Knowledge vs Education: Who Should be Labeled as Educated?

[pivoxa15]

When people speak about getting an education, I think of science, maths, logic as the key foundations to an education. However there are many who supposeddly have an education but may not have done any science beyond year 10 and are very ignorant about maths. Should these people be labeled as educated and or knowledgeable? If they are than they are certainly missing on some very important and useful knowledge.

 

[Crosson]

I agree with you, and based on the history I have read of education systems before the 20th century 'everyone goes to college' american money scheme, so did past western societies.

In medieval universities, a study of liberal arts begins with:

The Trivium: Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic

Then the next step is:

The quadravarium: arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy

And finally the student would be prepared for courses in philosophy and theology.

 

[radou]

However there are many who supposeddly have an education but may not have done any science beyond year 10 and are very ignorant about maths. Should these people be labeled as educated and or knowledgeable?

Yes, they should.

My grandfather is overeducated, and is one of the most influential experts on German literature (among many other prizes, was awarded the Humboldt prize), and he doesn't know heck about math because he doesn't need it.

If they are than they are certainly missing on some very important and useful knowledge.

Oh, come on...

 

[HallsofIvy]

Do you think YOU are educated? How is your classical Greek and Latin? Let's not be provincial.

 

[rewebster]

When people speak about getting an education, I think of science, maths, logic as the key foundations to an education. However there are many who supposeddly have an education but may not have done any science beyond year 10 and are very ignorant about maths. Should these people be labeled as educated and or knowledgeable? If they are than they are certainly missing on some very important and useful knowledge.

do you, pivoxa15, have a reason (underlying question and/or worry) for thinking about this?

It's rather pointed toward a direction that you're thinking about (it seems), but not asking directly.

 

[JoeDawg]

When people speak about getting an education, I think of science, maths, logic as the key foundations to an education.

When I think of getting an education I think of learning things one needs to function and thrive with regards to what one wants to do with one's life.

Do you know how to put in drywall? Can you lay bricks straight?
If not, do you deserve to live in a house that is more than a hut?

Do you know how to give yourself a blood transfusion?

There is too much knowledge in the world currently for anyone to know it all. This is why people specialize and trade skills and write it down in books.

The other thing is, people have different temperaments and talents, which means not everyone is good at all the same things. This is an advantage to the species.

People feeling superior about the knowledge they have is exactly what lead Socrates to say: Wisdom is knowing that you know nothing [or close enough to nothing that its indistinguishable]

 

[pivoxa15]

But the thing is with the knowledge of the sciences, maths and logic, one can literally learn anything else with confidence. If one is also willing offcourse. That is my mine point. What makes these subjects stand out is their unbias nature. Humanities subjets are biased. And people only trained in them have a narrower mindset which are all too human. As Nietsze wrote a book called 'Human, all too human'. This phrase is very good to describe humantities subjects. To conclude that people with only humantiites background are uneducated may be going too far as most of you say. But do you see my point? It's not about being arrogant.

 

[radou]

I see your point, but it's still far too rigorous.

Edit: and, are you saying that someone with a good knowledge in math and logic will do better in humanities subjects?

 

[JoeDawg]

But the thing is with the knowledge of the sciences, maths and logic, one can literally learn anything else with confidence. If one is also willing offcourse. That is my mine point. What makes these subjects stand out is their unbias nature. Humanities subjets are biased. And people only trained in them have a narrower mindset which are all too human. As Nietsze wrote a book called 'Human, all too human'. This phrase is very good to describe humantities subjects. To conclude that people with only humantiites background are uneducated may be going too far as most of you say. But do you see my point? It's not about being arrogant.

Sorry, I think you are completely wrong.

I have a humanities education, two degrees in fact, I studied Nietzsche as part of a humanities course, as well as other subjects. I also have an interest in the sciences(but am far from being an expert). And I can hold my own at basic carpentry. The most important thing I think I learned in school was critical thinking, sifting through all kinds of stuff to find the relevant material.

I know plenty of very smart 'science' types, some of them are quite well rounded and could learn quite a few things, while some others are morons outside their field of expertise.

You may be confident you could learn anything, and maybe you could, but in my experience people tend to gravitate towards things they are good at and very few people are 'good at everything'.

Although to be fair I don't really understand what you mean by 'bias'.

 

[I don't know]

I think math is horribly boring and have thus avoided it; I can't say this has held me back in studying Philosophy or Social Anthropology - even my formal logic class went very well - I quite enjoyed it, actually

 

[pivoxa15]

Sorry, I think you are completely wrong.

I have a humanities education, two degrees in fact, I studied Nietzsche as part of a humanities course, as well as other subjects. I also have an interest in the sciences(but am far from being an expert). And I can hold my own at basic carpentry. The most important thing I think I learned in school was critical thinking, sifting through all kinds of stuff to find the relevant material.

I know plenty of very smart 'science' types, some of them are quite well rounded and could learn quite a few things, while some others are morons outside their field of expertise.

You may be confident you could learn anything, and maybe you could, but in my experience people tend to gravitate towards things they are good at and very few people are 'good at everything'.

Although to be fair I don't really understand what you mean by 'bias'.

Biased being only capable of thinking from the human experience or a humanistic thought which naturally arises from using human languages like English. It's good when dealing with human affairs but there are lots of other things out there like other animals, inanimate matter. People with scientific training could relate to these far better than a humanities student. But that dosen't mean a scientist cannot relate to humans. A good training in biology and espcially evolution can allow you to relate to people and understand them much better although from a rational point of view. However, that dosen't mean they can intermingle any better with people and usually pretty bad at it no matter how much biology they know.

A critical thinking course is useful and reduces the bias somewhat but it still can't look into and analyse many inanimate things rigorously and invoke human subjectivity because it uses human language. I use to think philosophy was good but after completing some third year physics subjects, I have realized how inadequate it is and how much it is to human subjectivity even though it's meant to be a rational subject. Maybe a rational subject compared to other humanitities subjects but highly subjective compared to physics. Although that is not to say it was useless and waste of time. I do not regret taking them. Philosophy of science may be of use to science but I believe scientists themselves should be capable of it and practice it. So science training is still imperical. Note I am not saying all philosophers of science need university science education but defintely need a full high school science education. And so should the rest of the well 'educated' population.

I use to have a humanities education (with no science beyond year 10 and medium level maths) in high school but decided to change to science especially physics and maths. I also took philosophy in university. I can tell you how much more useful physics and maths has proved to be in thinking about things and have literally been a life changing experience. I feel I can relate to the inanimate objects, animals including humans much better. In the past I remember looking at a bird and not thinking anything about it apart from the fact that it's in my way. I use to scare it away and find it amusing (although I was young back then so I might have done that even with science knowledge). But now when I see one, I stare at it and appreciate its complexity and be amazed. I can remember back in the old days without any science, I would think so irrationally and make decisions I would laugh at today. I use to also think a lot about the concept of time but didn't go anywhere. Now with physics, I have some principles to guide me namely the second law of thermodyamics which suggests that time is an artificial concept defined by humans and that it may not exist but rather things change due to a more fundalmental reason which is the 2nd law. Its manifestion allows us to detect and feel the concept we call time. It is rough and not the full picture but at least its a start in the right direction which someone without knowledge of science would never realize.

I actually did fairly well in year 12 but even though I had a high score, deep down I felt I didn't know anything. I can recall how amazed I was at my friends who had taken science how knowledgeable they were at things. And how I always asked them questions but they never seem to ask me any. Then I decided to join them. The change has been most worthwhile and life changing.

 

[rewebster]

But the thing is with the knowledge of the sciences, maths and logic, one can literally learn anything else with confidence. If one is also willing offcourse. That is my mine point. What makes these subjects stand out is their unbias nature. Humanities subjets are biased. And people only trained in them have a narrower mindset which are all too human. As Nietsze wrote a book called 'Human, all too human'. This phrase is very good to describe humantities subjects. To conclude that people with only humantiites background are uneducated may be going too far as most of you say. But do you see my point? It's not about being arrogant.

Its hard to have 'confidence' in something you DON'T know. If your goal is to have 'confidence' in something---then, have 'confidence' in the things you 'know' for SURE, and 'interest' in those things that you 'don't' until you do have 'confidence' in them. Very few things are in 'black and white' like it seems you 'want' them to be.

-----------------------------------------

ANYTHING can 'seem' logical--until its pointed out that its not.

-------------------------------------------

'What' you are 'taught' is supposed to be just the foundations of 'what' you learn.

 

[JoeDawg]

Then I decided to join them. The change has been most worthwhile and life changing.

Learning to speak a different language is something that expands understanding. I'm not very good with other languages, but the little exposure I have had to Spanish and French gave me insights into things I hadn't thought of before. Math is also another language... but its not the only one and if its the only one you study in depth, you will definitely have a bias, as you say.

I'm glad you found your way, but what you describe just goes back to what I was saying about people tending to gravitate to things... Clearly you belong in science classes. They give you what you need.

Some people need science in order to understand and interact with the world, it gives them a framework and rules to follow. Others benefit more from a few well chosen social science courses, still others read books, or spend time hiking in the wilderness.

As to 3rd year physics, I don't doubt it has benefits, but 3rd year is when you get to the good stuff in most areas of study.

My experience has been different from yours. I find math boring and uninspiring, but when I am curious about something I ask.

You keep saying how science has changed your life, and even supplied some anecdotes... which is entirely subjective... and oh so human.

 

[pivoxa15]

Its hard to have 'confidence' in something you DON'T know. If your goal is to have 'confidence' in something---then, have 'confidence' in the things you 'know' for SURE, and 'interest' in those things that you 'don't' until you do have 'confidence' in them. Very few things are in 'black and white' like it seems you 'want' them to be.

Thats the power of science and esecially physics for you. After having done physics, I have more confidence in learning anything even before learning them. But maybe more importantly, not to be afraid or discouraged when I make a mistake or not understand something. That is probably the biggest reason why I feel so confident about learning things now.

Science has also taught me not to think things are black and white. How have I made things look black and white?

 

[radou]

In the past I remember looking at a bird and not thinking anything about it apart from the fact that it's in my way. I use to scare it away and find it amusing (although I was young back then so I might have done that even with science knowledge). But now when I see one, I stare at it and appreciate its complexity and be amazed.

Indeed, science education has an interesting influence on you.

 

[rewebster]

Science has also taught me not to think things are black and white. How have I made things look black and white?

MY interpretation of WHAT you are writing, how you are writing (your presentation), what you are asking, ---shows what you're interested in.


Your 'Polls' are the biggest indicator---they divide (are trying to) opinions into sectors (black and white)--looking for 'right or wrong'.

 

[AsianSensationK]

I tend to agree with the overall theme of the thread, but not to the extent that I would label people who don't study the sciences or anything quantitative in nature as uneducated. I just don't think you can get by in life without the analytical thinking that an education in the sciences develops.

People want you to be able to work with numbers, to use models to analyze problems, and to be able think about the relationships between variables. Everyone runs into numbers in some way, shape, or form (think of all the sayings about "death and taxes"). You need to be able to handle working with numbers at a basic level at the very least.

And yes, the humanities are important as well. Learning how to use language, argue your points effectively (probably the most important skill gained from philosophy), and think about subjects which aren't packaged up into neat little squares is a very useful skill set. In fact, these skills are fundamental to you being able to gain any education in a quantitative subject in the first place.

I bet most reasonable people would agree that taking courses from both quantitative and non-quantitative disciplines is very important and that those who avoid one or the other are missing out.

But the thing is with the knowledge of the sciences, maths and logic, one can literally learn anything else with confidence.

That's not a product of the subjects so much as it is a product of your habits and attitudes about studying.

What would really be useful is if studying the sciences gained you quick and easy insights into the humanities, which they don't. If you study physics and suddenly want to learn something like linguistics or anthropology you'll be a novice. It's not like you would suddenly become exempt from having to put in significant study time to understand the subject.

 

[pivoxa15]

That's not a product of the subjects so much as it is a product of your habits and attitudes about studying.

What would really be useful is if studying the sciences gained you quick and easy insights into the humanities, which they don't. If you study physics and suddenly want to learn something like linguistics or anthropology you'll be a novice. It's not like you would suddenly become exempt from having to put in significant study time to understand the subject.

Being confident at studying a subject dosen't mean you are guaranteed to spend less time on it or even succeed intially. It just means you go in there with a good attitude which most of the time is half of the battle done already as the mind is extremely complex.

However physics gives you more than just a positive attitude and never say die mentality. You get an understanding of the general principles of the universe. And can answer simple questions like 'why the sky is blue' that the best humanities student without any science training cannot answer without the slightest clue.

For a physics student to learn the pure humanities, they may not be able to apply the physical principles directly so it would take hard work. But they are logical thinkers and good detector of patterns which would help in learning any humanity subject as well. At least there would be less irrational thoughts by someone without any science training but also learning the same humanities subject.

 

[pivoxa15]

MY interpretation of WHAT you are writing, how you are writing (your presentation), what you are asking, ---shows what you're interested in.


Your 'Polls' are the biggest indicator---they divide (are trying to) opinions into sectors (black and white)--looking for 'right or wrong'.

Science teaches people that nothing is black and white. But its objectiveness forces the scientist to use tools that are black and white. Maths is an example. It is up to the scientist to not take the results too literally. And give intepretations of the maths.

My polls are exactly tools to objectify open questions. And then intepret the precise results from the polls. I rather do that then read each person's subjective opinions and guess what they are trying to say. But a combination is the best with these open questions. Although in particle physics say, I think full objectivity with maths without any essays to describe the structure of matter would be best.

 

[pivoxa15]

Learning to speak a different language is something that expands understanding. I'm not very good with other languages, but the little exposure I have had to Spanish and French gave me insights into things I hadn't thought of before. Math is also another language... but its not the only one and if its the only one you study in depth, you will definitely have a bias, as you say.

I'm glad you found your way, but what you describe just goes back to what I was saying about people tending to gravitate to things... Clearly you belong in science classes. They give you what you need.

Some people need science in order to understand and interact with the world, it gives them a framework and rules to follow. Others benefit more from a few well chosen social science courses, still others read books, or spend time hiking in the wilderness.

As to 3rd year physics, I don't doubt it has benefits, but 3rd year is when you get to the good stuff in most areas of study.

My experience has been different from yours. I find math boring and uninspiring, but when I am curious about something I ask.

You keep saying how science has changed your life, and even supplied some anecdotes... which is entirely subjective... and oh so human.

Maths is very different to say English or Spanish. To draw an analogy I'd label them as differnt species. I naturally will have a bias when forming my opinion. The point is if you properly use maths as a tool to analyse something starting with undisputed postulates than it will give you unbiased conclusions. However do the same with say English and you may not. Your own intepretations and opinions will get into it.

The thing is science has changed my life so much that it is undisputable, contary to the level of disputableness of humanitites subjects. In this way it is not 'so human'. Maybe 'so godly'. Although this phrase is 'so human'. The fact that I am posting in the philosophy forum suggests I am giving science a break and be more human.

I use to find maths boring and uninspiring hence why I didn't do advanced high school maths. But looking back it was also because I didn't understand it nor had good results. I remember that I started to enjoy it in year 12 after putting in some serious work before enjoying it. I admit it was lame and torteous at the time but after this period of unejoyable work, I started to succeed and understood things more. It created a positive snowball effect which by the end of year 12, my dream job was to become a mathematician.

I can remember another anecdote. In first year uni while doing uni maths but still without any science, there was a spider crawling on the mirror. In the past my reaction would first be freightened than to kill it as quickly as possible full of disgust. But that day, my reaction was different. The first thing I noticed was its symmetrical shape and actually thought that it was quite beautiful. There was no thought of killing it and just appreciated its shape. The fact that it was crawling on the mirror magnified that property. At the time I was shocked at my reaction and realized that it was my maths training that enable me to see this. Today, with science training also I am able to better appreciate spiders and some insights to why there is this symmetry and where it came from (in terms of its ancestory) although very roughly as I don't have good training in biology. I am able to look past the black and white world I use to see with only maths training.

 

[JoeDawg]

Maths is very different to say English or Spanish. To draw an analogy I'd label them as differnt species. I naturally will have a bias when forming my opinion. The point is if you properly use maths as a tool to analyse something starting with undisputed postulates than it will give you unbiased conclusions. However do the same with say English and you may not. Your own intepretations and opinions will get into it.

Your interpretations and opinions are all you have. You can do double blind studies and such, but that only showcases how being human impacts all we do, including science and math, the theories we accept or reject. Learn a different language, study semiotics or linguistics and you will start to realize that the language you use, even mathematics is not just a framework for your thinking, but it also informs, expands, and limits it.

You also use a lot of 'ifs' here. But let's go deeper, math isn't really the system you are using, logic is. And although you may need science to see the beauty in nature, others like myself, do not. A knowledge of science for me, simply extends my understanding, but so does a knowledge of literature and history and philosophy, because they are all about me, just like science is.

When its raining and there is thunder and lightning, the fact I know to one degree or another the science behind it, increases my awe of it, but so does reading about how the ancient greeks experienced the very same things, because like me, they were human too, and seeing through their eyes allows me to see more.

It is also important to remember that logic demands premises and it only succeeds if one applies it rigorously. Science is a method, a system that can be used or abused. Information is just data without understanding, and the humanities give us our context, what we need to see how we fit in with all the data. The spider is not the only thing with symmetry, you have it, your whole life does, and that is what you will find when you study the humanities.

I'm not sure what you are looking for in English, French, or Spanish, but they are not so different from math, they simply are used with a different goal in mind. I think you're missing out. But your prejudice is not an uncommon one for those in the sciences.

From the other side of things I have known people with just as much prejudice against science, and they are missing out too.

 

[radou]

For a physics student to learn the pure humanities, they may not be able to apply the physical principles directly so it would take hard work. But they are logical thinkers and good detector of patterns which would help in learning any humanity subject as well. At least there would be less irrational thoughts by someone without any science training but also learning the same humanities subject.

This is completely false. You are indirectly implying that humanists are not logical thinkers. Also, why do you thing that exactly the same logic applies for both types of subjects?

The first thing I noticed was its symmetrical shape and actually thought that it was quite beautiful. There was no thought of killing it and just appreciated its shape. The fact that it was crawling on the mirror magnified that property. At the time I was shocked at my reaction and realized that it was my maths training that enable me to see this.

It seems to me you're persistently mixing up math and zoology.

 

[AsianSensationK]

For a physics student to learn the pure humanities, they may not be able to apply the physical principles directly so it would take hard work. But they are logical thinkers and good detector of patterns which would help in learning any humanity subject as well. At least there would be less irrational thoughts by someone without any science training but also learning the same humanities subject.

Do you happen to have any relevant examples?

 

[pivoxa15]

Your interpretations and opinions are all you have. You can do double blind studies and such, but that only showcases how being human impacts all we do, including science and math, the theories we accept or reject. Learn a different language, study semiotics or linguistics and you will start to realize that the language you use, even mathematics is not just a framework for your thinking, but it also informs, expands, and limits it.

You also use a lot of 'ifs' here. But let's go deeper, math isn't really the system you are using, logic is. And although you may need science to see the beauty in nature, others like myself, do not. A knowledge of science for me, simply extends my understanding, but so does a knowledge of literature and history and philosophy, because they are all about me, just like science is.

When its raining and there is thunder and lightning, the fact I know to one degree or another the science behind it, increases my awe of it, but so does reading about how the ancient greeks experienced the very same things, because like me, they were human too, and seeing through their eyes allows me to see more.

It is also important to remember that logic demands premises and it only succeeds if one applies it rigorously. Science is a method, a system that can be used or abused. Information is just data without understanding, and the humanities give us our context, what we need to see how we fit in with all the data. The spider is not the only thing with symmetry, you have it, your whole life does, and that is what you will find when you study the humanities.

I'm not sure what you are looking for in English, French, or Spanish, but they are not so different from math, they simply are used with a different goal in mind. I think you're missing out. But your prejudice is not an uncommon one for those in the sciences.

From the other side of things I have known people with just as much prejudice against science, and they are missing out too.

I probably do not want to talk about maths so much because there is just no useful and precise definition of it. It is extremely diverse and continually expanding. It can't be reduced to a formalistic logic model as Godel showed. So it may be more than logic. However I haven't studied this deeply enough to comment further.

Well if you use maths to analyse something than your own emotions won't affect the conclusion as much (assuming you have done the analyse correctly offcourse) as if you use English to analyse something. With the latter your own emotions on the day may alter the results but you can't say it is wrong if someone else got a different conclusion. So using English is more subjective.

Some people do become inspired by the humanities and I was one of them to be honest in the days when I was scientifically illiterate. One of my faviourate texts of 'The Outsider'. But I am naturally a man of science and maths. I hold the same opinion as Dirac when Oppenhiemer told him that he wanted to be a poet had he not been a physicst to which Dirac responded 'physics makes complicated things appear simple but poetry makes simple things appear complicated'. That statement may be too black and white but I can see what Dirac was getting at. It is a good exapmle to show that different people's brains work differently.

 

[pivoxa15]

This is completely false. You are indirectly implying that humanists are not logical thinkers. Also, why do you thing that exactly the same logic applies for both types of subjects?

Well I think everyone can make logical mistakes. We are more natural at doing other things like surviving than being logical creatures. However the point is it is easier for someone without science training to make logical mistakes. When I use logic, most of the time I mean informal logic which is what arises in subjects other than a formal logic or pure maths course. That is one reason why one should take science, maths and logic subjects if one is to have a good education.

I have the extreme view that getting a good education means taking both maths, science and humanities subjects but then finding out for themselves the 'inferior' nature of the humanities compared to the sciences. However not regreting ever taking these humanities subjects as they can be enjoyable and useful to function in society and even doing science like writing reports. I use the word inferior for many reasons but one tangible reason is if you look at the geniune contributions to society and why people's livings standards have increased, the backbone of it all is science. Economics is also important but some may call it a science as I have heard from one Harvard Economics professor. At least it is a social science.

But my brain functions differently to the humanists here so is extremely biased opinion.

 

[pivoxa15]

Do you happen to have any relevant examples?

In high school, everyone who did well in maths and sciences also did well in the humanities. The reverse genearally wasn't true. However the top people in the humanities were often not maths and science people although one did but his dad was a scientist. He got the dux in English and briefly challenged me in my maths class.

 

[JoeDawg]

Well if you use maths to analyse something than your own emotions won't affect the conclusion as much (assuming you have done the analyse correctly offcourse) as if you use English to analyse something.

You make a huge assumption in your parentheses. Both mathematics and english are abstract symbol systems used to communicate ideas.

1+1=2
"I'm sitting on a chair."

How is one more more easily affected by emotion?

'physics makes complicated things appear simple'

If that were true, we'd all be physicists and Stephen Hawking wouldn't have any bestselling books.

'but poetry makes simple things appear complicated'.

Sounds poetic to me.

It is a good exapmle to show that different people's brains work differently.

Now, on that point we agree.

 

[radou]

In high school, everyone who did well in maths and sciences also did well in the humanities. The reverse genearally wasn't true.

In my experience, everyone who did well in math sucked at humanities, specially at learning foreign languages.

I guess there still exists an implementation in the consciousness of people that there are strictly two types of people - "humanists" and "scientists". Because of this, in most cases absurd opinion, people do fit into stereotypes.

 

[pivoxa15]

You make a huge assumption in your parentheses. Both mathematics and english are abstract symbol systems used to communicate ideas.

1+1=2
"I'm sitting on a chair."How is one more more easily affected by emotion?

The point in the paratheses is that there is a correct answer in maths. Whereas you can't say an essay is wrong or right. If you are not able to get at the correct result in maths than it's your fault. And a bit of hard work will get you over the line oneday.

Russell said something like "All of mathematics is just a bunch of tautologies." "I'm sitting on a chair." is not a tautology. It recquires an observation hence your senses get in the way as well as intepretation, not to mention emotion. I hate to admit it but in the past I wrote an essay for a philosophy subject arguing against a view held by the lecturer. It happened that I hated the lecturer and his style of teaching. He was young, maybe only 25 or so and arrogant and deeply held the view that he was right. So I wrote a passionate essay heavily critising his view, not just saying he was wrong but completely wrong and the exact opposite was correct. I realized that it wasn't good and the essy may not be as good as had I didn't hate the lecturer but I couldn't help it. Had he been my maths lecturer, my emotions wouldn't affect my work too much other than maybe produce different versions of theorems than his but that is good. If its correct than its good in maths. If they are less elegant than his than I would have to accept it. However, I might never accept his views when he is a philosopher as there are always ways to rebut and in many cases produce views 180 degrees different or the complete opposite of the original view. This sort of shifts do not happen much in science and less so in maths. Which again shows the solid nature of these subjects.

Here is what Russell wrote in his "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy". "We have now come to an end of your somewhat summary introduction to mathematical philosophy. It is impossible to convey adequately the ideas that are concerned in this subjet so long as we abstain from the use of logical symbols. Since ordinary language has no words that naturally express exactly what we wish to express, it is necessary so long as we adhere to ordinary language, to strain words into unusual meanings; and the reader is sure, after a time if not at first, to lapse into attaching the usual meanings to words, thus arriving at wrong notions as to what is inteded to be said. Moreover, ordinary grammar and syntax is extraordinarily misleading."

So more reason to argue there are subjectivness, emotions and bias when using natural language but not in maths.

If that were true, we'd all be physicists and Stephen Hawking wouldn't have any bestselling books.

Simple and complicated are relative. One reason why I didn't do any high school science was because I thought sicence would be too complicated. I never had a solid science background so when I looked at the sylabous and saw words like sound, electricity nuclear power, light... It all seemed too complicated. How could anyone comprehend light for example? It goes so fast that its impossible. But I took physics in uni and realized that things are no where near as hard as I expected. What physics does is use maths to analyse nature so actually simplies everything by modeling them as perfect maths entities. And use developed maths to deduce what happens to physical entities in nature. For the first time, I was able to comprehend the most complicated things that is nature. It is not exact but at least its better than nothing and be completely bewildered. That is one of the great triumph of physics.

However the trick is its not easy to be the first to simplify nature into maths. In fact its extremely difficult because of the high falsafiability of physics. And the great number of different paths one could take. It takes talent and insight to pick the right ones. That is why intution is so important in physics. So maybe a better way to put it is that physics takes the impossible to the possible. And maybe poetry from the possible to the impossible. Actually I do find understanding poetry quite impossible.

 

[JoeDawg]

The point in the paratheses is that there is a correct answer in maths. Whereas you can't say an essay is wrong or right.

A correct answer in math may not reflect reality, if the premises or theorems don't represent reality. They may be entirely self consistent within their scope and still wrong.

Similarly, you base an essays correctness on the stated intent of the essay, the logic of points argued, whether you support them with relevant evidence and whether your conclusion follows from that evidence and how it all compares with reality.

If you are not able to get at the correct result in maths than it's your fault. And a bit of hard work will get you over the line oneday.

Thats optimism, based on your (emotion) 'love' of math.

However, I might never accept his views when he is a philosopher as there are always ways to rebut and in many cases produce views 180 degrees different or the complete opposite of the original view.

You would be a poor philosopher if the only reason you rejected something was based on emotion. Your argument here comes down to comparing good math to bad philosophy.

"Since ordinary language has no words that naturally express exactly what we wish to express..."

The part you aren't getting is where he says 'what we wish to express'.

Math expresses many things better than English, because it was designed to express these things precisely. English has a different function. Just like Java and Javascript have different uses.

What physics does is use maths to analyse nature so actually simplies everything by modeling them as perfect maths entities.

At which point you have to make an observation to see if the math represents reality or not. Math is an abstraction, its not the actual. Its very good for somethings, its not very good if you need to ask where the toilet is.

Actually I do find understanding poetry quite impossible.

Poetry is simple, you just have to know the language, its not always simple addition and subtraction, sometimes we use theorems we call metaphors.

 

[Smurf]

In my experience, everyone who did well in math sucked at humanities, specially at learning foreign languages.

I guess there still exists an implementation in the consciousness of people that there are strictly two types of people - "humanists" and "scientists". Because of this, in most cases absurd opinion, people do fit into stereotypes.

you forgot drop-outs.

 

[Smurf]

pivoxa15, I wish you would tell us more about yourself. Gathering from your posts I'd reckon you're an ungrad who took some first or maybe second year survey courses in philosophy and the required English courses, got a professor you didn't like, and are now claiming the humanities are biased because the courses you took weren't black and white like Math or Physics is.

If that's true, I have several things to say to you. I myself am an upperclass ungrad in political science/economics/sociology. Granted those are social science, not humanities, but I took much philosophy in my earlier undergrad years and see where you're coming from. There were many times where I hated my professors and disagreed with them vehemently (international relations being the worst!).

But in more general, I'm also addicted to learning, and am currently having my PhD student roomate teach me relativity. I'm totally into sciences as well.

 

[pivoxa15]

A correct answer in math may not reflect reality, if the premises or theorems don't represent reality. They may be entirely self consistent within their scope and still wrong.

Similarly, you base an essays correctness on the stated intent of the essay, the logic of points argued, whether you support them with relevant evidence and whether your conclusion follows from that evidence and how it all compares with reality.

Maths may not correspond 100% to reality but it can be 99.999...% in particle physics. When I say do the analyse correctly, I mean within an agreed upon error with experiment.

Such an error cannot even occur if you use english as it is intrinsically imprecise and the amount off with reality fittingly cannot be quantified. Hence the error must also be subjectively determined.

The ontological reality or whatever you like to call it can never be comprehended. Here is a previous thread I created dealing with this issue. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=121360 but didn't contribute to the latter posts as it was during semester so couldn't follow it too closely. My main points were listed in the first couple of pages or so.

Thats optimism, based on your (emotion) 'love' of math.

I'd say its more with my experience with maths rather than love of it. Believe me there is no worse feeling than being stuck at a problem. It use to totally lower my self esteem like nothing else.

You would be a poor philosopher if the only reason you rejected something was based on emotion. Your argument here comes down to comparing good math to bad philosophy.

True. But in that case, it wasn't all emotion. I exaggerated a bit just to get my point across that its easy to abuse an argument using English but not easy to abuse maths as it filters your emotions, if you have done it correctly. ALthough often if you are full of emotion, you will find yourself stuck then otherwise.

In that specific case, the subject was Philosophy of Mind. He was totally for Functionalism as a philosophy of mind and argued for the computationalist view. I basically said that one must use science to analyse the mind and that functionalism was a weak argument and rather trivial compared to the solid arguments usually presented in science. I also used Penrose's arguments for why computationalism wouldn't work. I deeply believed (rationally) in my view as you can now gather that I am a strong fan of science although a bit shaky with Penrose's argument as I didn't understand it that well and aren't an expert with computers but the jest of it was along my lines of thought. And packaged the essay in a strongly agrumentative flavour against his views.

The part you aren't getting is where he says 'what we wish to express'.

Math expresses many things better than English, because it was designed to express these things precisely. English has a different function. Just like Java and Javascript have different uses.

At which point you have to make an observation to see if the math represents reality or not. Math is an abstraction, its not the actual. Its very good for somethings, its not very good if you need to ask where the toilet is.

That is why I said in another post to treat them as different 'species'. It happens that so much amazing and useful things are done with maths and only maths. It can't do some things as you point out. But the former point alone is good enough reason for anyone with a good education to know and appreciate the subject that is maths. Indeed in the Ancient days, the first universities ever demanded maths to be compulsory and regarded it as the highest of subjects. Outside Plato's academy there even was a sign "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter".

 

[pivoxa15]

pivoxa15, I wish you would tell us more about yourself. Gathering from your posts I'd reckon you're an ungrad who took some first or maybe second year survey courses in philosophy and the required English courses, got a professor you didn't like, and are now claiming the humanities are biased because the courses you took weren't black and white like Math or Physics is.

If that's true, I have several things to say to you. I myself am an upperclass ungrad in political science/economics/sociology. Granted those are social science, not humanities, but I took much philosophy in my earlier undergrad years and see where you're coming from. There were many times where I hated my professors and disagreed with them vehemently (international relations being the worst!).

But in more general, I'm also addicted to learning, and am currently having my PhD student roomate teach me relativity. I'm totally into sciences as well.

My situation is not as black and white as you have described. I have taken some good philosophy subjects, especially the ones that are more distant from science like morality and nature of natural language. I find Wittgenstein's views always genuine and learned a lot of new and interestings things from his work. The philosophy of science is also interesting but am convinced that scientists would be able to think about these principles themselves without the help of philosophers.

But I am more from an economics background. Offcourse one of the big things you learn in economics is that productivity is the underlying driver for growth in society and the way for the future. How does productivity increase? The answer is in science. So its as if economists are saying another discipline is 'the way' forward. Normally that dosen't happen as self promotion is usually the case. So when the former happens, heed the advice and act quick smart. Again its a bit black and white but it depends on the person as well. Some people are a humanitites type and can't do science others vice versa. Although its easier for the science types to be better at humanities than vice versa.

I switched out of a commerce degree into science in second year. However I didn't know much about science other than I loved maths. I took philosophy as well at that time as I realized that making money wasn't the whole purpose of life as I had thought previously. I even thought of doing a combined science/arts degree but didn't. Now I am nearly completing my undergrad degree in science with only one semester left and seem to think that science and maths are more important, powerful and enjoyable then ever. Although my previous mythtical view about them is gone (ironically maybe my philosophy training has helped in this). And see the difference between them and the humanitites more and more.

Are you thinking of switching to a science degree though? Do you like maths?

 

[baywax]

When people speak about getting an education, I think of science, maths, logic as the key foundations to an education. However there are many who supposeddly have an education but may not have done any science beyond year 10 and are very ignorant about maths. Should these people be labeled as educated and or knowledgeable? If they are than they are certainly missing on some very important and useful knowledge.

When you're driving to Montana and your tire blows out but you don't know how to repair it or change your tire you are missing some important education and knowledge. When motorists drive by and you don't know how or are too embarassed to wave them down and ask for help, here again you are missing some important knowledge and education. Knowing the inverse squared root of the tire pressure isn't going to help all that much. I notice also that all the rocket scientists in the world can't keep insulation from dislodging and eventually causing disaster for some very cool astronauts.

 

[JoeDawg]

Maths may not correspond 100% to reality but it can be 99.999...% in particle physics. When I say do the analyse correctly, I mean within an agreed upon error with experiment.

I'm sitting in a chair.

That's english, it corresponds to %100 of reality.

You're a snob.

 

[baywax]

I'm sitting in a chair.

That's english, it corresponds to %100 of reality.

You're a snob.

Math is a language used to describe a person's experience of life. It isn't snobbery and it isn't anything more than a language. It has its uses and its unique qualities that come in handy in many different situations in life... like if your building a skyscraper or a recycling plant or a wind-power generator. I'd say that, (with a growing population of humans and the demands it creates on the environment and everyone's experience of life), the maths are a useful and sometimes crucial bit of knowledge and education to have.

 

[Smurf]

My situation is not as black and white as you have described. I have taken some good philosophy subjects, especially the ones that are more distant from science like morality and nature of natural language. I find Wittgenstein's views always genuine and learned a lot of new and interestings things from his work. The philosophy of science is also interesting but am convinced that scientists would be able to think about these principles themselves without the help of philosophers.

But I am more from an economics background. Offcourse one of the big things you learn in economics is that productivity is the underlying driver for growth in society and the way for the future. How does productivity increase? The answer is in science. So its as if economists are saying another discipline is 'the way' forward. Normally that dosen't happen as self promotion is usually the case. So when the former happens, heed the advice and act quick smart. Again its a bit black and white but it depends on the person as well. Some people are a humanitites type and can't do science others vice versa. Although its easier for the science types to be better at humanities than vice versa.

I switched out of a commerce degree into science in second year. However I didn't know much about science other than I loved maths. I took philosophy as well at that time as I realized that making money wasn't the whole purpose of life as I had thought previously. I even thought of doing a combined science/arts degree but didn't. Now I am nearly completing my undergrad degree in science with only one semester left and seem to think that science and maths are more important, powerful and enjoyable then ever. Although my previous mythtical view about them is gone (ironically maybe my philosophy training has helped in this). And see the difference between them and the humanitites more and more.

I see, you haven't really answered what I was looking for though, so let me ask some more detailed questions: What year are you now? How much of each of these fields (various philosophies, economics, science)? Have you taken upper level classes (3rd + 4th year) or lower level classes (1st and second year)? Do you have any graduate studies experience? In what? That kind of thing. The reason this is important is because the experience of a first year philosophy course and a fourth year philosophy course is tremendous. Most lower level SS/Hum courses are extremely broad, boring, and completely lacking in detail. In Philosophy this is particularly the case, purely because of the odd way philosophy is structured (which is why I've decided not to pursue a degree in it myself). You're very much jumping into a conversation in progress and it's almost like you have to learn the entire history of philosophy before you can even begin to comprehend most modern philosophy. This is less so for newer sub-disciplines such as the philosophy of science, but still true none the less.

On what you've said though, I can see a few problems in your thinking. Not logical problems per se but problems in the way you write your thoughts that make it difficult for other people to respond to you, for example above when you say "How does productivity increase? The answer is in science." This is a problem because you fail to define science and you fail to define productivity. What this sentence conveys is that science is equivalent to anything that increases productivity. If I were to make the argument that economics increases productivity as well, that would be easy to back up, you could easily say that, well, that's because Economics is very scientific and is based on empirical evidence and mathematics. And that's all true and very good, but it doesn't add anything, and eventually becomes a tautology.

Another problem is that you seem to be confused about what exactly Humanities are. I've never known a University to consider Economics a humanity, that's a social science. As is political science, sociology, etc,. I'm a social science student, not a humanities student. Philosophy, Languages, History, etc,. are all Humanities and are not social sciences.

If I might infer, these kinds of mistakes are the kind that you study in the Humanities. Critical Arguing and Critical thinking. And from my own personal experience, for whatever that's worth to you, most pure natural science students are quite incapable of making critical arguments or studying language in any degree.

Are you thinking of switching to a science degree though? Do you like maths?

Oh no, I completely belong in social sciences. I do like math, and all sciences. I find them more difficult though, probably because I spend so little time in them compared to poli sci and such. And it seems to me that increasingly, the aggregate of human knowledge is becoming dependant on increasingly complex mathematics. Perhaps Asimov's psychohistory is the future.

Just my thoughts.

 

[AsianSensationK]

In high school, everyone who did well in maths and sciences also did well in the humanities. The reverse genearally wasn't true. However the top people in the humanities were often not maths and science people although one did but his dad was a scientist. He got the dux in English and briefly challenged me in my maths class.

This may be true, but come on. Highschool doesn't count for much. I will say that I kind of agree with you, and maybe for the same reason.

I used to be a dual concentrator in English Literature and Philosophy at one point in my college career (end of my third year). After taking a 400 level course in restoration literature, I couldn't stand the subject and switched to pure mathematics and philosophy. It's a choice I'll never regret. I'll finish with my degree at the end of the summer.

English Literature is pretty ridiculous, because the whole concentration is about reading books and critiquing them. You're not really learning how to do anything new in these courses, but you are wasting a ton of money for something that you could do on your own time.

I don't think you could level the same claim across all non-quantitative subjects though.

 

[JoeDawg]

English Literature is pretty ridiculous, because the whole concentration is about reading books and critiquing them.

There is a bit more to it than that. Studying literature is really multi-disciplinary study... to do it correctly you not only have to the read the book, but read about the history or the period it was written in, the specific author, the things that influenced him/her, you have to know a bit about sociology, politics, philosophy and psychology. Even the sciences can come into play, depending on what you are reading. Its also about learning how to communicate ideas, like in other humanities, which is why studying english can lead to careers in technical writing, marketing etc...

Reading and critiquing may be all you got out of it, but like anything, you tend to get out what you put in.

 

[AsianSensationK]

There is a bit more to it than that. Studying literature is really multi-disciplinary study... to do it correctly you not only have to the read the book, but read about the history or the period it was written in, the specific author, the things that influenced him/her, you have to know a bit about sociology, politics, philosophy and psychology. Even the sciences can come into play, depending on what you are reading. Its also about learning how to communicate ideas, like in other humanities, which is why studying english can lead to careers in technical writing, marketing etc...

Reading and critiquing may be all you got out of it, but like anything, you tend to get out what you put in.

It is true. There is quite a bit of psychology, philosophy, politics, history etc discussed in english literature, but I learned nothing new from doing it (maybe a couple of methods used in literary critique, bit that's it). I definitely recognized that it was a mish-mash of things you could study more formally.

You can say that there's more that can be taken away from a study of English literature, but is it really better than what you could take away from actually studying those other subjects?

Also, there's always better preparation for careers in marketing and technical writing and the like. A concentration in english literature isn't really about preparing anyone for careers. But I'm not willing to qualify the study of the humanities as inferior to anything like pivoxa15, so I should probably get back on track.

@pivoxa15: I'd like to bring up the study of music. It is a part of the humanities, and is often overlooked. Can you really compare studying mathematics to studying music in any significant way? How could you characterize music as being "inferior" to mathematics and still make any sense? If you haven't studied any music, I suggest you try it.

In my experience most people who are terrific at math and physics wind up being too stiff when they start studying music and learning instruments. This is especially true with some of the more modern stuff like blues and rock.

 

[JoeDawg]

You can say that there's more that can be taken away from a study of English literature, but is it really better than what you could take away from actually studying those other subjects?

If you studied all of them, you would be better off. Most people don't have the time to get six degrees though. Instead, Literature gives you a small bit of each and allows you to focus on the areas that interest you. Will studying history directly make you a better historian, probably, but that's missing the point. A more broadbased education has benefits too. It really depends on what you want from your education, what you want to do with it. Reading science fiction for instance, can give exposure to science concepts etc... to people who are not scientists, and don't want to be scientists.

Also, there's always better preparation for careers in marketing and technical writing and the like. A concentration in english literature isn't really about preparing anyone for careers.

The first part I agree with, the second, no so much, any sort of broadbased education, while it doesn't prepare you to directly enter a specific field, can provide wealth of knowledge that can be useful in many types of careers.

And heck, a buddy of mine graduated with a math degree and now he is going back to school for accounting. You never know where you are going to end up.

In my experience most people who are terrific at math and physics wind up being too stiff when they start studying music and learning instruments. This is especially true with some of the more modern stuff like blues and rock.

Music is a wonderful mix of disciplines also. Not only do you require a certain manual dexterity... timing.. etc.. which is generally more used in the trades, but it also combines that with having to understand often complex musical notation, and also creativity, which can be enhanced by both realworld experience and good research skills.

 

[pivoxa15]

I'm sitting in a chair.

That's english, it corresponds to %100 of reality.

You're a snob.

You are trying to model a physical state by answering the question 'what am I doing'? hence using English as the model. If I was to use maths to describe the physical state of that same exact moment you just described in English, I might produce gazzillion pages of equations describing the quantum states of every particle in the system. I am likewise trying to model a physical state but using a different language hence gaining different information.

Using my model, I can test how well my theory matches with the physcial state in the universe via experiment in a quantitative way hence very objective. However you cannot test the validity of your statement quantitavely other than maybe use a survey or poll to ask the opinion of others whehter you are correct or not. Once again there is a high level of subjectiveness in this although with this specific example, things may be very obvious but in interesting cases they will generally not.

 

[JoeDawg]

Using my model, I can test how well my theory matches with the physcial state in the universe via experiment in a quantitative way hence very objective. However you cannot test the validity of your statement quantitavely other than maybe use a survey or poll to ask the opinion of others whehter you are correct or not.

All you are saying here is that English is not Math. Nothing more.

You can write an infinite series of equations, and I could write an endless book on what its like for me sitting in a chair. Both could be entirely accurate with regards to what me sitting in a chair is like. You sitting in a different chair will involve differences in both the book and in math, since you will not be in the same location and you are not me. In both cases we could generalize about what its like 'to sit in chairs'. This would reduce the mathematical level of accuracy and the descriptive english level of accuracy with regards to instances of chair sitting. Which you use, depends on what you are trying to achieve.

All of those will be abstractions, until you verify via observation, and see if they resemble reality.

But that's the last I have to say on this, since I'm repeating myself already.

 

[pivoxa15]

I see, you haven't really answered what I was looking for though, so let me ask some more detailed questions: What year are you now? How much of each of these fields (various philosophies, economics, science)? Have you taken upper level classes (3rd + 4th year) or lower level classes (1st and second year)? Do you have any graduate studies experience? In what? That kind of thing. The reason this is important is because the experience of a first year philosophy course and a fourth year philosophy course is tremendous. Most lower level SS/Hum courses are extremely broad, boring, and completely lacking in detail. In Philosophy this is particularly the case, purely because of the odd way philosophy is structured (which is why I've decided not to pursue a degree in it myself). You're very much jumping into a conversation in progress and it's almost like you have to learn the entire history of philosophy before you can even begin to comprehend most modern philosophy. This is less so for newer sub-disciplines such as the philosophy of science, but still true none the less.

On what you've said though, I can see a few problems in your thinking. Not logical problems per se but problems in the way you write your thoughts that make it difficult for other people to respond to you, for example above when you say "How does productivity increase? The answer is in science." This is a problem because you fail to define science and you fail to define productivity. What this sentence conveys is that science is equivalent to anything that increases productivity. If I were to make the argument that economics increases productivity as well, that would be easy to back up, you could easily say that, well, that's because Economics is very scientific and is based on empirical evidence and mathematics. And that's all true and very good, but it doesn't add anything, and eventually becomes a tautology.

Another problem is that you seem to be confused about what exactly Humanities are. I've never known a University to consider Economics a humanity, that's a social science. As is political science, sociology, etc,. I'm a social science student, not a humanities student. Philosophy, Languages, History, etc,. are all Humanities and are not social sciences.

If I might infer, these kinds of mistakes are the kind that you study in the Humanities. Critical Arguing and Critical thinking. And from my own personal experience, for whatever that's worth to you, most pure natural science students are quite incapable of making critical arguments or studying language in any degree.


Oh no, I completely belong in social sciences. I do like math, and all sciences. I find them more difficult though, probably because I spend so little time in them compared to poli sci and such. And it seems to me that increasingly, the aggregate of human knowledge is becoming dependant on increasingly complex mathematics. Perhaps Asimov's psychohistory is the future.

Just my thoughts.

I am in 4th year uni. 1st year economics, 2nd/3rd year philosophy. In my uni 2nd and 3rd year philosophy are together. No graduate school experience at all.

My posts are non rigorous and not excellent with english. The point was that science is the main driver of productivity. I have problems with calling economics a science. It is a social science but the word social is important because I wouldn't want to confuse economics with the natural sciences which are often denoted by science.

I haven't looked into the definition of humanities actually. In high school all subjects were grouped as either humantities or science. So that is what I went by all these years. Thanks for raising this point.

Natural science students are incapable only because they haven't done a course in critical thinking. However given two people both without having done the course but one is a scientist than you can bet your life who will be better at critical thinking. The main point is that a science student will be able to pick up the contents in a critical thinking course faster than a non science student.

 

[pivoxa15]

All you are saying here is that English is not Math. Nothing more.

You can write an infinite series of equations, and I could write an endless book on what its like for me sitting in a chair. Both could be entirely accurate with regards to what me sitting in a chair is like. You sitting in a different chair will involve differences in both the book and in math, since you will not be in the same location and you are not me. In both cases we could generalize about what its like 'to sit in chairs'. This would reduce the mathematical level of accuracy and the descriptive english level of accuracy with regards to instances of chair sitting. Which you use, depends on what you are trying to achieve.

All of those will be abstractions, until you verify via observation, and see if they resemble reality.

But that's the last I have to say on this, since I'm repeating myself already.

I am also saying maths is more precise than English. And should be the tool of choice if you want some precise, objective results that are indisputable. i.e. HUman language is frequently ambiguous: a given statement can often have many possible meanings. Moreover, the definition of words are themselves inprecise with words defined in terms of other words that uses the orginal to define them. In other words circular reasoning but we often get over that and understand somone else because as Wittgenstein would put it we play and are good at the language game we are brought up with.

I don't like the word infinite if you are trying to describe something that happens in reality.

 

[pivoxa15]

It is true. There is quite a bit of psychology, philosophy, politics, history etc discussed in english literature, but I learned nothing new from doing it (maybe a couple of methods used in literary critique, bit that's it). I definitely recognized that it was a mish-mash of things you could study more formally.

You can say that there's more that can be taken away from a study of English literature, but is it really better than what you could take away from actually studying those other subjects?

Also, there's always better preparation for careers in marketing and technical writing and the like. A concentration in english literature isn't really about preparing anyone for careers. But I'm not willing to qualify the study of the humanities as inferior to anything like pivoxa15, so I should probably get back on track.

@pivoxa15: I'd like to bring up the study of music. It is a part of the humanities, and is often overlooked. Can you really compare studying mathematics to studying music in any significant way? How could you characterize music as being "inferior" to mathematics and still make any sense? If you haven't studied any music, I suggest you try it.

In my experience most people who are terrific at math and physics wind up being too stiff when they start studying music and learning instruments. This is especially true with some of the more modern stuff like blues and rock.

I've done some high school literature. If that counts than I think that it is enjoyable and distinctly different to science or philosophy. It allows one to be human in a way, to express one's emotions via language poetically. And allows one to analyse somone else's work of the same nature. In this way it is more like art or music. I have nothing against them as they let people be more human. Science takes away this component to an extent and that is why they seem so odd and don't fit into society that well.

How much of physics have you studied? It could be that the more you study physics and other sciences the more inferior the humanities become. You will realize that all these emotions, created by music, poetry are just manifestations of physical processes hence physics. However, music and the like has nothing to say about physics.

 

[pivoxa15]

When you're driving to Montana and your tire blows out but you don't know how to repair it or change your tire you are missing some important education and knowledge. When motorists drive by and you don't know how or are too embarassed to wave them down and ask for help, here again you are missing some important knowledge and education. Knowing the inverse squared root of the tire pressure isn't going to help all that much. I notice also that all the rocket scientists in the world can't keep insulation from dislodging and eventually causing disaster for some very cool astronauts.

Education and knowledge is endless and no one can know everything. My point was that science and maths is so important because it allows people to learn new things much more quickly and be better problem solvers and thinkers. Alhtough with your specific situation, I'd fancy a scientist having a better chance at fixing the car than a non scientist.

There was an anecdote of the great theorist and experimentalist physicist Enrico Fermi (some say not since Newton have we had somone so good at both aspects of physics) "During one of his early lecture trips to the United States, a car that he had purchased became diabled, and he pulled into a nearby gas station. After Fermi repaired the car with ease, the station owner offered him a job on the spot."

Being too embarrased to call for help is not really due to lack of education of knowledge and education but your own arrogance. Or maybe just a bit too shy.

 

[baywax]

Education and knowledge is endless and no one can know everything. My point was that science and maths is so important because it allows people to learn new things much more quickly and be better problem solvers and thinkers. Alhtough with your specific situation, I'd fancy a scientist having a better chance at fixing the car than a non scientist.

There was an anecdote of the great theorist and experimentalist physicist Enrico Fermi (some say not since Newton have we had somone so good at both aspects of physics) "During one of his early lecture trips to the United States, a car that he had purchased became diabled, and he pulled into a nearby gas station. After Fermi repaired the car with ease, the station owner offered him a job on the spot."

Being too embarrased to call for help is not really due to lack of education of knowledge and education but your own arrogance. Or maybe just a bit too shy.

Define "scientist"! I know plenty of them and most of them are socially inept and mechanically challenged. (Read: very little education or knowledge of interaction with other human beings shy,embarassed, overly arrogant... always had a lab tech to do the mechanicals and very little or no practical knowledge or education.) Because you have one example of a scientist who can apply his/her knowledge to enabling a "disabled" car is inconsequencial.

Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are scientists... I love scientists... just keep them stuffed in their own little biodome and we'll all get along. When they are eating their own genetically modified beef, pork, corn, peas, wheat etc... and drinking the "pure" water they've filtered out of a human waste treatment plant and when they take the pharmaceuticals they keep coming up with for psychosomatic illnesses ... then I'll know they're on to something. Madam Curie, the Nobel Laureate for Physics never once had a dose of radiation deliberately administered into one of her body parts... but she did suffer greatly from radiation poisoning coming up with what she thought was a cure. Overall survival rates of cancer patients receiving radiation therapy show that radiation is no cure. Its another complication.

 

[radou]

How much of physics have you studied? It could be that the more you study physics and other sciences the more inferior the humanities become. You will realize that all these emotions, created by music, poetry are just manifestations of physical processes hence physics. However, music and the like has nothing to say about physics.

Please, give me a break.