3 ms·
Without language, numbers make no sense
- swombat 16y agoWait a minute... so... not being taught to count things has an impact on your ability to count things? Whodathunk? :-)
- RiderOfGiraffes 16y agoI don't think that's an entirely fair representation of the content. even so, how would you design an experiment to see if language facility affects numeracy facility? And perhaps the place to start is: how would you try to phrase a meaningful question? I've followed your submissions and replies here on HN for some time, and would be interested in your take on these questions.
- swombat 16y agoIt is a fair representation... the article states: Spaepen's experiments did not reveal which component of language is crucial to developing an accurate number sense. However, she suspects that it is the "count list" – the familiar sequence of numbers that every speaking child learns early on. Children learn this count list well before they actually understand that "four" refers to four objects rather than three or six, says Michael Frank at Stanford University in California. So, being taught to count helps with counting more accurately (duh). I'm not arguing against the thesis of this study, mind you. I believe that language is of fundamental importance to thinking, and certainly, if you're never taught the word-concepts for numbers and counting, you are unlikely to be good at counting things. However, to prove conclusively that accurate counting emerges out of language (rather than out of being taught how to count), someone would have to devise a method of teaching counting that does not involve language and test that against the normal way. The experiment described in this article proves little. Of course, such an experiment is effectively impossible today, but just because we can't do it (yet) doesn't mean we should accept poor substitutes...