"Every perception is to some degree an act of creation, and every act of memory is to some degree an act of imagination."
-- Gerald Edelman, Second Nature: Brain Science and Human Knowledge
1 Tools for thought must be developed while doing serious work. The aspiration to canonical content3 Tools for thought must be developed while doing serious work. The aspiration to canonical contentTools for thought must be developed while doing serious work. The aspiration to canonical contentHow can we develop transformative tools for thought？2020-10-18Journal
There's a standard retort to this, which we've heard from within the Logo community. It's to talk about the “floor” and “ceiling” of different environments for thought. In this account, Logo has a low floor (meaning anyone can use it) and a low ceiling (so it's not well adapted for the sort of advanced work a professional would want to do).
At first this sounds plausible. But upon reflection it's difficult to make much sense of. How do the creators of Logo know that mastering Logo helps later with understanding real (forgive us!) differential geometry? What's the criterion for success? One of us (MN) worked for several years doing research in the closely related field of Riemannian geometry. While Logo is enjoyable to use and contains many fun ideas, MN has trouble seeing that learning Logo would help much in learning differential geometry.