- #1
- 4,652
- 37
Just a quick yes/no poll. But share any other thoughts you would like.
Math Is Hard said:Just a quick yes/no poll. But share any other thoughts you would like.
humanino said:There are some countries where one cannot begin the university level without taking a philosophy class, and where even decent scientist/engineering schools require to pursue for another couple of years a moderate study of philosophy. It appears to me that the US lacks independent thinking of their citizens. To put it bluntly : there is more to life than eating wings while watching football. Considering the likelihood that someone who did not take such a class would even click on the thread link, I am appalled at some of the comments here. It also explains the very poor level of the so-called "philosophy" section of this forum.
You did not understand my point. My point was that the general public should at least be familiar with the most basic rudiments. We have a rather educated crowd on PF. It is disappointing to find educated people dismiss philosophy as "a waste of time" or "I would rather shoot myself". How can one expect the general public to recognize the value of philosophy if a significant sample of educated people dismiss it ?nismaratwork said:Mabye PHYSICS Forums is a good place to discuss philosophy, but it's still not a philosophy site... really... it's kind of the opposite.
humanino said:You did not understand my point. My point was that the general public should at least be familiar with the most basic rudiments. We have a rather educated crowd on PF. It is disappointing to find educated people dismiss philosophy as "a waste of time" or "I would rather shoot myself". How can one expect the general public to recognize the value of philosophy if a significant sample of educated people dismiss it ?
I do actually conceive of one answer. I know of at least one rather talented mathematician who did dismiss philosophy. To clarify, I knew him in school, so I can tell he was a good technician, but since I lost touch with him I can not tell how he did at the research level. In any case, the idea is : since he was gifted in mathematics, he developed a frustration with his failures in philosophy. One can expect this contrast not to occur within the general public, so maybe the small statistical sample here reflects this anomaly.
humanino said:You did not understand my point. My point was that the general public should at least be familiar with the most basic rudiments. We have a rather educated crowd on PF. It is disappointing to find educated people dismiss philosophy as "a waste of time" or "I would rather shoot myself". How can one expect the general public to recognize the value of philosophy if a significant sample of educated people dismiss it ?
I do actually conceive of one answer. I know of at least one rather talented mathematician who did dismiss philosophy. To clarify, I knew him in school, so I can tell he was a good technician, but since I lost touch with him I can not tell how he did at the research level. In any case, the idea is : since he was gifted in mathematics, he developed a frustration with his failures in philosophy. One can expect this contrast not to occur within the general public, so maybe the small statistical sample here reflects this anomaly.
If you haven't read any Kierkegaard yet, you might want to give him a try. Interesting mix of theology, psychology, and philosophy. It helps if you can read his works in their historical context. Without that, you might go "Huh?" a lot.Jasongreat said:I can't speak to the whole of the non college educated general public only that I am one of them and I for one love reading philosophy, I never took any classes in the subject and I was one of the ones who thought it would be dreadfull, but once I started to discover philosophy I was hooked, atleast to a good number of the schools of thought.
Jasongreat said:I can't speak to the whole of the non college educated general public only that I am one of them and I for one love reading philosophy, I never took any classes in the subject and I was one of the ones who thought it would be dreadfull, but once I started to discover philosophy I was hooked, atleast to a good number of the schools of thought.
E = Kantdlgoff said:For me it was "Logic" and "The Philosophy of Science". I remember that the Philosophy of Science course involved one paper. Mine was about refuting Kant using Einsteins theory of relativity. Don't ask me how I did that, but I got a B in the course.
Jimmy Snyder said:E = Kant
M = Wrong
C = 3 x 10^8
E = MC^2
Ivan Seeking said:Autodidactic? Perhaps, but the same can be said for any subject as long as one doesn't have to take test. By chance [it's a long story] I never had a trigonometry class. I had to learn it on the fly while I was taking my first Calculus class!
It seems that I was extremely lucky. In the classical philosophy class, we mostly focused Aristotle, Plato, Descarte, and Socrates. It was a lot of work, very rewarding, and a life-changing experience. I also took a political philosophy class given by an old 60s radical - he [a white guy] actually rode on the bus with MLK through the South! For obvoius reasons, that class focused on modern political philosophies. It was interesting but not nearly as memorable as the classical stuff, from an academic point of view.
This thread makes me think there is a serious shortage of good philosophy teachers.
As for the difficulty compared to physics and math, well duh! Nothing can match the intellectual rigor of math and physics.
nismaratwork said:On the other hand, impressive that you taught yourself trig! People are capable of amazing feats, there's no doubt about that.
Faraday is another.DanP said:It;s the only man who I know did that and never had any formal education in physics.
DanP said:There is the story of John Moffat, a painter exposing in Paris, who had no undergraduate degree, corresponded with Einstein, then he was admitted to Imperial College in London (or Trinity College Cambridge, I have no idea really) for a PhD based on his original work in physics. It;s the only man who I know did that and never had any formal education in physics.
Jimmy Snyder said:Faraday is another.
Edit: I should say, Faraday was a successful physicist who never had a formal education in Physics. Since Moffat had a PhD, he did have a formal education. There was a guy who worked with Hubble too, but I can't recall his name.
Wikipedia said:Faraday was born in Newington Butts,[8] now part of the London Borough of Southwark; but then a suburban part of Surrey, one mile south of London Bridge.[9] His family was not well off. His father, James, was a member of the Glassite sect of Christianity. James Faraday moved his wife and two children to London during the winter of 1790-1 from Outhgill in Westmorland, where he had been an apprentice to the village blacksmith.[10] Michael was born the autumn of that year. The young Michael Faraday, the third of four children, having only the most basic of school educations, had to largely educate himself.[11] At fourteen he became apprenticed to a local bookbinder and bookseller George Riebau in Blandford St[12] and, during his seven-year apprenticeship, he read many books, including Isaac Watts' The Improvement of the Mind, and he enthusiastically implemented the principles and suggestions that it contained. He developed an interest in science, especially in electricity. In particular, he was inspired by the book Conversations on Chemistry by Jane Marcet.[13]
At the age of twenty, in 1812, at the end of his apprenticeship, Faraday attended lectures by the eminent English chemist Humphry Davy of the Royal Institution and Royal Society, and John Tatum, founder of the City Philosophical Society. Many tickets for these lectures were given to Faraday by William Dance (one of the founders of the Royal Philharmonic Society). Afterwards, Faraday sent Davy a three hundred page book based on notes taken during the lectures. Davy's reply was immediate, kind, and favourable. When Davy damaged his eyesight in an accident with nitrogen trichloride, he decided to employ Faraday as a secretary. When John Payne, one of the Royal Institution's assistants, was sacked, Sir Humphry Davy was asked to find a replacement. He appointed Faraday as Chemical Assistant at the Royal Institution on 1 March 1813 .[2]
nismaratwork said:You could, but for someone to teach themselves professional-level QM (applied chemistry, teaching, etc...) from the ground up (post avg high-school) would be astonishingly rare. I would also question the capacity of say... the Navajo Chanting Ways to be "autodidactic". There are things that, by evolution of complexity, or by design, are very hard to learn by yourself, and other subjects are amenable to self-study. Beyond that, some subjects DEMAND self-teaching, so... it's a complex issue that would be hard to make a definitive statement about.
On the other hand, impressive that you taught yourself trig! People are capable of amazing feats, there's no doubt about that.
Ivan Seeking said:Trig is probably the easiest subject in math to self-learn. I was lucky that this was the only math deficit from high school. [btw, the record showed I had taken it, but it was records error caused by a change in schools during my junior year of hs]
My point was that while a person can study any subject on their own, there is no way to know if they are "getting it", or if they are limited to a superficial understanding of the subject. Without guidance and testing, there is no way to determine the quality of the education received.
In QM esp, I often read the chapter and thought I undestood it, only to discover that I had no idea how to even start the first homework problem. Without the homework problems, I would have believed I understood the material when I didn't. Philosophy has the same problem. One can read books without truly understanding the subject. In fact, this is true of most subjects. I know I got a lot more from my history of England class than I would have by simply reading the book. I had a great teacher who made it an experience, rather than just a class.