As a mathematics education researcher from India, I try to capture glimpses of a messy terrain named education— or maybe field-notes from experiential tours, humbly inviting the MES community to engage and together become more reflexive towards our collective practices and baggage. This paper would, nonetheless, ask questions pertaining to mathematics education. However, it would not start with asking them, marking them as research questions. In this paper, I would rather try to trace the birthmarks of certain research questions; to (...) show how this endeavour brings us to certain existential methodological issues in conducting and reporting mathematics education research. (shrink)

This paper explores the use of perhaps the most ubiquitous phrase in time perception literature, i.e., ‘there is no sense organ for time’. I argue here that its usage often highlights several misguided notions about how we perceive time and thus creates a problem in studying it. In this commentary three such underlying notions are discussed which are often drawn as conclusions from the lack of a sensory system to perceive time. These are that time is generated or created separately (...) by the brain, that time perception is different from other kinds of perception and that the study of time is hampered by the lack of a dedicated sense organ. These notions are discussed and argued against. It is claimed that a sense organ for time is not possible, nor does this exclude time from our percepts in general. Moreover, rather than creating a problem, a lack of a sense organ for time offers an opportunity to theorize about our experiences across perceptual modalities and cognitive mechanisms. I conclude by suggesting an end to using this phrase and instead seeing mental time as existing across our experiences. (shrink)