The calculator and artificial intelligence: resistance to scientific progress

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22201/fesa.26832917e.2026.7.2.484

Keywords:

Technology in knowledge, electronic calculator, artificial intelligence, scientific process

Abstract

This essay reflects on the reception of two technological tools that have undergone both knowledge and the classroom: the electronic calculator and artificial intelligence. For previous generations, the calculator seemed to “think faster than we do”; for ours, artificial intelligence produces a similar effect. It is therefore unsurprising that, within the educational sphere, attempts have been made to keep these tools at the margins of cognitive processes. However, by excluding them, there is a risk of overlooking their potential to expand and reorganize our ways of comprehending the world.

Just as the calculator did not displace mathematics –but rather compelled it to reorient itself towards its abstract foundations rather than its mechanical procedures–, artificial intelligence, as long as it is integrated critically, does not replace human thought: it challenges and optimizes certain of its processes. This text compares the initial reception of the calculator with the current perception of artificial intelligence in the educational domain. The purpose is to reflect on the fears associated with the possible replacement of those who have traditionally served as custodians of knowledge by artificial intelligence, and to contrast these concerns with the opportunity to transform and enhance both the transmission and the generation of knowledge through this technology.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

  • Michel Eduardo Betancourt-Gómez, National Autonomous University of Mexico

    Professor at the Facultad de Estudios Superiores (FES) Acatlán de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM); member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (Level 1) and tutor in the Postgraduate Programme in Economics at UNAM.

References

Bell, Eric Temple. 1937. Men of mathematics. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Brown, Harold. 1985. “Galileo on the telescope and the eye.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16, no.4: 305-325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2709541

Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2026. “Topology: History of topology.” Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Flynn, James R. 1987. “Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure.” Psychological Bulletin 101, no. 2: 171-191. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.171

Gerlich, Michael. 2025. “AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and critical thinking.” Societies 15, no. 1: 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006

Ifrah, Georges. 2000. The universal history of computing: From the abacus to the quantum computer. New York: Wiley.

International Labour Organization. 2025. Generative AI and jobs: A refined global index of occupational exposure (Working Paper). International Labour Organization.

Kojali, Kaitilin Jean. 2023. “Resistance, adoption, and adaptation to Gutenberg’s printing press.” Kennesaw Journal of Undergraduate Research 10, no. 1: 1-14. https://doi.org/10.62915/2474-4921.1270 DOI: https://doi.org/10.62915/2474-4921.1270

Light, Jennifer S. 1999. “When computers were women.” Technology and Culture 40, no. 3: 455-483. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.1999.0128

Lynn, Richard & David Becker. 2019. The intelligence of nations. London: Ulster Institute for Social Research

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). 1989. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. NCTM.

OECD. 2023. PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en

OECD. 2024. Who will be the workers most affected by AI? Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Pietschnig, Jacob & Martin Voracek. 2015. “One century of global IQ gains: A formal meta-analysis of the Flynn effect (1909–2013).” Perspectives on Psychological Science 10, no. 3: 282-306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615577701 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615577701

Platón. 2016. Fedón / Fedro (edición bilingüe).Madrid: Alianza Editorial.

Psyche. 2022. “The fear that trashy media will rot your brain goes way back.” https://psyche.co/ideas/the-fear-that-trashy-media-will-rot-your-brain-goes-way-back

Stocchi, Manlio Pastore. 2011. “The telescope: Outline of a poetic history.” Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series 441: 37-44.

Trithemius, Johannes. 2018. Elogio de los amanuenses. México: UNAM.

UNESCO. 2023. Guidance for generative AI in education and research. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

  • Abstract 58
  • PDF (Spanish) 32
  • Visor XML (Spanish) 11
  • ePub (Spanish) 6

Published

2026-03-01

Issue

Section

Scenarios / Essays

How to Cite

“The Calculator and Artificial Intelligence: Resistance to Scientific Progress”. 2026. FIGURAS REVISTA ACADÉMICA DE INVESTIGACIÓN 7 (2): 223-32. https://doi.org/10.22201/fesa.26832917e.2026.7.2.484.

Metrics