Approximate reasoning and the ethnomathematics of cooking

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.34024/prometeica.2023.27.15299

Keywords:

critical mathematics education, ethnomathematics

Abstract

Several methods of approximate reasoning are known, and many remain to be discovered across domains. Some are tied to reasoning with uncertainty. The developments over the last fifty years or so in the development of approximate reasoning methods, and their application across multiple STEM domains, suggest that it is necessary to introduce them early in school. While
efforts towards building the infrastructure for the process have been limited, the bigger question is “What should be introduced?”. If concepts are always approximated in real life, then how should they be done mathematically? If the
real numbers are not always necessary to approximate concepts or even quantities, then how should they be approximated, and what should be taught in schools? Specifically, functional representations of approximate reasoning are not
introduced early. This additionally impedes diversity, ethnomathematical explorations, learning from experience, and through models. The objective of this research is to explain the problem with a focus on the ethnomathematics of cooking, and associated haptic methods. Further, it is argued through the context that of the many approaches to approximate reasoning, intrusive methods are best avoided, and that general rough sets is better suited for modeling such knowledge. Intrusive methods, such as those based on fuzzy or probability theory, are those that indulge in an excess of unjustified numeric assumptions. This builds on earlier work of the present author on modeling approximate reasoning. Her axiomatic approach to granularity are additionally applicable to approximate recipes that possess desired properties. In the contexts of ethnomathematical discourse involving haptic reasoning (as in cooking), it is shown that such an approach can model the essence of context without oversimplifications or outright dismissal of the efforts involved. Further, it has the potential to help in inventing expressive structured languages for the ethnomathematics, and associated model eliciting activities. Distinct facets of three specific contexts are theoretically explored to illustrate aspects of the reasoning, and meta aspects.

624 606

References

Abrahamson, D. (2019). A New World: Educational Research On The Sensorimotor Roots Of Mathematical Reasoning, In Shvarts A. (Ed.). Proceedings of the PME and Yandex Russian conference: Technology and Psychology for Mathematics Education, pp 48–68. Moscow, Russia: HSE Publishing House

Amazeen, E. L. (1999). Perceptual independence of size and weight by dynamic touch. Journal of Experimental Psychology 25, 102-119.

D’Ambrosio, U. (2006). Ethnomathematics: Link between tradition and modernity. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

Bruns, S.B. & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2016). p-Curve and p-Hacking in Observational Research. PLoS ONE 11(2): e0149144.DOI. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149144

Collaboration, Open Science. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349, 6251, 1–8. OSF https://osf.io/82fth

Dubois, D. & Prade, H. (2001). Possibility theory, probability theory and multiple-valued logics: A clarification Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence 32: 35–66.

Düntsch, I. & Gediga, G. (2000). Rough set data analysis Methodos Publishers.

Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. E. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds). Perceiving, acting, and knowing: toward an ecological psychology, Hillsdale, USA, 1(2), 67-82.

Glăveanu, V. P. (2012). What can be done with an egg? Creativity, material objects, and the theory of affordances. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(3), 192-208. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1002/jocb.13

Greer, B. & Mukhopadhyay, S. (2005). Teaching and Learning the Mathematization of Uncertainty: Historical, Cultural, Social and Political Contexts (pp.297-324) In G. A. Jones (Ed) Exploring Probability in School Challenges for Teaching and Learning, Springer.

D. F. Hoyt (1979). Practical Methods of Estimating Volume and Fresh Weight of Bird Eggs The Auk, Volume 96, Issue 1, January 1979, Pages 73–77, https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/96.1.73

Jolliffe, F. (2005). Assessing Probabilistic Thinking and Reasoning In Graham A. Jones (Ed) Exploring Probability in School Challenges for Teaching and Learning, Springer pp. 325-344.

Jones, L. A. (1986). Perception of force and weight: Theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 29-42.

Lehrer, R., & English, L. (2018). Introducing children to modeling variability. In Ben-Zvi, D., Makar, K., & Garfield, J., (Editors). International Handbook of Research in Statistics Education (pp.229-260). Voorburg, the Netherlands: Springer.

Mani. A. (2020a). Comparative approaches to granularity in general rough sets. In R. Bello, D. Miao, R. Falcon, M. Nakata, A. Rosete, & D. Ciucci (Eds.), IJCRS 2020, LNAI, Vol. 12179. Springer, 500-518. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52705-1

Mani, A. (2020b). Towards student centric rough concept inventories. In R. Bello, D. Miao, R. Falcon, M. Nakata, A. Rosete, & D. Ciucci (Eds.), IJCRS 2020, LNAI 12179, Springer, 251-266.

Mani, A. (2021a). Mereological emptiness for the signed number problem. In 5th International Workshop on Women in Logic, LICS’2021, Rome Link: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.03566

Mani, A. (2021b). What may be a table in education research? In D. Kollosche (Ed) Exploring new ways to connect: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Mathematics Education and Society Conference (Vol. 2, pp. 651–661). Tredition. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5415451

Mani A. (2022b). Mereology for STEAM and Education Research. In: Chari D, Gupta A (eds.), EpiSTEMe 9, volume 9, pp. 122–129. TIFR, Mumbai.

Mukhopadhyay, S. & Greer, B. (2015). Cultural responsiveness and its role in humanizing mathematics education. CERME 9, Charles University in Prague; ERME, Prague, pp.1624-1629.

Narushin, V. G., Romanov, M. N. & Griffin, D. K. (2021). Non-destructive measurement of chicken egg characteristics: Improved formulae for calculating egg volume and surface area. Biosystems Engineering, 201, pp. 42-49.

Pagliani, P. & Chakraborty, M. K. (2008). A geometry of approximation. Springer.

Panorkou, N. (2019). Exploring dynamic measurement for volume In H. Venkat, A. Essien, P. Vale, M. Graven (Eds.), Proceedings of PME 43, Vol. 3, Pretoria, South Africa, pp. 177-184.

Pawlak Z. (1991). Rough Sets: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Data. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dodrecht.

Provost, J. J, Kelly, B. S., Wallert, M. & Colabroy, K. L. (2016). The science of cooking, Wiley.

Seah, R. T. K. & Horne, M. (2020). The influence of spatial reasoning on analysing about measurement situations. Mathematics Education Research Journal DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13394-020-00327-w.

Stevens, J. C., & Rubin, L. L. (1970). Psychophysical scales of apparent heaviness and the size-weight illusion. Perception and Psychophysics, 8, 225-230.

Tarr, J. E. & Lannin, J. K. (2005). How Can Teachers Build Notions of Conditional Probability and Independence? (pp. 215-240) In G. A. Jones (Ed) Exploring Probability in School Challenges for Teaching and Learning, Springer.

Teigen, K. H. (1994). Variants of Subjective Probabilities: Concepts, Norms, and Biases In G. Wright & P. Ayton (Eds) Subjective Probability. John Wiley & Sons pp.211-238.

Turvey, M. T., Shockley, K. & Carello, C. (1999). Affordance, proper function, and the physical basis of perceived heaviness. Cognition, 73 (2) (pp. B17-B26). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00050-5.

Wagman, J. B. (2019) A Guided Tour of Gibson’s Theory of Affordances. In J. B. Wagman & J. C. Blau (Eds) Perception as Information Detection, Routledge, New York DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429316128.

Published

2023-07-27

How to Cite

Mani, A. (2023). Approximate reasoning and the ethnomathematics of cooking. Prometeica - Journal of Philosophy and Science, 27, 295-305. https://doi.org/10.34024/prometeica.2023.27.15299