Knowing versus understanding
- From: hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Herman Rubin)
- Date: 18 Aug 2006 10:40:21 -0400
In article <1155864197.653185.320890@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Mitch <maharri@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Gerry Myerson wrote:
fernando revilla <frej0002@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This sentence is also attributed to Einstein:
"You do not really understand something unless you can
explain it to your grandmother."
My grandmother died in 1949. Now I know why
I have never really understood anything
(although of course I still don't really understand
why I have never really understood anything).
You can know something without understanding it?
Schoolteachers know how to do arithmetic. Few of
them have any understanding of it.
When students are taught any of the non-abstract
courses, they "know" the subject, but have no
understanding of it.
Even stronger, I know analytic function theory.
I do not understand it; this is a unique situation
(the complex numbers), and the properties of
differentiable functions here are not achieved
over any other field.
--
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, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Knowing versus understanding
- From: conradeaton
- Re: Knowing versus understanding
- References:
- Re: The Times on the Poincare Conjecture
- From: Gib Bogle
- Re: The Times on the Poincare Conjecture
- From: fernando revilla
- Re: The Times on the Poincare Conjecture
- From: Gerry Myerson
- Re: The Times on the Poincare Conjecture
- From: Mitch
- Re: The Times on the Poincare Conjecture
- Prev by Date: Re: Easy problem (Opposite of Goldbach???)
- Next by Date: Re: Easy problem (Opposite of Goldbach???)
- Previous by thread: Re: The Times on the Poincare Conjecture
- Next by thread: Re: Knowing versus understanding
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|