Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 24:
I am being taken to task for suggesting that it is disrespectful to brain researchers who (and I do know this) use sophisticated mathematics, to suggest that in their assertions about which parts of the brain are involved in mathematics, they are applying a childishly simple notion of what mathematics is. But this article as it is now written does encourage that impression. If the impression is wrong, the article should be changed accordingly. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 00:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
:No one should take you to task; these are important and pertinent points you raise. You may find it useful to look up [[acalculia]]; this is a neurologic finding that can be seen in relative isolation. In clinical practice it refers to difficulty with simple calculation - addition and subtraction, mainly, at least as I have seen it tested. Gerstmann claimed it was related to lesions of the left angular gyrus, but this is probably too specific to be applicable in all cases. -[[User:Ikkyu2|Ikkyu2]] 23:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
::Heh. He's referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michael_Hardy&diff=37013979&oldid=36467040 my comment here] that I left on his user page. As the self-appointed [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Esperanza]] bouncer I don't take too kindly to perceived intentional rudeness; I am a big fan of the [[Meta:Don't be a dick]] policy. Also, your point on [[acalculia]] (an article I've helped write) is dead on, but still not quite the point Mr. Hardy is getting at methinks. [[User:Semiconscious|<
:::"Perceived intentional rudeness" was only ''perceived''. Nor do I think there was ''u''nintentional rudeness; someone just misunderstood what I wrote. However, I will admit that if I had written less hastily, I might have anticipated some ways in which my words could get misunderstood and taken care to phrase it differently.
Line 33:
:''Reasoning functions such as language and mathematics are often lateralized to the left hemisphere of the brain''
from my understanding its more symbolic processing and temporal processing in the left. Reasoning is a little to broad a claim. --[[User:Pfafrich|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Pfafrich|talk]]) 00:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
::[[User:Pfafrich|Salix alba]]: If you would not mind altering this as well, I would appreciate it. I'm trying to simultaneously do too many real life things to really correct this language right now. See my response below for my thoughts on this article. If you don't get to this in the next few days I should have time next week to dig up better references and resources to more clearly express the notion of laterality of "reasoning" in the brain. Cheers! [[User:Semiconscious|<
::: No problem I'll wait. This seem an article very much in gestation at the moment. --[[User:Pfafrich|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Pfafrich|talk]]) 19:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 56:
[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5416/970 This article from ''Science'' magazine] attempts to describe more precise definitions of "mathematics", suggesting it either has linguistic origins or is more visuo-spatial. The crux of the article suggests there are different forms, what they call "exact arithmetic" and "approximate arithmetic". "Exact arithmetic"--"what brain researchers consider to be mathematics'"--is strongly left-lateralized as this article suggests. "Approximate arithmetic"--"what mathematicians consider to be 'mathematics'"--is bilateral.
Again, in deference to civility, I will amend this article to more clearly state these differences despite my intuition that this is a semantic argument that is unnecessarily clouding what is essentially an already poorly-defined notion. [[User:Semiconscious|<
::Also, thank you both for coming here to edit this page: if nothing else it is enforcing a more precise definition of the terms we are using. If I am coming across as abrasive, I have no intentions other than clarity and I truly appreciate the efforts here. [[User:Semiconscious|<
I was not suggesting anything about "approximate" versus "exact". I was suggesting that
Line 71:
::What I seem to be poorly expressing here is that--while I understand your point—it is too ill-defined for an encyclopedic article. You have pointed out to me a place where the language is poorly defined and thus open to many interpretations. Therefore I have altered the language acordingly and provided a citation in support of my change. You can continue arguing about your feelings as to what "mathematics" truly is but that is no longer relevant to this article or this discussion as the word "mathematics" or any of its variants no longer appears in the article in any form (other than in the title of reference I provided).
::I further agree with [[User:Pfafrich|Salix alba]] that "reasoning" is a poor word choice as well. In my experience, the casual reader on Wikipedia does not like a great deal of technical language. In my attempt at trying to communicate a relatively simple idea to benefit the maximum number of readers, I chose to use simpler terms. This was clearly not an appropriate choice however, as I was unaware at how poorly defined a term such as "mathematics" was. My point being, you may continue arguing this--and I will gladly engage you in an argument of semantics if you would like--however in the context of this article I consider this issue to be resolved. [[User:Semiconscious|<
:::I don't think imprecision in the definition of "mathematics" is the issue here at all. It is not easy to define "mathematics", and any definition would be subject to endless debate among informed people (and uninformed ones too, I suppose). But I meant that what actual mathematicians and other actual humans actually do, when doing things that everyone would agree is mathematics, is mostly not algorithmic processing. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 01:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 80:
==Exact/algorithmic/blah blah==
Hardy: Did you read the citation I provided? I was simply using the language they used. You can apply whatever words you'd like to this: it's so nebulously defined that I just really don't care. However I find you use of the phrase "recent discussion tends to confirm my suspicion" in your edit summary amusing, since it was more you talking ''at'' me rather than a discussion. :) [[User:Semiconscious|<
::I've looked at it enough to know that it provides some context that aids in understanding what they mean by "exact arithmetic" and that context is not (yet, anyway) in the present Wikipedia article. That article ''and'' the things you and others have said here do tend to confirm my suspicion. It's just as if they were confusing that sort of thinking with what mathematics actually is. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 21:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 87:
Recall that we are editing an assemblage of other people's work here, not conducting original research or trying to form cohesive theories out of disparate publications. Much of the current discussion above would absolutely vanish if the editors would confine themselves to statements developed from and taken directly from source publications, ideally cited by page number and possibly quoted briefly under fair use. -[[User:Ikkyu2|Ikkyu2]] 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
:Ugh I'm so sick of this. Michael Hardy clearly has strong feelings a '''''his''''' definition of math. After looking over at the [[Mathematics]] article, there's a huge issue with defining mathematis; I'm not sure why Michael Hardy is coming in here and making changes that go against a cited article in ''Science'' inserting his own definition based upon phrases such as "confirm my suspicion" and "what mathematics actually is". These are opinions sir, and not worthy of countering a good citation. I have conceded several times over that my original statement was unclear, so I feel the citation is a good compromise. But you just keep inserting your own personal views on the matter.
:It's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics&diff=11180862&oldid=11180822 clear] you feel strongly on this matter, but others [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mathematics&diff=11160991&oldid=11160652 feel differently] than you and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mathematics#NPOV_and_original_research.3F defining mathematics] is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mathematics#Recent_revert_wars problematic], so please quit reverting based upon your suspicions. Suspicion does not trump citation. [[User:Semiconscious|<
:::I did not propose any particular definition of mathematics. I don't know why Semiconscious thinks I did. I edited this article for clarity, not to support particular opinions. The only thing I said about the nature of mathematics consisted of a list of '''examples''', not a definition, and I don't think any of them are controversial. Also, to say that mechanically executing algorithms is '''not''' mathematics is also not contrvoersial. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 00:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
| |||