You are here:   Education > Ditch the New Maths for Good Old Euclid
You can't request more than 20 challenges without solving them. Your previous challenges were flushed.
 

Not everyone did Euclidean geometry at school. A friend of mine who went to a secondary modern school and left at 15 only learned it later, but when he did he recalls that "I was bowled over by the fact that you could prove things, clearly and beyond doubt." Had he passed the eleven-plus and gone to grammar school, he would certainly have taken a serious geometry course, but now you can go to school until you are 18, take A-levels and go to university without ever doing such a course.

What has replaced it? A bit of this and a bit of that, but the trouble with bits and pieces is that they don't always hang together well, and things get learned by rote, and applied with calculator in hand.

This is rather strange because we are happy to inveigh against rote learning in third-world countries. We think people should learn to think for themselves, and find it regrettable when school fails to inculcate reasoned and rational argument.

What we need is rational thinking in terms of abstract concepts, and this is easiest when using abstractions we all understand, such as points and lines, rather than "sets" that often confuse students. I've known students at university being confused about the difference between the empty set, and the set consisting of zero, and even more abstractly the set consisting of the empty set, which is different again. Points and lines, on the other hand, seem real enough to most people, though they are in fact abstractions from reality - after all, lines in the material world have a certain thickness, and points a certain size. But as abstractions they are not hard to understand, and the arguments are logical, and visual, which helps. Moreover, Euclidean geometry, and more generally Greek rationalism, has a glorious history. It inspired early Islam, where scholars in Baghdad translated Euclid and other Greek authors into Arabic. These Arabic works were later translated into Latin and inspired new learning in medieval Europe. Later, during the Renaissance, Greek manuscripts were translated directly into Latin, and into the living languages of Europe. This allowed Euclid's work to become the basis for teaching geometry, and learning geometry became synonymous with reading Euclid.

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
John Ibberson
April 9th, 2010
2:04 AM
Rene Thom's ariticle '"Modern Mathematics": An Educational and Philosophic Error?' appeared in AMERICAN SCIENTIST vol. 59, Nov./Dec. 1971 pp.695-99. Jean Dieudonne's reply 'Should We Teach "Modern" Mathematics?' appeared in AM. SC. vol.61, Jan./Feb. 1973 pp. 16-19.

Rob
November 19th, 2008
4:11 PM
Just 3 points... (1) Years ago that finest of teachers George Pólya (in "How to Solve it", I think it was, can't find my old copy) stated simply that anyone who has been through school, without experiencing some moderately serious, systematic and rigorous Euclidean geometry and theorem proving, could justifiably accuse his educators of selling him short. But then the exhilarating mathematical explorations that Pólya brought to teaching are impossible to imagine in any but the most exceptional schools today. (2) Back in the early 1970's none less than René Thom issued an impassioned plea to schools to ditch the empty, barren abstractions of set theory that were meaningless to most pupils, trivial to the best, and utterly stifling the development of real mathematical insight and imagination - in favour of a return to the inexhaustible intuitive riches of Euclidean geometry. ( I wish I could find the original essay.) (3) In the late 1980’s, before I made a career change out of teaching, I recall my head of a school mathematics department asking Oxbridge don’s what were the most noticeable changes they had seen in recent undergraduate intake. Answer 1: a marked falling-off in ability to think spatially at all, let alone in three dimensions. (A rather dire impediment to work in virtually any branch of science or engineering, one would have thought, let alone to any work in higher mathematics.) Answer 2: A woeful lack of any conception of systematic proof from clearly identified assumptions or axioms leading to an ever growing structure of theorems and results. Speaks for itself, doesn’t it? The fads and fashions and easy options of the semi-educated will always win out with the politicians, bureaucrats and ideologues of the “new”. Very sad.

Anonymous
October 31st, 2008
3:10 AM
I couldn't agree more. In fact, it perplexes me that what seems to have been substituted in many universities for the training in logical argument (however philosophically inadequate) that Euclid used to provide in schools is an elementary course in abstract logic (some propositional calculus and a little predicate calculus) that is presented without any motivation at all. I bore my students occasionally with John Aubrey's anecdote about Hobbes from the Brief Lives -- a perfect illustration of the power of Euclid's exposition, and of the appeal his theorems can have for people willing to read them carefully.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.