El tiempo de la matemática

Since the Old Order of the Time was subverted in Greece by establishing a New Order of the Space, the conjugation of Mathematics with temporality has been extremely problematic. Those have escaped from the temporary obligation both as delimiting their objects as assigning them their truth or falsehood. Nevertheless, the History of Mathematics seems to indicate that where truths of this science try to lead an independent existence apart from their creators, that is to say, in the context of their justification, time exerts its retaliations upon this escape.

Two Cultures of Arts Education, Finland and Canada? An integrated View

Taidekasvatuksen kaksi kulttuuria, Suomi ja Kanada? Integroitu näkemys Tutkimuksessa kuvataan kanadalaisen Learning Through The Arts –pedagogiikan mukainen suomalainen kokeiluhanke, jonka aikana taiteilija–opettaja-parit opettivat yhdessä eri oppiaineita koululuokille: esim. matematiikkaa tanssien, biologiaa maalaten tai yhdistäen eri taiteenlajeja projektimuotoiseen oppimiseen. Hanketta arvioitaessa nousee esille, ei niinkään yksittäisten taiteilijoiden ja opettajien toiminta, vaan pikemminkin Kanadan ja Suomen rakenteelliset sekä kulttuuriset eroavuudet. Tutkimus sivuaa myös Suomessa käytävää keskustelua taiteen hyödyllisyydestä ja pohtii samalla taito- ja taideaineiden asemaa koulussa. Työn teoreettisessa osassa integroidaan opetussuunnitelmateoriaa, kasvatuksen historiaa ja filosofiaa, tähdentäen taidekasvatuksen merkitystä osana koko ihmisen kasvatusta. Opetussuunnitelmateorian osalta tarkastellaan romanttista ja klassista opetussuunnitelmaa, jotka eroavat toisistaan menetelmiensä, sisältöjensä, tavoitteidensa sekä arvioinnin osalta. Ns. kovat ja pehmeät aineet tai matemaattis-luonnontieteelliset aineet vastakohtanaan humanismi, voidaan ymmärtää sekä historiallisia että epistemologisia taustojaan vasten. Pepperin maailmanhypoteesien mukaisesti on kasvatuksen ongelmien ratkaisemiseksi hahmotettavissa neljä selvästi toisistaan eroavaa lähestymistapaa: formismi; organisismi; mekanisismi; sekä kontekstualismi. Kantin filosofiaan viitaten tutkimus puolustaa käsitystä taiteesta rationaalisena ja propositionaalisena kokonaisuutena, joka ei ole vain kommunikaation väline, vaan yksi todellisuuden kohtaamisen lajeista, tiedon ja etiikan rinnalla. Näin ajateltuna taito- ja taidekasvatuksen tulisi olla luonteeltaan aina myös kulttuurikasvatusta. Tutkimuksen tulosten perusteella voidaan väittää, että moniammatillinen yhteistyö monipuolistaa koulun opetusta. Mikäli huolehditaan siitä, että taiteilijat saavat riittävästi koulutusta opettamiseen liittyvissä asioissa, on mahdollista käyttää taiteilijoita opettajien rinnalla koulutyössä.

Mathematics in Catalonia: 1996-2002

The aim of this article is to present the main conclusions of the Report on research in Catalonia for the area of mathematics**. The report was prepared by Joaquim Bruna, Marta Sanz, Joan de Solà-Morales and the author of this text, and published by the Institute for Catalan Studies in 1998. In the report, scientific activity in the area of mathematics was measured essentially by examining two parameters: papers published in specialised journals and doctoral theses read. It should be recognised that a considerable amount of activity in the field of mathematics consists of applying existing knowledge to the resolution of practical technological problems that arise in particular companies. This kind of scientific activity was not measured in any way in the report due to the difficulty of obtaining objective data. This article is divided into the following sections: human resources, scientific production, funding, research publications, research centres, and conclusions.

A Spanish version of the short Mathematics Anxiety Rating Scale (sMARS)

The aim of this studywas to adapt and assess the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the sMARS in terms of evidence of validity and reliability of scores. The sMARS was administered to 342 students and, in order to assess convergent and discriminant validity, several subsamples completed a series of related tests. The factorial structure of the sMARSwas analyzed by means of a confirmatory factor analysis and results showed that the three-factor structure reported in the original test fits well with the data. Thus, three dimensions were established in the test: math test, numerical task and math course anxiety. The results of this study provide sound evidence that demonstrates the good psychometric properties of the scores of the Spanish version of the sMARS: strong internal consistency, high 7-week testretest reliability and good convergent/discriminant validity were evident. Overall, this study provides an instrument that allows us to obtain valid and reliable math anxiety measurements. This instrument may be a useful tool for educators and psychologists interested in identifying individuals that may have a low level of math mastery because of their anxiety.

Debating the centre : the theory of principal qualificand (mukhyavisesya) in classical Indian philosophy

The theory of language has occupied a special place in the history of Indian thought. Indian philosophers give particular attention to the analysis of the cognition obtained from language, known under the generic name of śābdabodha. This term is used to denote, among other things, the cognition episode of the hearer, the content of which is described in the form of a paraphrase of a sentence represented as a hierarchical structure. Philosophers submit the meaning of the component items of a sentence and their relationship to a thorough examination, and represent the content of the resulting cognition as a paraphrase centred on a meaning element, that is taken as principal qualificand (mukhyaviśesya) which is qualified by the other meaning elements. This analysis is the object of continuous debate over a period of more than a thousand years between the philosophers of the schools of Mimāmsā, Nyāya (mainly in its Navya form) and Vyākarana. While these philosophers are in complete agreement on the idea that the cognition of sentence meaning has a hierarchical structure and share the concept of a single principal qualificand (qualified by other meaning elements), they strongly disagree on the question which meaning element has this role and by which morphological item it is expressed. This disagreement is the central point of their debate and gives rise to competing versions of this theory. The Mïmāmsakas argue that the principal qualificand is what they call bhāvanā ̒bringing into being̒, ̒efficient force̒ or ̒productive operation̒, expressed by the verbal affix, and distinct from the specific procedures signified by the verbal root; the Naiyāyikas generally take it to be the meaning of the word with the first case ending, while the Vaiyākaranas take it to be the operation expressed by the verbal root. All the participants rely on the Pāninian grammar, insofar as the Mimāmsakas and Naiyāyikas do not compose a new grammar of Sanskrit, but use different interpretive strategies in order to justify their views, that are often in overt contradiction with the interpretation of the Pāninian rules accepted by the Vaiyākaranas. In each of the three positions, weakness in one area is compensated by strength in another, and the cumulative force of the total argumentation shows that no position can be declared as correct or overall superior to the others. This book is an attempt to understand this debate, and to show that, to make full sense of the irreconcilable positions of the three schools, one must go beyond linguistic factors and consider the very beginnings of each school's concern with the issue under scrutiny. The texts, and particularly the late texts of each school present very complex versions of the theory, yet the key to understanding why these positions remain irreconcilable seems to lie elsewhere, this in spite of extensive argumentation involving a great deal of linguistic and logical technicalities. Historically, this theory arises in Mimāmsā (with Sabara and Kumārila), then in Nyāya (with Udayana), in a doctrinal and theological context, as a byproduct of the debate over Vedic authority. The Navya-Vaiyākaranas enter this debate last (with Bhattoji Dïksita and Kaunda Bhatta), with the declared aim of refuting the arguments of the Mïmāmsakas and Naiyāyikas by bringing to light the shortcomings in their understanding of Pāninian grammar. The central argument has focused on the capacity of the initial contexts, with the network of issues to which the principal qualificand theory is connected, to render intelligible the presuppositions and aims behind the complex linguistic justification of the classical and late stages of this debate. Reading the debate in this light not only reveals the rationality and internal coherence of each position beyond the linguistic arguments, but makes it possible to understand why the thinkers of the three schools have continued to hold on to three mutually exclusive positions. They are defending not only their version of the principal qualificand theory, but (though not openly acknowledged) the entire network of arguments, linguistic and/or extra-linguistic, to which this theory is connected, as well as the presuppositions and aims underlying these arguments.