[sprig]

I couldn't disagree more. Just because a method "works", does not mean a rigorous approach isn't required. It seems you are also forgetting that most science was started as "intuition" but at some point point a rigorous approach was required to actually turn it into science.

From the field of mathematics, set theory comes to mind.

You forget that you are not teaching it to kids who are supposed to have fun with it - you are teaching it to people who will presumably use that info in a few years, and most won't have another chance to learn it again.

I also don't know exactly how it is taught in the US, but here (Israel) there are calculus courses which deal with with the practical side for physics students and such, and there are courses which deal with rigorous theory and proofs for match students and the like.

I have to add I'm taking my third calculus course this semester, and so far the second one was my favorite subject (Math major).

[rkts]

I think we have a false dichotomy here. What we call 'intuition' and 'rigor' are not necessarily opposed. I think the problem with math classes is not any lack or excess of rigor, but that they focus too much on details instead of the general principles from which those details are derived. Complicated formulas and procedures are presented for students to memorize without any understanding of their origin. It's mostly 'how,' a little 'what,' and never 'why.'

[sprig]

Oh, on that part I agree in principle. Maybe these things are taught differently here, but there is a strong enough focus on the "why" part for me to feel comfortable with it...