🚀 go-pugleaf

This article is from Eugene Miya <ames!aurora!eugene>
 and was received on Wed Jul  2 18:52:16 1986
 
In reply to Greg.

There is fuzzy, not well understood value in rote behavior (not that I 
encourage full time rote behavior).  Before we throw the TIMES tables away, 
we should discuss it a little bit.  It should be a bit more than past 
discussions about the loss of tying shoelaces. (Did you follow any of that?)

People (humans) have an amazing capacity to infer information in many ways 
based on past rote beahvior.  Much of it has to do with pattern recognition.  
Feynman and other relate an interesting story that Bethe, he, and another a 
third scientist simultaneously solved a problem: Bethe got the order of 
magnitude and first digit, (I note a lot of interesting in Jon Bentley's 
recent column on back of the envelope checking), the third scientist used 
a slide rule getting three digits (not much slower), and the guy (I think
Feynman) used a calulator: more digits (needed), but slowest.

I don't think removing rote behavior would make us more creative, but I think 
we should consider what we are trying to achieve in learning/teaching.  Give 
them calculators, but only after they have a degree of understanding.

Another posting, worried about Big Brother monitoring the work place sounds 
more like a problem with managers.  It sounds like management has become a 
rote number calculation rather than a creative, human endeavor.  Too much 
power to unthinking MBAs?  The problem lies with the people teaching managers 
in this in appropriate way.

If giving people calcuators is going to result in the above, time to go into 
hiding.....  Start "the revolution."

"The usual disclaimers."

from the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya 		NASA Ames Research Center 	eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA