Feminist Algebra
Ron Sala
Can anybody tell me about "feminist algebra?" Apparently the term
derives from a paper entitled "Toward a feminist algebra" presented at a
meeting of the Mathematical Association of America in San Antonio, Texas
by Mary Anne Campbell and Randall K. Campbell-Wright in 1993. I believe
it was reprinted in _Teaching the Majority: Science, Mathematics, and
Engineering That Attracts Women_, edited by Sue V. Rosser. New York:
Teachers College Press, 1995.
I haven't seen the paper, nor am I a mathematician. I've read several
off-the-cuff criticisms of the concept, but have never heard it
explained. Can anyone give me some idea about feminist algebra in terms
a layman would understand?
--
_______________________________________________________________
Ron Sala "A million dollars and a piano
Brooklyn, NY, USA got nothing to say to each other."
rs...@earthlink.net --Quincey Jones
_______________________________________________________________
Xcott Craver
Ron Sala <rs...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>I haven't seen the paper, nor am I a mathematician. I've read several
>off-the-cuff criticisms of the concept, but have never heard it
>explained. Can anyone give me some idea about feminist algebra in terms
>a layman would understand?
Well, the paper doesn't actually propose a "feminist algebra,"
per se. The paper in question is just a (rather..um..interesting)
criticism of mathematics as being sexist. I guess you could
complain that math teachers can be sexist, and that math books and story
problems can be worded so as to appeal to males more than females, but the
authors of the paper don't seem to discriminate between the wording of
story problems and mathematical thought in general, concluding the
latter is sexist because the former can be. This is something like
declaring the laws of physics sexist because physics books contain
examples involving Bob cutting down a tree instead of Alice saving
a rainforest.
There's also a few really weak links in their reasoning.
For example, the paper posits that terms like "brute-force" and
"attacking a problem" are sexist, because *everyone knows* that
agressiveness is a male thing. This despite the fact that "brute-
force" in mathematics is considered a bad thing.
The paper is largely not taken seriously by anybody, except maybe
budding graduate students who keep it in mind as a worst-case example
of the kind of embarrassment one can achieve in publishing a math-
related paper.
-Caj
William C Waterhouse
In article <33CE6E...@earthlink.net>, Ron Sala <rs...@earthlink.net>
writes:
> Can anybody tell me about "feminist algebra?" Apparently the term
> derives from a paper entitled "Toward a feminist algebra" presented at a
> meeting of the Mathematical Association of America in San Antonio, Texas
> by Mary Anne Campbell and Randall K. Campbell-Wright in 1993. I believe
> it was reprinted in _Teaching the Majority: Science, Mathematics, and
> Engineering That Attracts Women_, edited by Sue V. Rosser. New York:
> Teachers College Press, 1995.
I read the paper about a year ago, so some of what I say may be
slightly wrong, but the essence should be right. First, the subject
is teaching basic (high-school, pre-calculus) algebra. The idea is
to find ways of making it more interesting and attractive for girls.
Some of the suggestions struck me as unlikely to matter - for
instance, the authors think that phrases like "manipulate the
equation" or "attack the problem" are un-feminine and should be
avoided. On the other hand, they make the quite good point that
problems like adjusting recipes for different numbers of people,
or determining lowest cost among products sold in different-size
containers, are practical and might draw on girls' experiences
more than some of the problems usually used to illustrate the
same mathematical ideas.
william C. Waterhouse
Penn State
Colin Rosenthal
On 22 Jul 1997 22:10:32 GMT, William C Waterhouse <w...@math.psu.edu> wrote:
>I read the paper about a year ago, so some of what I say may be
>slightly wrong, but the essence should be right. First, the subject
>is teaching basic (high-school, pre-calculus) algebra. The idea is
>to find ways of making it more interesting and attractive for girls.
>Some of the suggestions struck me as unlikely to matter - for
>instance, the authors think that phrases like "manipulate the
>equation" or "attack the problem" are un-feminine and should be
>avoided. On the other hand, they make the quite good point that
>problems like adjusting recipes for different numbers of people,
>or determining lowest cost among products sold in different-size
>containers, are practical and might draw on girls' experiences
>more than some of the problems usually used to illustrate the
>same mathematical ideas.
Making mathematics about cooking and shopping is feminist? Am I
missing something?
--
Colin Rosenthal
High Altitude Observatory
Boulder, Colorado
rose...@hao.ucar.edu
Jose Fernando Camoes Mendonca Oliveira Silva
rose...@hao.SNIPME.ucar.edu wrote:
> Making mathematics about cooking and shopping is feminist?
Math is aboutr abstraction, not politics. You stumbled upon
ignorant people. Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.
> Am I missing something?
Just some lines in your .killfile
--
Motto: Think! http://web.mit.edu/camoes/public/home.html
Brian W Purdy
Did someone say Feminist Math? Here's a link:
http://cycad.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/science/levitt.html
Enjoy.
Xcott Craver
Colin Rosenthal <rose...@hao.SNIPME.ucar.edu> wrote:
>
>Making mathematics about cooking and shopping is feminist? Am I
>missing something?
Amusingly, anyone who tries to author a math book
with "cooking and shopping" story problems to appeal to women
would likely die by a thousand flaming swords for committing
an awfully sexist gesture. Damned if you do, damned if you don't?
Really, though, "Towards a Feminist Algebra" does not
represent the views of most feminists. If anything, it is used
by opponents of feminism as an attempt to smear and ridicule the
more reality-compliant majority.
>Colin Rosenthal
>High Altitude Observatory
,oooooooo8 o oo...@math.niu.edu -- http://www.math.niu.edu/~caj/
o888' `88 ,888. 888
888 ,8'`88. 888 "If I am more nearsighted than others,
888o. ,oo ,8oooo88. 888 it is because I have stood on the
`888oooo88 o88o o888o 888 shoulders of midgets."
____________________8o888'____ (Isaac Newton's evil twin brother Spike) ___
Rick Decker
Jim wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Barbie sez: 'Math is hard'
Or she used to, until Mattel changed her voice box in response
to the angry folks of both genders who reminded her creators that they
might, just possibly, be sending a wrong message.
Regards,
Rick
-----------------------------------------------------
Rick Decker rde...@hamilton.edu
Department of Comp. Sci. 315-859-4785
Hamilton College
Clinton, NY 13323 = != == (!)
-----------------------------------------------------
Jim
Colin Rosenthal wrote:
>
> On 22 Jul 1997 22:10:32 GMT, William C Waterhouse <w...@math.psu.edu> wrote:
> >the authors think that phrases like "manipulate the
> >equation" or "attack the problem" are un-feminine and should be
> >avoided. On the other hand, they make the quite good point that
> >problems like adjusting recipes for different numbers of people,
> >or determining lowest cost among products sold in different-size
> >containers, are practical and might draw on girls' experiences
> >more than some of the problems usually used to illustrate the
> >same mathematical ideas.
>
> missing something?
Barbie sez: 'Math is hard'
nm+...@ii.com
I'm not sure what this has to do with feminist math but it
certainly makes one man look pretty bad! Here's an excerpt from
his discussion of the Monty Hall Problem:
...
I observe that there are two poles of response to the problem
among intelligent people. Intelligent people like me (that is to
say, professional mathematicians and the like) solve a problem
like the one above in something under one second (quite
literally). In a sense, it's not even a problem; it's subtrivial.
...
Is this guy serious?? How'd you like to have him teaching you
math? How many of you `professional mathematicians and the like'
solved the SUBTRIVIAL Monty Hall problem in `something under one
second'? This might not have anything to do with feminist math but
it seems to support anti-masculinist math, at least one man's
masculinist math. The smartest and wisest mathematicians I know
would never make such an arrogant statement. There are almost
always subtleties in a problem, even (and maybe especially) in a
subtrivial problem, that make thinking about the problem for more
than one second certainly worth doing.
Maybe that article was some kind of joke, does anyone know if he
was being serious when he wrote that `subtrivial' paragraph?
-Nancy
-- /
.-. /
/ \ .-. .-. /
/ \ / \ .-. _ .-. / \ /
/Nancy McGough--Infinite Ink/---\---/-\---/---\http://www.ii.com/
\ / \ / `-' `-' \ / \ /
\ / `-' `-' `-'
`-'
Xcott Craver
In article <EDuv8...@nonexistent.com>, <nm+...@ii.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Brian W Purdy wrote:
>> Did someone say Feminist Math? Here's a link:
>>
>> http://cycad.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/science/levitt.html
[quote from the above page:]
> ...
> I observe that there are two poles of response to the problem
> among intelligent people. Intelligent people like me (that is to
> say, professional mathematicians and the like) solve a problem
> like the one above in something under one second (quite
> literally). In a sense, it's not even a problem; it's subtrivial.
> ...
>Is this guy serious?? How'd you like to have him teaching you
>math? How many of you `professional mathematicians and the like'
>solved the SUBTRIVIAL Monty Hall problem in `something under one
>second'? This might not have anything to do with feminist math but
>it seems to support anti-masculinist math, at least one man's
>masculinist math. The smartest and wisest mathematicians I know
>would never make such an arrogant statement.
Remember also that a large chunk of the initial barrage of
angry letters to Vos Savant were from PhD's like this guy. One letter
writer even concluded that she had better be wrong, because if so many
PhD's got the wrong answer then something is very wrong with this country.
The problem is trivial, if you know the answer in advance.
I first heard of the problem when I stumbled upon an article containing
excerpts from the first wave of angry letters. I had to think about it
for at least a few minutes, and only then because what I read so far made
me suspicious. I suppose this guy read about it later, huffing, "Well,
of course! I would have figured _that_ out."
>Maybe that article was some kind of joke, does anyone know if he
>was being serious when he wrote that `subtrivial' paragraph?
Ironically, it is his very attitude of academic arrogance
which drove the flood of angry letters to Vos Savant. The world is
full of counterintuitive answers, but when they come from the lips of
Marilyn Vos Savant everyone seems to assume that she must have made
a mistake, ho-ho, that silly woman. I have never seen this attitude
taken with any other writer. Martin Gardener and others have given many
problems with unexpected solutions over the years, without complaint.
In fact, once Gardener erroneously stated that the 5-island theorem
would imply the 4-color map theorem. What did he get in his mailbox?
DOZENS OF PROOFS OF THE 4-COLOR MAP THEOREM.
> -Nancy
.,-::::: :::. ....:::::: @niu.edu -- http://www.math.niu.edu/~caj/
,;;;'````' ;;`;; ;;;;;;;;;````
[[[ ,[[ '[[, ''` `[[. "I'd like a large order of FiboNachos."
$$$ c$$$cc$$$c ,,, `$$ "Okay sir, that'll cost as much as a
`88bo,__,o, 888 888,888boood88 small order and a medium order combined."
"YUMMMMMP"YMM ""` "MMMMMMMM" _____________________________________________
Jim
Rick Decker wrote:
> Jim wrote:
> [...]
> > Barbie sez: 'Math is hard'
>
> to the angry folks of both genders who reminded her creators
> that they might, just possibly, be sending a wrong message.
Another stellar success for the Mattel market research dept.
Do these people live in a hole in the ground?
KRamsay
In article <5r8fj8$9rb$1...@gannett.math.niu.edu>, c...@baker.math.niu.edu
(Xcott Craver) writes:
| Amusingly, anyone who tries to author a math book
|with "cooking and shopping" story problems to appeal to women
|would likely die by a thousand flaming swords for committing
|an awfully sexist gesture. Damned if you do, damned if you don't?
I've seen "story problems" which, to a surprising degree, have been
found to be more often solved correctly by boys or by girls. I wish
I had examples, because one of the interesting things is that I
could not see why. People have suggested "sports" or "cooking"
in our present culture as possible sources of sex-correlation, but
the problems I saw seemed to be sex-correlated for some other
reason about which I could not make a good conjecture.
I think it might be worth someone's while to investigate the whole
phenomenon. I think it's easy to make misleading assumptions.
Keith Ramsay There is nothing on this earth, and little beyond it,
kra...@aol.com that nobody ever denounces. -- Matt McIrvin
Brian W Purdy
For an on point review of "Toward a Feminist Algebra," by
Maryanne Campbell and Randall K. CampbellWright, inspect
the contents at this URL:
http://cycad.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/fem/fem-algebra.html
The first third of the text is about the preachments of
"Feminist Algebra"(tm) in particular. The last two thirds are
about other avatars of "Higher Superstition"(tm).
Enjoy.
Rick Decker
A possibly apocryphal story along these lines concerns the
Barbie Liberation Army. They discovered that it was possible
to interchange the voice boxes of Barbie and G.I. Joe and went
into toy stores and did just that. The results were amusing,
as you might expect, and, one hopes, eye-opening--G.I. Joe saying
"Let's go shopping" and Barbie telling the troops to attack that
bunker.
This may be on the alt.folklore.urban FAQ--I just don't have
time to look for it. I also suspect I may have misspelled "Mattel,"
but, again, I'm not gonna look it up.
Allen Adler
I once participated in a local "college bowl". They asked a question
about a skier and I immediately tuned it out as being a sports
question. Too late I realized that it was a math question about
the rate the skier was traveling. I have no doubt that similar
things happen to people all the time and not just in mathematics.
If I understand the present discussion, it is being asserted that
a similar effect is responsible for an inherent "gender bias"
in mathematical education. But the emphasis on gender seems
to be misplaced. What is true instead is that everyone has
their own bias and it is the job of a teacher to help a student
get past that. A "male oriented" approach that assumed that,
because I have a penis, I must do better on word problems
involving sports, would not work on me. Similarly, assumptions
about what females want to see in a word problem are probably
also inappropriate.
Furthermore, if one is just changing the cultural context of
word problems, that might not be enough. Maybe some people
have a bias against pinning down answers exactly when, in the
cultural context one is alluding to, an approximate answer would
suffice. Just for example, take the problem of figuring out the
quantities of ingredients to use if one changes the number of
people one is cooking for (an example alleged as being
female oriented). Undoubtedly an approximate answer will be
sought and used in practice, since most kitchens don't have
any way of measuring precise amounts of ingredients and because
every cook knows that these tiny imprecisions don't matter.
So it is alien to the problem to have to produce a precise
answer to satisfy the anal compulsive math prof.
Similarly, figuring out everyone's bill, including tax and tip, at
a restaurant might be more culturally friendly to some people
but there is cultural significance in each type of solution.
Again an approximate answer is what one finds in practice
and various displays of generosity get involved in the rounding
process. Pinning it down is alien to the culture in which it is
to be applied and therefore to the individual whose math education
depends on being approached through this culture. Instead one ought
perhaps to formulate the problem something like this:
Seven people go out to dinner. There are 3 males and 4 females.
Of these, there are 2 married couples (male-female). One of the
supernumerary females is everyone's boss and this is, at least
in part, a gathering of professionals, although one of the wives
doesn't work there. The male who is not married to any of the
women at the table is, however, married to a woman with whom the
boss would like to do some business. The non-wife non-boss female is
hoping to have the boss' job some day and in the interim is trying
very hard to keep the job she has. One of the male husbands is a
company lifer who is just trying to hang on until retirement. The
other has been with the company for a couple of years and is secretly
planning to move to the company where the wife of the male who is not
husband to any of the women at the table works. The wife of the
husband planning this move works in the personnel department; she and
her husband met at the company and married about 6 months ago. The
other wife is just along for the ride, having accepted these professional
social events as an inevitable fact of life. They are in a Chinese
restaurant. They got a big communal bowl of egg drop soup because it
"made it easier", even though the wife along for the ride hates egg
drop soup. Similarly, they are sharing other dishes, many of which
are hot because hot is part of the boss's macho and because the
male underlings don't want to come off as wimps. The husband whose
wife is not present, moreover, has colitis but really wants to help
his wife get this deal. There is neutral discussion of various gossip
about those not present and some exchange of information about events
of concern in this sector of industry. The woman who would be boss
made an incredibly funny remark about egg futures after someone
commented on the spice in the soup. The various fortune cookies,
read by their recipients and then passed around, read as follows:
(1) Success in love and a better position
(2) You will receive the recognition you deserve
(3) Someone from your past is trying to find you
(4) If a rock falls upon an egg, alas for the egg. And if the
egg falls upon the rock, alas for the egg.
(5) He who hesitates is lost.
(6) Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
(7) Be nice to people on the way up. You will meet them again on the way down.
and were received respectively by the woman in personnel, her husband,
the man whose wife was along for the ride, his wife, the boss, the
woman seeking the boss' job and the remaining male. The total bill
came to $227.19 and included a gin and tonic for the individual with
fortune cookie number 4, a white russian for the individual
with fortune cookie number 2, an amaretto for the holder of fortune
cookie 7 and a creme de menthe for the boss. At this place, alcoholic
beverages typically cost about 3 dollars for hard liquor, 5 for liqueurs.
The bill reflected a combined state and local tax of 16 percent and
did not include a suggested tip. The boss made life simpler by paying
for the dinner with the company credit card but expected reimbursement
from those present.
Question 1: How much should each individual pay and how large is the tip?
Question 2: What is the smallest denomination of currency that can
be submitted by any individual without that individual
appearing to be compulsive?
Question 3: Which individuals pay more than their legal share and
which pay less?
Question 4: Which couples are going to have sex this evening?
Question 5: To the extent that it can be quantified, how has the
standing of each participant in this contrived social
setting changed by the end of the dinner?
Allan Adler
ad...@pulsar.cs.wku.edu
Herman Rubin
In article <2gafj9q...@pulsar.cs.wku.edu>,
Allen Adler <ad...@pulsar.wku.edu> wrote:
>I once participated in a local "college bowl". They asked a question
>about a skier and I immediately tuned it out as being a sports
>question. Too late I realized that it was a math question about
>the rate the skier was traveling. I have no doubt that similar
>things happen to people all the time and not just in mathematics.
This means that you were not properly taught mathematics. Mathematics
is a precise subject, with only logical thinking as a cultural
prerequisite, which is applicable to just about everything, including
moral behavior. When one is given a problem, one should always try
to come up with a precise model, and what is being modeled is usually
not of much importance for the construction and analysis.
The contrary attitude is quite prevalent, and to some extent it is
due to the failure to see the two stages of the problem. Formulating
problems should be taught in first grade, and not just problems with
numbers. The the acontextual nature of the formulated problem usually
makes the solution easier, if indeed it can be done. Ask for the
formulation, or partial formulation, and often the solution SHOULD be
left to computers.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Allen Adler
Herman Rubin seems to think I was not properly taught mathematics.
His evidence for this is the following quotation from a long
and intentionally humorous posting in which, among other things,
I wrote:
>I once participated in a local "college bowl". They asked a question
>about a skier and I immediately tuned it out as being a sports
>question. Too late I realized that it was a math question about
>the rate the skier was traveling. I have no doubt that similar
>things happen to people all the time and not just in mathematics.
More precisely, he writes:
> This means that you were not properly taught mathematics. Mathematics
> is a precise subject, with only logical thinking as a cultural
> prerequisite, which is applicable to just about everything, including
> moral behavior. When one is given a problem, one should always try
> to come up with a precise model, and what is being modeled is usually
> not of much importance for the construction and analysis.
>
> The contrary attitude is quite prevalent, and to some extent it is
> due to the failure to see the two stages of the problem. Formulating
> problems should be taught in first grade, and not just problems with
> numbers. The the acontextual nature of the formulated problem usually
> makes the solution easier, if indeed it can be done. Ask for the
> formulation, or partial formulation, and often the solution SHOULD be
> left to computers.
He is certainly entitled to his educational agenda but I think he
is going overboard in asserting, in the absence of any details
that I was not properly taught mathematics. Who the hell does he
think he is?
I hate spectator sports. The minute sports appear on TV or the radio I
shut it off. I don't allow anyone to talk to me about spectator
sports. If someone asks me a question about any aspect of sports,
I am quite likely not to know. So when I heard a question in a college
bowl about a skier, I assumed that it was a question about sports and
I stopped listening to the question.
Later on, towards the end of the question, the mathematical details
appeared and I realized it was a math question. As such I was
perfectly capable of answering it, in principle, but since I
hadn't listened to it, I didn't know the details of the question.
And college bowl is competitive, so one has to answer it before
anyone else, which for the reasons I just stated, I didn't.
What does this have to do with being properly taught mathematics?
Let me add that this was an informal college bowl and that it
took place around 1984, when I had already had my PhD in mathematics
for 10 years.
This shows it can happen to anyone.
In my opinion, Herman Rubin, you owe me an apology. You should learn
not to shoot first and ask questions later.
Allan Adler
ad...@pulsar.cs.wku.edu
Herman Rubin
In article <2giuxw6...@pulsar.cs.wku.edu>,
Allen Adler <ad...@pulsar.wku.edu> wrote:
>Herman Rubin seems to think I was not properly taught mathematics.
>His evidence for this is the following quotation from a long
>and intentionally humorous posting in which, among other things,
>I wrote:
> >I once participated in a local "college bowl". They asked a question
> >about a skier and I immediately tuned it out as being a sports
> >question. Too late I realized that it was a math question about
> >the rate the skier was traveling. I have no doubt that similar
> >things happen to people all the time and not just in mathematics.
>More precisely, he writes:
..............
>What does this have to do with being properly taught mathematics?
The person who has really been taught mathematics looks for it in everything.
Mathematics is universally applicable, and it is precisely this which needs
to be taught early, before learning mechanics. In some cases it does not
do much good, but this can only be seen in retrospect. It is precisely
the failure to treat it thusly which results in the idea that there is
"masculine mathematics" or "feminine mathematics" or "white mathematics"
or "black mathematics" or "mathematics for physics" or "mathematics for
sociology".
>Let me add that this was an informal college bowl and that it
>took place around 1984, when I had already had my PhD in mathematics
>for 10 years.
So why did you not consider the full problem instead of using the
setting you disliked to tune it out? The person who tries can often
get answers in settings where much is not known.
>This shows it can happen to anyone.
>In my opinion, Herman Rubin, you owe me an apology. You should learn
>not to shoot first and ask questions later.
>Allan Adler
>ad...@pulsar.cs.wku.edu
Allen Adler
I gave Herman Rubin an opportunity to retract his unfounded statement
that I was not properly educated in mathematics. He has declined to
do so.
From this day forth, I do not know him, I will not read his
postings on any topic and I will not read his email correspondence.
Allan Adler
ad...@pulsar.cs.wku.edu
Denise Loving
On 27 Jul 1997 20:53:04 GMT, jjt...@imap2.asu.edu wrote:
<snip> Must we always "manipulate" to
>get what we want? Can't we instead use qualities like honesty, integrity,
>sincerity, support, grace, kindness, benevolence, etc...?
Huh? When I manipulate an equation I am moving pieces of it around,
as if with my hands (manipulate come from the latin for hands), not
trying to use psychology on it. I don't see where I can use
sincerity, etc, in solving problems, other than sincerely wanting to
find an elegant solution.
> Is it not downright sexual harrassment and/or at least a vulgar
>display of sexual perversity when a teacher speaks about "probing" for a
>solution or "massaging the hamiltonian" (yes, I have actually heard this)
>or "piercing and/or penetrating" planes of constant phase or "forming a
>couple" (common term in physics believe it or not)?!!!
Why are probing, piercing, and penetrating necessarily sexual? It
seems that you are the one who is thinking about sex. Even couple has
a far broader meaning than that of sexual pair.
<snip>
> When is this madness going to end?!
When people stop reading into words only the meanings that resonate
most deeply with them and forget that they have other meanings.
----Denise Loving----
jour...@ix.netcom.com
Xcott Craver
Allen Adler <ad...@pulsar.wku.edu> wrote:
>
>I once participated in a local "college bowl". They asked a question
>about a skier and I immediately tuned it out as being a sports
>question. Too late I realized that it was a math question about
>the rate the skier was traveling. I have no doubt that similar
>things happen to people all the time and not just in mathematics.
I don't think that has much to do with anything here.
In the case of a story problem on a math test or in a math book,
the student will not tune out a question about a skier as a sports
question, since they know to expect math questions. In the case of
a college bowl, you likely have no idea what subject matter the
question is about until it is asked, and can prematurely conclude
that the question to be non-math-related.
>If I understand the present discussion, it is being asserted that
>a similar effect is responsible for an inherent "gender bias"
>in mathematical education.
Actually, I think that few dispute the existance of a gender
bias of some kind in math education. Rather, it seems that the authors
of "Towards a Feminist Algebra" conclude that mathematics itself---
that is, the purely mathematical reasoning you get to once you get
*past* the story problem---possesses gender biases. This much is
difficult to swallow.
>Furthermore, if one is just changing the cultural context of
>word problems, that might not be enough. Maybe some people
>have a bias against pinning down answers exactly when, in the
>cultural context one is alluding to, an approximate answer would
>suffice.
I think the only good an interestingly-worded story problem
can do is, well, make the problem that much more interesting
initially. Maybe use a little humor to tell the student, "look,
relax, it's not that bad." But mathematical anxiety, IMHO, is usually
strong enough in students that a better candy-coating is not going to
help.
>Allan Adler
>ad...@pulsar.cs.wku.edu
-Caj
Shaun Lambden
Allen Adler wrote:
It seems to me that this incident is like something which happened to me
a while ago,when i had a post it note on my monitor, i tried to drag it
off screen using the mouse, a bit silly. Does this mean i am ignorant of
the physics of post it notes? No (although i do not in anyway profess to
be an expert on post it notes) so Mr Rubin do not assume the worst of
people in a situation in which they thought the wrong thing first.
again my $0.02
--
<8^)~ (JF%) Wiz of OZ Hazen 747th (Deaths Hand)
Director of the Scientist Caste (with obligatory sexy lab assistant)
mailto:slam...@mail.usyd.edu.au
http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~slambden/JF/jf.htm
ICQ number: 1233739; to page me http://wwp.mirabilis.com/1233739
Powwow ID: Wiz of OZ
"back off man, I'm a scientist" Ghostbusters (198?)
Lukas Geyer
Herman Rubin (hru...@b.stat.purdue.edu) wrote:
: Mathematics
: is a precise subject, with only logical thinking as a cultural
: prerequisite, which is applicable to just about everything, including
: moral behavior. When one is given a problem, one should always try
: to come up with a precise model, and what is being modeled is usually
: not of much importance for the construction and analysis.
I think you go a bit far in appreciating mathematics here. How is
math applicable to moral behavior? I know a paper of George Birkhoff
on "Mathematics and Ethics" which is really crude. I think he should
have sticked to math and not try to give mathematical theories of
ethics and aesthetics (which he also did). Of course, once you have
a model you can start to do math and forget about the original problem.
In my opinion this attitude is irresponsible. Mathematics has a certain
authority in our society and pretending to obtain results on ethics by
mathematical methods impresses a lot of people. Unfortunately most
people do not question the validity of the underlying model, assuming
that the results are mathematical and therefore correct. Mathematicians
can not ignore this effect of their work.
If you know of some mathematical approach to moral behavior which is
worth reading, please post a reference. I recommend as a nice collection
of essays on the influence of math and computers on our life:
P.Davi(e)s and R.Hersh: Descartes' dream...
(Unfortunately I do not have the book around to give the precise
reference.)
This has maybe not much to do with feminism anymore, maybe the discussion
should be continued under a different topic.
Lukas Geyer
--
Lukas Geyer | ge...@math.tu-berlin.de
FB Mathematik, MA 8-2 |
TU Berlin |
10623 Berlin, Germany |
Herman Rubin
In article <5rhr03$5r4$1...@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>,
>: Mathematics
>: is a precise subject, with only logical thinking as a cultural
>: prerequisite, which is applicable to just about everything, including
>: moral behavior. When one is given a problem, one should always try
>: to come up with a precise model, and what is being modeled is usually
>: not of much importance for the construction and analysis.
>I think you go a bit far in appreciating mathematics here. How is
>math applicable to moral behavior? I know a paper of George Birkhoff
>on "Mathematics and Ethics" which is really crude. I think he should
>have sticked to math and not try to give mathematical theories of
>ethics and aesthetics (which he also did).
The problem is whether one is trying to produce prescriptive theories
or to discuss what properties they might have. The first cannot be
mathematics, but the second can be, and is.
Of course, once you have
>a model you can start to do math and forget about the original problem.
>In my opinion this attitude is irresponsible.
The assumptions about science, or about ethical behavior, cannot come
from mathematics. What follows from them is mathematics.
Mathematics has a certain
>authority in our society and pretending to obtain results on ethics by
>mathematical methods impresses a lot of people. Unfortunately most
>people do not question the validity of the underlying model, assuming
>that the results are mathematical and therefore correct. Mathematicians
>can not ignore this effect of their work.
This is not only for mathematics. There is too much of accepting "experts".
There have been far too many attempts, by people of all types, to find
an "objective" or "scientific" approach to human behavior. One of these
is to produce a "social welfare function". Mathematics was applied to
this by Kenneth Arrow in his thesis, for which he received the Nobel
Prize in Economics, by showing that certain reasonable assumptions are
inconsistent, and thus that a self-consistent social welfare function
cannot exist. I came up with the same result quite simply allowing
full use of randomization, which violates one of his axioms. The general
result that there cannot be a self-consistent rule of societal behavior
based on only the self-consistent values of the members is an application,
and in my opinion, a very important one; do not attempt the impossible.
Philosophers tend to assume than nature will conform to them. This includes
the philosophers of education.
Eric Conrad
In article <5rgcfg$5...@news.asu.edu>, <jjt...@imap2.asu.edu> wrote:
>Wouldn't it be nice if we "embraced" a problem instead of "attacked" it
>like barbarians? ...
"Embracing" a problem is sexual harassment. :-)
Eric
--
Eric Conrad (eco...@math.ohio-state.edu)
http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~econrad/
Department of Mathematics
The Ohio State University
William L. Bahn
Allen Adler <ad...@pulsar.wku.edu> wrote in article
<2gu3hfv...@pulsar.cs.wku.edu>...
>
> I gave Herman Rubin an opportunity to retract his unfounded statement
> that I was not properly educated in mathematics. He has declined to
> do so.
>
> From this day forth, I do not know him, I will not read his
> postings on any topic and I will not read his email correspondence.
And I suppose you won't play with anyone that hangs around with him.
Take a step back and look at this. Don't you think this temper-tantrum is a
wee bit on the childish side.
Certainly you are free to ignore anyone's posts and e-mails that you choose
- that's one of the nice things about the Internet. But then simply do so -
you don't need to inform the world. What do you expect the rest of us to
do, give you an atta-boy?
Larry Taylor
I have read over the entire corresponence between Allen Adler and Herman
Rubin. I think anyone who does so can come to only one conclusion:
Herman Rubin was not properly educated in reading.
Larry Taylor
Hauke Reddmann
Larry Taylor (lta...@csubak.edu) wrote:
: I have read over the entire corresponence between Allen Adler and Herman
: Rubin. I think anyone who does so can come to only one conclusion:
: Herman Rubin was not properly educated in reading.
Isn't it tragic? Two distinguished (or what the right word is)
mathematicians dragged into a flame war, just because of some
WOMEN! ;-) Maybe there IS some truth behind the Mittag-Leffler/
Nobel story...
--
Hauke Reddmann <:-EX8
fc3...@math.uni-hamburg.de PRIVATE EMAIL
fc3...@rzaixsrv1.rrz.uni-hamburg.de BACKUP
redd...@chemie.uni-hamburg.de SCIENCE ONLY
John Harper
A point which may have been forgotten, and which was put to me rather
well by a colleague, is that although mathematics itself is not
sex-linked, the examples with which one motivates it may be. She had
tried setting the same mathematical exercise on mixing in the contexts
of (a) making concrete and (b) cooking. She found that many female
students had difficulty with (a) but solved (b) easily, and many male
students had difficulty with (b) but solved (a) easily. As her classes
include both men and women she uses a variety of contexts.
When I teach the theory of projectile motion I try to include examples
from volcanology as well as artillery, and from games like tennis played
by both men and women (but when I told the said colleague she said she
found all such games boring), and on the behaviour of fungus spores when
doing motion in a resisting medium.
Moral: if you want to teach mathematics effectively, use as diverse an
assortment of applications as you can find. Any particular one is likely
to turn some students off.
John Harper School of Math+Comp Sci Victoria Univ Wellington New Zealand
Allen Adler
John Harper writes:
> When I teach the theory of projectile motion I try to include examples
> from volcanology as well as artillery, and from games like tennis played
> by both men and women (but when I told the said colleague she said she
> found all such games boring), and on the behaviour of fungus spores when
> doing motion in a resisting medium.
For some students, for example, instead of talking about throwing a
baseball at someone, one can talk about throwing dishes.
Allan Adler
ad...@pulsar.cs.wku.edu