modern cultural studies magazine "Social
Text" for the intellectual fraud that it is. In fact, I am not sure
we can say that "Social Text" even rises to the level of intellectual
fraud since it is intellectually vacuous. . . . . . .
"Higher Superstition" is a scholarly work that makes the same
argument in the broader context of post-modern cultural studies.
Academic jabberwocky appears to be gaining steam which, of course, is
why Paul Gross, Norman Levitt, Alan Sokol, and Noretta Koertge wrote
their books.
In the field of education, this trend is most strongly expressed in
the works of Paulo Freire, who is really nothing more than an
unreconstructed marxist (sic), with the following difference. Karl
Marx is difficult to understand, but you can, in fact, work out
meaning if you try hard enough for long enough. Paulo Freire is
impossible to understand. Unless you read Marx first, then you can
map Freire's chaotic gibberish into Marx and finally work out his
meaning. No point, really. Just read Marx.
As for Dr. Frances Cress Welsing . . . . (2004). . . . and her "Isis
Papers", this is mere mental illness thinly disguised as
Afro-centrism. I love it because it works exactly like cultural
studies but without the veneer of intellectual respectability. And it
is a quick read, nothing like slogging through Freire.
By the way, not only are cultural students intellectual frauds, but
they have no shame: "Social Text" is still publishing.
Unsurprisingly, it is published by Duke University Press. Duke is the
school of "applied cultural studies". In 2006 AD, 88 of its faculty
media-lynched three innocent Duke lacrosse players on the basis of
their skin color and ethnicity (do I need to mention the players are
white?) <http://bit.ly/990UEQ> "These young men represented
everything these faculty members despised, and they were not going to
permit something as bourgeois as truth stand in the way..."
Their defence? "I stand by my right to express my opinion, other than
that I don't have anything to say.
So, when Jatila van der Veen says, "The method WORKS," it all depends
upon what the meaning of "is" is, i.e.,
(a) do not assume that the objective is to teach physics as you
understand the concept, and
(b) you need to make your own assessment of her results.
Finally, I found a contextual clue in the following quote of van der Veen's,
"Anyway, I get to be a curmudgeon now, and say that it is not kids'
fault, and it is sad to hear teachers blame kids for not knowing the
meaning of pi. Their previous math teachers never taught them."
I do not know anyone who "blame[s] kids" for the failings of their
teachers. Something's amiss.
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
TWO POINTS:
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1. Haim evidently (please correct me if I'm wrong) thinks that
Jatila Van der Veen is one of those "post modern intellectuals"
criticized by Gross & Levitt (1997), Sokal & Bricmont (1999), and
Koertge (2000).
According to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-modern>: "The term
'Postmodernism' comes from its rejection of the 'Modern' scientific
mentality of objectivity and progress associated with the
Enlightenment."
But I can find no such rejection in Jatila's invited talk
<http://bit.ly/8YF5kn>; her dissertation [van der Veen (2007)]; or
her academic articles (e.g., van der Veen (2010b), van der Veen et.
al. (1998), and van der Veen & Lubin (1991).
I WONDER IF HAIM COULD EXPLAIN HIS APPARENT IDEA THAT VAN DER VEEN
SUBSCRIBES TO "'POSTMODERNISM."
2222222222222222222222222222222222222222222
2. Haim (2010) wrote: "I found a contextual clue in the following
quote of van der Veen's,
'Anyway, I get to be a curmudgeon now, and say that it is not kids'
fault, and it is sad to hear teachers blame kids for not knowing the
meaning of pi. Their previous math teachers never taught them.'
I do not know anyone who 'blame[s] kids' for the failings of their
teachers. Something's amiss."
If Haim were in a university physics department he would hear
complaints such as "the entering freshmen don't even know the meaning
of pi," thus implicitly "blaming the kids." But as Jatila points out
"their previous math teachers never taught them" - a point well made
high-school physics teacher Boris Korsunsky (2010) who wrote
(slightly edited):
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
I think that it's not about the differences in dedication between
math and physics teachers. I think it's a lot easier than that. My
opinion is not based on any research that I know of but: unlike
physics, math is taught from the day when a child enters school.
Usually, math is taught by "generalist" elementary school teachers
who, in likelihood, did NOT choose that profession because they loved
math - in fact, I'd bet the opposite. These teachers see math as
arithmetic, they have fear of math, they don't like "word problems",
etc. - and they successfully transmit that attitude to most of their
students. Of course, they all tell the kids that math is fun, etc. -
but kids can *feel* what they really think - just like a kid at a
dentist's office can see right through a nurse's smile who says:
"Jimmy, you are gonna have sooooo much fun; it won't hurt a bit",
etc. etc.
As a result, most students see mathematics as entirely algorithmic;
that's why they hate word problems (each one is unique in some way
and needs to be tinkered with before it can be reduced to an
algorithm); and that's why they blank out when asked a question they
had never seen before, like: "what happens if you graph circumference
vs. diameter" (or, heaven forbid, "diameter vs. circumference")...
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Honorary Member, Curmudgeon Lodge of Deventer, The Netherlands
President, PEdants for Definitive Academic References which Recognize the
Invention of the Internet (PEDARRII)
<rrhake@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~hake>
<http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~sdi>
<http://HakesEdStuff.blogspot.com>
<http://iub.academia.edu/RichardHake>
"Mathematics is the gate and key of the sciences. . . .Neglect of
mathematics works injury to all knowledge, since he who is ignorant
of it cannot know the other sciences or the things of this world.
And what is worse, men who are thus ignorant are unable to perceive
their own ignorance and so do not seek a remedy.
Roger Bacon (Opus Majus, bk. 1, ch. 4) <http://bit.ly/dzjbWv>
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by <http://bit.ly/>]
Gross, P.R. & N. Levitt. 1997. "Higher Superstition: The Academic
Left and Its Quarrels with Science" Johns Hopkins University Press.
Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/cZcefa>. Note the
searchable "Look Inside" feature.
Haim, 2010. "Re: What do they do in math? (Ungarbled)," Math-Teach
post of 2 July 2010 9:49 AM (the Math Forum gives no time zone);
online at
<http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2091961&tstart=0>.
Hake, R.R. 2010a. "Re: What do they do in math? (Ungarbled),"
Math-Teach post of 30 June 2010, 11:06 pm (the Math Forum gives no
time zone) to Math-Teach, online at
<http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2089571&tstart=15>.
This post gives the URL <http://bit.ly/90Cs3J> for an ungarbled
version of Hake (2010b).
Hake, R.R. 2010b. "Re: What do they do in math?" online on the OPEN
AERA-L archives at <http://bit.ly/90Cs3J>. Post of 30 Jun 2010
13:07:04 -0700 to AERA-L, Math-Learn, Math-Teach, Phys-L, & PhysLrnR.
The abstract and link to the complete post were transmitted to
various discussion lists and are also online at
<http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2010/07/re-what-do-they-do-in-math.html>
with a provision for comments.
Hanson, R. 2010a. "Re: What do they do in math? (Ungarbled)"
Math-Teach post of 2 July 2010, 6:46 am (the Math Forum gives no time
zone), online at
<http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?threadID=2091938&tstart=0>. A
response to Hake (2010a).
Koertge, N. 2000. "A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist
Myths About Science." Oxford University Press. Amazon.com information
at <http://amzn.to/bnzdWP>. Note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.
Korsunsky, B. 2010. "Re: What do they do in math?" PhysLrnR post of
25 Jun 2010 10:09:07-0400; online at <http://bit.ly/agfNmu>.
Sokal. A. & J. Bricmont. 1999. 'Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern
Intellectuals' Abuse of Science." Picador. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/bnZNWY>. Note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.
van der Veen, J. 2010a. "What do they do in math," PhysLrnR post of
29 Jun 2010 09:20:17-0700; online at <http://bit.ly/drGBIT>
van der Veen, J. 2010b. "The Planck Visualization Project: Seeing and
Hearing the Cosmic Microwave Background," in "Science Education and
Outreach: Forging a Path to the Future," ASP Conference Series, J.
Barnes, J.G. Manning, M.G. Gibbs, and D.A. Smith, eds., in press.
van der Veen, J. 2007. "Symmetry and Aesthetics in Introductory
Physics: An Experiment in Interdisciplinary Physics and Fine Arts
Education, Ph.D. Dissertation, September, 2007; online at
<http://bit.ly/buOKcC>.
van der Veen, J., P. Lubin, P. Natoli, and M. Seiffert, M. 1998.
"Small Scale Anisotropies: The Final Frontier," invited feature
article in The Physics Teacher 36(9): 529-538; online to subscribers
at
<http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PHTEAH&Volume=36&Issue=9>.
van der Veen, J. & P. Lubin. 1993. "Spotlight on the Sun, The
Physics Teacher 31 (5): 309; online to subscribers at
<http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=PHTEAH&Volume=31&Issue=5>.
Welsing, F.C. 2004. "The Isis Papers: The Keys to the Colors." CW
Publishing. Amazon.com information at <http://amzn.to/9NWmQt>. Note
the searchable "Look Inside" feature. The back cover carries a
testimonial from Legrand Clegg, Chief Deputy Attorney for the city of
Compton, CA. Clegg writes: ". . . . .Welsing, a brilliant,
Washington, D.C. psychiatrist has rejected conventional notions about
the origin and perpetuation of racism. Dr. Welsing's theories,
lectures, and scientific papers have provoked controversy for over
twenty years. Now the compilation of her work in 'The Isis Papers' is
destined to change the course of history." On the other hand, Haim of
the Math-Teach list wrote: "As for Dr. Frances Cress Welsing . . . .
(2004). . . . and her 'Isis Papers', this is mere mental illness
thinly disguised as Afro-centrism. I love it because it works exactly
like cultural studies but without the veneer of intellectual
respectability."
.
Other related posts:
- » [net-gold] "What do They Do in Math? #3 - David P. Dillard
