I want to agree with this; but a little knowledge of stats can be worse than none. (Whereas trig is just a painful waste of time.) Can the intro course explain its own limits, and the dangers of misuse?https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/951282864498372608 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This is very interesting; closer to the mark than much writing on embodiment, which often seems like wishful thinking. What of arguments like Chomsky's &, in a different domain, people like Dehaene: that there is substantial innate structure to support certain abstractions?
Put another way, our minds seem very well prepared (evolutionarily) for certain types of abstraction, and very poorly prepared for other kinds of abstraction. All other things being equal, one wishes to target the former when designing new abstractions.
-
-
For, er, concreteness: Dehaene and others have argued that we have some innate capacity for number. I have, unfortunately, forgotten how or whether they relate this to Piaget.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The pragmatic argument makes sense: evolution has primed and biased our cognition to deal with a particular universe. But that does not mean that any system that wants to explore mathematics needs a body. It is not even so clear that this is true for us.
-
I'm asking specifically what it means for David's argument.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.