4 ms·

>>But math reasoning really filters out people in a way nothing else does. Learning Math is just like learning a language, the issue is the script/alphabet/sym

by kamaal 3y ago

>>But math reasoning really filters out people in a way nothing else does. Learning Math is just like learning a language, the issue is the script/alphabet/symbols used to communicate, its dictionary, its grammar are all complicated its hard for common people to get a grip on it. Almost all people can follow logical sequence of arguments provided they understand the language in which they are described. This language so far is the greatest barrier to bringing Math to public. Probably a new teaching method is needed.

constantcrying 3y ago
The language is the least relevant thing about learning mathematics. It is arbitrary and rooted in historical circumstance. Saying math is about the language is like saying programming is about learning syntax. It is entirely irrelevant, the meaning is what is important.
- kamaal 3y ago
  >>programming is about learning syntax. It indeed is, how do you communicate meaning without words/symbols? Make an attempt to reply to this very comment by any means apart from using words/symbols.
BiteCode_dev 3y ago
> Almost all people can follow logical sequence of arguments provided they understand the language in which they are described. No. I know people that have been explained repeatedly with absolute patience and love that correlation was not causality, with simple examples. They agree on the moment, but wait a week and they still mix it up again and again. That's one of the smallest and easiest logical concept to grasp, and they never integrate it. Practically, in day to day life, mixing correlation and causality served them very well. It's actually often true. But as soon as it's on the news or a graph on the internet, it's over. Because it's abstract. And the persons are not dumb either: they are very competent in other fields.
- kamaal 3y ago
  >>I know people that have been explained repeatedly with absolute patience and love that correlation was not causality, with simple examples. They agree on the moment, but wait a week and they still mix it up again and again. You just proved to them correlation doesn't imply causation in some cases, but no amount of examples will be sufficient enough to prove that is the case in all the cases. This is exactly my point. If they have seen cases where a cause was strong correlated with some data, so as far as they are concerned, at least in that case they were logically able to conclude there was some connection. To prove your point, you have to in some way prove a total disconnect between the two(correlation and causation), until then you really haven't proven anything substantial to them. Note you will need some mathematical formulation to do it(Symbol manipulation), which is basically learning a new language from grounds up. It could be impossible. Hence my point.

by kamaal 3y ago

constantcrying 3y ago

The language is the least relevant thing about learning mathematics. It is arbitrary and rooted in historical circumstance. Saying math is about the language is like saying programming is about learning syntax. It is entirely irrelevant, the meaning is what is important.

kamaal 3y ago
>>programming is about learning syntax. It indeed is, how do you communicate meaning without words/symbols? Make an attempt to reply to this very comment by any means apart from using words/symbols.

BiteCode_dev 3y ago

> Almost all people can follow logical sequence of arguments provided they understand the language in which they are described. No. I know people that have been explained repeatedly with absolute patience and love that correlation was not causality, with simple examples. They agree on the moment, but wait a week and they still mix it up again and again. That's one of the smallest and easiest logical concept to grasp, and they never integrate it. Practically, in day to day life, mixing correlation and causality served them very well. It's actually often true. But as soon as it's on the news or a graph on the internet, it's over. Because it's abstract. And the persons are not dumb either: they are very competent in other fields.

kamaal 3y ago
>>I know people that have been explained repeatedly with absolute patience and love that correlation was not causality, with simple examples. They agree on the moment, but wait a week and they still mix it up again and again. You just proved to them correlation doesn't imply causation in some cases, but no amount of examples will be sufficient enough to prove that is the case in all the cases. This is exactly my point. If they have seen cases where a cause was strong correlated with some data, so as far as they are concerned, at least in that case they were logically able to conclude there was some connection. To prove your point, you have to in some way prove a total disconnect between the two(correlation and causation), until then you really haven't proven anything substantial to them. Note you will need some mathematical formulation to do it(Symbol manipulation), which is basically learning a new language from grounds up. It could be impossible. Hence my point.