|
|
|
|
|
|
by jameshart
3919 days ago
|
|
|
Precisely - you're not arguing against the article at all here. The point of this piece is that it is possible to learn how to do something without ever being exposed to the underlying rules. Or even to the fact that such rules exist. Calculus, by comparison, is built on firm rules about what you are allowed to do and what you can't, when cutting a shape up into pieces and rearranging them. The piece is arguing that it might be possible to make headway in calculus by just being exposed to usage, and the formal rules can be kept to later. That seems quite compelling. |
|
|
Yep, I should have probably made that clear. Was more side commenting through the metaphor. In general, learning English like that works quite well, but then it throws you when you are then asked to conjugate the verb 'to be' in French class and nobody has ever asked you to ever conjugate a verb in English. You end up knowing how to use English, but do not learn the technical terminology required to dissect it.