[Wittrs] Re: Debating with Functional Programmers
- From: "kirby_urner" <kirby.urner@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 03:07:22 -0000
--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "kirby_urner" <wittrsamr@> wrote:
>
>
> > In between New Math and what gets ridiculed as New New Math was the
> > rise and fall of intervening schools of thought. Constructivism,
> > constructionism... you know the ones. The Math Wars plays out daily,
> > in mostly ritualistic fashion, the positions well known.
>
> There's a "constructivism" in mathematics education, but I'm not sure
> what that is. I don't really have a problem with Bishop's
> constructivism in mathematics. It's an interesting alternative
> approach to math, though perhaps I see it as something like doing math
> with both hands tied behind your back. But when some constructivists
> go all religious about it, and argue that everything else is wrong -
> that's when I begin to see them as a bit nutty.
>
I'm not sure who Bishop is in this case -- one of those proper names
in need of disambiguation. There's a Wayne Bishop emeritus from
Cal State over on math-teach / Math Forum (Drexel U) who is an ardent
detractor of constructivism (or of New New Math at least), a
co-founder of the Mathematically Correct lobby, likes to identify
as a proponent of Jim Milgrim's ideas -- just to touch some of the
touch stones in the ongoing Math Wars. Ritualistic. Kabuki dances.
My entering the fray with "tetrahedral mensuration" as a part of my
brief is somewhat outside the scope of any of these ongoing debates.
We never get to talk about what I care about. Take a number, get in
line -- then my number is never called.
Not whining though. I actually have some privileges as a result of
staying on the periphery. I've befriended Wayne's friend John Saxon,
original author of the Saxon series of text books, often touted as a
leading antidote to the New New Math. Although many authors advocate
"spiraling" as the way to go (repeatedly passing through the same
topics, but taking them further each time), I go out of my way to
credit Saxon in particular, like in this handout for math teachers
from one of my teacher trainings:
http://www.4dsolutions.net/presentations/p4t_notes.pdf
>
> > Regarding your earlier post, yes, the FP vs OO (functional versus
> > object oriented) battle seems to have been simmering for a long
> > time, another semi-inchoate soup of visceral emotion and bitterness,
> > seems to be.
>
> It is driven by ideology, rather than by pragmatics. For that matter,
> so is constructivism.
>
The problem is, these ideological debates are allowed to stall the
action unnecessarily. Part of the problem is they're too abstruse and
esoteric for most people to follow, so folks sit in the bleachers
and watch the tennis ball go back and forth, but never reach a
decision about how to go forward.
Infinite parallelism seems to be the unconscious assumption, as if
nature had all the time in the world, or did within the human sphere,
whereas outside this sphere, we notice the concept of "deadlines".
I think we're fooling ourselves if we think we have "all the time in
the world".
As a result of these abstruse logjams: generations go by with
little substantive advance, because the debates stay unproductive.
This is where I think philosophy, which used to have apex status in
quadrivium / trivium days, could assume some kind of overview or
referee status. Philosophy needs to make a come back.
If the debates are esoteric and resulting in bottlenecks, lets
get some crackerjack philosophers to come in and help mediate, help
get everyone's cards on the table, so that we might move forward at
last.
Likewise with this "tetrahedral mensuration" meme, embedded in a
philosophical discourse right of the bat. It sounds somewhat
interesting, and you get people pushing to include it as a legitimate
topic of investigation / exploration, including from within the NCTM
itself (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics), but the only
people even aware this debate exists are themselves immersed in
esoterica.
There's a this big disconnect between the "combatants" in these
various mind games, and those who would notice the difference, were
the logjam to somehow be cleared.
>
> > What irks me is how little we do to converge any of these long
> > simmering debates, bring them to a boil.
>
> Competing ideologies will never agree. But when people are willing to
> go pragmatic, they can compromise on useful approaches.
>
I think it's up to decision-makers to understand what the debates are
about and then formulate their plans for going forward. If all they
get is there's disagreement, then the "maybe tomorrow" syndrome sets
in, i.e. these eggheads obviously disagree, so it's not up to us to
reach any kind of solution on their behalf. The buck gets passed.
I'm thinking philosophers could be more aggressive in asserting
themselves as mediators and at least translating the issues into terms
a layman might understand. How shall we make the invisible visible?
The FP vs OO debate is somewhat silly, as it presumes either/or. Of
course we want our students to have the same overview we have. Yes,
these different approaches exist. Who said we can't spend some energy
looking at several approaches?
Consider this analogy: does any nation-state have a "right to exist"?
In some a priori sense, no. These institutions assert themselves,
insert themselves, into human affairs. And yet the ritualistic
bottle-neck positions involve challenging this or that state's right
to exist, as if we couldn't question them all. Eliminating states as
a mental construct is maybe not in the cards, but taking all of them
a lot less seriously might be the healthiest way forward. Nationalism
is a killer. Which philosophers are talking about this? Creating
new positions, vs. allowing only the entrenched one's to persist and
dominate all discussion, at great expense, would seem a worthwhile
calling. Could more philosophers step into that?
Disrupting the ritualistic / frozen / entrenched debates: how? When?
The other social service we could use: get some comic book or
caricatures going. Exaggerate. When debates are esoteric, what
people need sometimes, more than anything, is to boost the
characterizations. This may sound too Jerry Springer to some ears,
i.e. we're already swilling in a dumbed down world. But here we're
trying tune in some abstruse stuff, so I feel forgiveness is in order.
Kirby
> Regards,
> Neil
>
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
