First Blog

Thanks for all the superb comments. Indeed, it is noted that the heavyweights have been mentioned, notably Poincare, Hadamard, Archimedes, and others. The great Albert Einstein, who used thought experiments to both pose and then solve problems should be included. These were the true problem creators and solvers in history.  History is dotted with great problems solvers in almost every genre, though their methods were not always known.  When the "prince" of mathematicians, Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777 – 1855) , was asked why it was unclear how he constructed his marvelous solutions and theories, he responded that he wished not to leave the scaffolding apparent. Henry James (1843 –  1916), an American philosopher, anticipated some of this with his pragmatic philosophy by which the solution (i.e. recourse) that works is the solution to accept.  Let me sketch a bit on problems, pre-problems, solutions, sub-solutions, pre-solutions, and problem determination. From these

How to make a philosophy? I never understood philosophy.  Now I know why.  Philosophers love thorny issues and problems.  These are problems with multiple interpretations, multiple answers, and multiple final resolutions.  These are problems that can be analyzed from political, social, humanistic, not to mention rigorous viewpoints. There are love, beauty, and art, all fully open and ripe for discourse.  Consider, for other examples,  ethics, morality, justice, and truth.  All have really no consensus or resolution, philosophically, though all have proponents from one particular attitude of approach. Is is the case that the philosophy of X must be treated from the viewpoint of Y?  The more obscure the topic, the more philosophers love it.  It is grist for their mills of  consideration and contemplation for centuries if not millennia. Not to mention hundreds of papers.  Eventually, the masters arise from the rubble of consideration, positing seminal theories, writing seminar papers, ga

To Solve a Problem Don Allen September 10, 2013 Life gives us problems, relentlessly, one after the other.    All of us are so blessed, though dubiously.    Some are economic, some social, some political, some financial, some family, some of power, and some of just everyday living.    We need to solve these problems, or at least resolve them to some end.   Long ago, and in many talks, I advocated the entire schools’ curriculum, from history to math, from English to cooking, be problems based.   So important is problem solving, those that cannot construct problem solutions are almost totally lost.   More simply, those that cannot solve their problems are at a disadvantage.  There are many problems for the many people.   All have their unique signature and style.   All have their own techniques for solution.   This accounts for the fact that the physics genius may be fully incompetent at everything else.  The problem with problems is just how many there are, and more imp

In a NYC study it appears that smaller schools have a higher graduation rates that the large megaschools.  Research has found that 70% of students from small schools graduated on time, while just 61% of the students who were turned away managed to earn diplomas in four years. Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/city-small-schools-better-on-time-graduation-rates-report-article-1.1436692#ixzz2dAnomes6 However, large schools are far more efficient in terms of facilities, because they are less costly (per student) to operate and maintain.  So, what can be done in light of this striking new discovery?  The simple answer is to turn the large mega-schools into smaller institutions.  This can be achieved by simply creating many schools within the large one.  A norm for centuries within universities with their colleges of disciplines, but for varying majors, it does create local communities within a large setting.  Here is the proposal.  Every high school with more th

Everyone is interested in reality.  Philosophers have devoted barrels of ink on this subject.  Yet, there remains no consensus on what it is, who perceives what, and whether we perceive was actually is.   Here are a couple of thoughts from an amateur. A. When I look out the window, I see reality in the houses, trees, and grass around me.  Occasionally, I'll see birds, and more rarely a rabbit.  That is really real - at least to me. B. When I look at the TV, I see a reality limited by the number of pixels given by my cable service, by the images transmitted, and by the colors I perceive.  A good TV gives an even better reality. C. Here I sit at my computer, with a wood floor reflecting the image from the TV screen.  I can just barely make out the images, sometimes not at all.   Yet, this is the "floor" reality presented.  Not a good one. This reflected reality makes me wonder what reality really is.  Are we only seeing reflections or shadows (Plato) or distortions an

How to kill a tree For centuries, probably millennia, farmers and others have needed to kill trees, and remove them for planting or fields.   How to do this?   There are many solutions, depending on the culture and mechanics of the age.    First note, as mighty the oak tree may be, it is really quite fragile. a)       Chain and axe-type solutions form the bedrock of our modern thinking.   Wipe it out; tow it away. b)       Chop off the bark.   The tree dies naturally c)        Deprive the tree of water.   Introduce new species that absorb all water.   d)       Introduce a new growth nearby to compete with the tree. e)       Burn it away.   This, the solution of our ancient cousins, was the substitute for having no power equipment.   f)        Feed it the wrong food, though well intended. g)       Restrict clearing fires. h)       Change or disturb the soil surrounding the tree. Many of these measures take years for their killing effect.    The bottom line is