Precisely - you're not arguing against the article at all here. The point of this piece is that it is possible to learn how to do something without ever being exposed to the underlying rules. Or even to the fact that such rules exist.
Calculus, by comparison, is built on firm rules about what you are allowed to do and what you can't, when cutting a shape up into pieces and rearranging them. The piece is arguing that it might be possible to make headway in calculus by just being exposed to usage, and the formal rules can be kept to later. That seems quite compelling.
Calculus, by comparison, is built on firm rules about what you are allowed to do and what you can't, when cutting a shape up into pieces and rearranging them. The piece is arguing that it might be possible to make headway in calculus by just being exposed to usage, and the formal rules can be kept to later. That seems quite compelling.