Steve D'Aprano <steve+pyt...@pearwood.info> writes: <snip> > There's no link to the original paper, only to secondary sources that discuss > it, e.g.: > > http://phys.org/pdf128266927.pdf
<snip> > [1] Anecdotes are not data, but for what it is worth, just in the last two > days I came across two examples of this. Teaching a boy in Year 10 maths > about logarithms, he struggled with purely algebraic questions involving > solving exponential equations by using logs, but when given a concrete > problem involving an investment he was able to solve it immediately. > > The second example involved a girl in Year 8 maths, who again struggled with > abstract questions about adding and multiplying fractions. In particular, she > overgeneralised from fraction multiplication to addition, thinking that 1/4 + > 1/4 must add to 2/8. But when put into concrete geometric terms, showing > physical shapes divided into quarters, she could instantly tell that 1/4 plus > 1/4 must be 1/2. > > As I said, anecdotes are not data, but when research claims to show that > apples fall upwards in contradiction to anecdotal evidence that they fall > downwards, we would be wise to be cautious before accepting the research as > fact. I think the paper is this one: http://faculty.psy.ohio-state.edu/sloutsky/pdf/KSH-published.pdf (You can find more recent papers by searching the Ohio State University site.) >From what I've read, your anecdotes are not in contradiction to the paper's claims. -- Ben. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list