Most Boring/Hated Subject That You're Forced to Take?

[DiracPool]

Natural History of Aquatic Invertebrates

I had to take this as a biology undergrad. It seemed to be the least boring of the pool of courses I could take for whatever section requirement it fulfilled. In any case, I thought it might be fun, it involved taking several field trips down to Bodega Bay, and other lakes and pools around the SF bay area to take samples, etc., and study them back at the lab. Unfortunately, the only thing I remember from the course and therefore took out of it was this exercise whereby we had to remember the shell patterns of something like several hundred mollusks. And we were quizzed on this. It was like someone gave you the fingerprints of a 1000 convicts and the quiz was going to be on your identification of these patterns and hierarchical relations between them.. I remember thinking, this is a skill I really AM not going to ever use...and I never have.

 

[Hercuflea]

Classes I hate, in approximate order: discrete math esp. COMBINATORICS, econometrics, any Literature, statistics, marketing, English, political "science," management, "sociology," "environmental" classes, art

Indifferent: psychology, Computer Sci., music, thermodynamics (I like it but so far I suck at it)

Classes I love: Linear Algebra, Diff. Eq and PDE's, Calculus, Complex Analysis (although it blew my mind), Nuclear Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Economics, History (don't like the attitudes of the profs though)

Classes I have yet to experience: Real Analysis, Functional Analysis, Abstract Algebra, modern physics, numerical analysis, nuclear reactor physics, plasma physics, organic/inorganic/physical chemistry, differential geometry, topology, knot theory (sounds awesome)

 

[micromass]

Classes I hate, in approximate order: discrete math esp. COMBINATORICS, econometrics, any Literature, statistics, marketing, English, political "science," management, "sociology," "environmental" classes, art

Indifferent: psychology, Computer Sci., music, thermodynamics (I like it but so far I suck at it)

Classes I love: Linear Algebra, Diff. Eq and PDE's, Calculus, Complex Analysis (although it blew my mind), Nuclear Engineering, Physics, Chemistry, Economics, History (don't like the attitudes of the profs though)

Classes I have yet to experience: Real Analysis, Functional Analysis, Abstract Algebra, modern physics, numerical analysis, nuclear reactor physics, plasma physics, organic/inorganic/physical chemistry, differential geometry, topology, knot theory (sounds awesome)

I know it's completely off topic, but I find it weird that you can take complex analysis without having taken real analysis...

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

But science is practiced in terms of empiricism (at least if you consider verification to be a proper part of science) and empiricism can only be practiced with our involvement. So we need to ask ourselves what the relationship is between a reality that involves us and a reality that is independent of us. That relationship cannot be addressed through the scientific method because we are an intrinsic part of establishing an empirically verified model, we can't verify a model of independent reality! So we have to invoke theories of realism or idealism to express the relationship between empirical reality and independent reality (though in the case of idealism no independent reality is assumed to even exist). None of those can be proven or disproven, so the extrapolation of a scientific model to independent reality turns that model into a philosophical conjecture within independent reality. The particular flavour of realism or idealism that is adopted becomes a philosophical stance from which you interpret the models and their relevance to independent reality. But that's all it can ever be (an interpretation) whereas the scientific model, within empirical reality is a scientific truth (within its domain of applicability). But having made the distinction between a model having a scientific truth within empirical reality and that same model having philosophical conjecture within independent reality one then is much clearer as to the role of philosophical thinking within science. Philosophy has no role to play within the domain of applicability of an empirically verified model, but outside of that domain, either within independent reality or as part of a hypothesis that in principle cannot be empirically verified, then philosophical thinking is as valid as any other mode of thought. At least that's the case if we adopt a bottom line of science as requiring empirical verification. If we don't adopt that premise then I'm not sure what science then becomes, certainly not the science I relate to.

So when you read that book, what is the author referring to? Is he dealing with unverifiable models and philosophical thinking or is he saying that empirically verified models can be proven wrong by philosophy? The former case invokes philosophical thinking and is legitimate (though not in any sense of proving or disproving), the latter is clearly wrong because the only premise by which an empirical model can be shown to be incorrect is through the process of empirical verification.

Just say that philosophy is valid (or at least, as valid as it can be) when pondering claims that can't be tested, and is illegitimate when pondering claims that can and have been tested. It's so much simpler without the garrulous bantering.

 

[Hercuflea]

I know it's completely off topic, but I find it weird that you can take complex analysis without having taken real analysis...

Hmm...well they did call it "complex variables" on the catalog, but the prof referred to the class as "complex analysis" in the syllabus and in person. And it required Vector/multi calc, but most of us were graduating/near graduating math seniors, and the class went over topics such as harmonic functions, differentiating/integrating complex functions, contour integrals, cauchy-riemann equations, cauchy integral formula, and residue theory. I think she planned on doing conformal mappings but never had time to teach it. It was the hardest class of my life actually.

 

[Len M]

Just say that philosophy is valid (or at least, as valid as it can be) when pondering claims that can't be tested, and is illegitimate when pondering claims that can and have been tested. It's so much simpler without the garrulous bantering.

I could have just said that, and so could you have in your first response to me, instead you said..

...Philosophy has no use in science beyond what it has previously attributed.

which doesn't make it all clear that many modes of thought (including philosophical ones) lead to a testable model and that it is only beyond that point (in terms of empirical verification) that models stand on their own as being scientific "truths" (in terms of their domain of applicability).

I simply responded to that vague statement and Sayajin's comments in a manner you consider to be "rambling", but I rather just call it a very basic clarification of notions that I find useful in the field of scientific inquiry, namely empirical reality, independent reality, realism and idealism. Those four terms are all you need in order to appreciate the role of philosophy within physics as a whole.

 

[Sayajin]

Len M I asked you a simple question. Have philosophy done anything usefull ever (40000 BC - 2013 AD)?
And I will repeat myself. We won't count people like Newton here who gave the name philosophy to science book because the word physics was not popular at that time.
All theories that philosophers have made and proposed turned out to be complately wrong.
If it's not real why should I care? Why kids should learn this in school? Why when Evolution which is scientificly proven and the basic principles are teached in high school at the same time kids learn philosophy which says that Evolution is fake?
Please don't use so so many words to explain something that can be done with 1 sentence.

Philosophy should be banned from the school system it only confuses kids by saying nonsense. If you want to study this you could go to university.

 

[jim mcnamara]

Fifty some years ago, I took Sociology 101. It did one thing for me: convince me that it was possible to create a foo-foo discipline, and call it Science. Things may have improved since then. But I never pursued it to find out more about it. Trimming my fingernails took on a far higher priority than anything Sociology-related.

This is probably unfair: but whatever institution granted advanced degrees to the prof I had should rethink their curricula. So a more reasonable approach is to say that I had a horrible prof. Which I think happens all too often.

 

[Len M]

Please don't use so so many words to explain something that can be done with 1 sentence.

Philosophy should be banned from the school system it only confuses kids by saying nonsense. If you want to study this you could go to university.

Well that's fine if you want to adopt scientific models for what they are - scientific truths with their domain of applicability and verified empirically. However if you wish to inquire as to the status of those models outside of the phenomena of empirical reality then you have to invoke philosophical inquiry. Philosophy contributes nothing useful to verified models and never will - philosophy is more about the context of those models in the absence of verification and/or their context within independent reality. I don't see it as nonsense to inquire about the status of verified models within independent reality or outside of any possible verification, but I might see it as nonsense to deny that right to anybody, including kids.

By the way, I have never implied the model of evolution is incorrect (and never would), only empirical verification can determine that. You brought that up, I was only trying to establish what the author of your book was intending to put across from a philosophical point of view and my only suggestion was that he was referring to an unverifiable aspect of the evolution model. Since you don't appear to be able to give a link for the book, I really can't say any more on the matter.

Apologies for not getting all this said in one sentence.

 

[Darth Frodo]

Statistics! Just horrible! Boring as hell!

 

[Sayajin]

Well that's fine if you want to adopt scientific models for what they are - scientific truths with their domain of applicability and verified empirically. However if you wish to inquire as to the status of those models outside of the phenomena of empirical reality then you have to invoke philosophical inquiry. Philosophy contributes nothing useful to verified models and never will - philosophy is more about the context of those models in the absence of verification and/or their context within independent reality. I don't see it as nonsense to inquire about the status of verified models within independent reality or outside of any possible verification, but I might see it as nonsense to deny that right to anybody, including kids.

By the way, I have never implied the model of evolution is incorrect (and never would), only empirical verification can determine that. You brought that up, I was only trying to establish what the author of your book was intending to put across from a philosophical point of view and my only suggestion was that he was referring to an unverifiable aspect of the evolution model. Since you don't appear to be able to give a link for the book, I really can't say any more on the matter.

Apologies for not getting all this said in one sentence.

So when it's not useful in our reality why should they put it as mandatory school subject. As I said studying philosophy in school is equivalent of studying that the Earth was created before 6000years after all this is independent reality. School is about getting knowledge that will help you in this reality. If you want to study this things you have internet you have universities. This should not be mandatory by any way. It stops people who want to learn real science.

 

[bp_psy]

Len M I asked you a simple question. Have philosophy done anything usefull ever (40000 BC - 2013 AD)?
And I will repeat myself. We won't count people like Newton here who gave the name philosophy to science book because the word physics was not popular at that time.
All theories that philosophers have made and proposed turned out to be complately wrong.
If it's not real why should I care? Why kids should learn this in school? Why when Evolution which is scientificly proven and the basic principles are teached in high school at the same time kids learn philosophy which says that Evolution is fake?
Please don't use so so many words to explain something that can be done with 1 sentence.

Philosophy should be banned from the school system it only confuses kids by saying nonsense. If you want to study this you could go to university.

Logic is a very important and useful part of philosophy. It should be one of the main things taught in school.

 

[Len M]

So when it's not useful in our reality why should they put it as mandatory school subject. As I said studying philosophy in school is equivalent of studying that the Earth was created before 6000years after all this is independent reality. School is about getting knowledge that will help you in this reality. If you want to study this things you have internet you have universities. This should not be mandatory by any way. It stops people who want to learn real science.

Well all I'm saying is that I consider the bottom line of science to be empirical verification, that is what gives us scientific truth within the domain of applicability of the model and that is what gives science its power - I can't see what's so wrong in teaching that to school children in the context of the models scientific applicability to empirical reality and its philosophical applicability to independent reality. Empirical reality is our here and now and consists only of phenomena, independent reality is that which may exist behind the phenomena.

Let's just agree that "real" science involves a mandatory end result of empirically verified models. If inquiry (of whatever form) can't get to the point of a testable hypothesis then that mode of inquiry is "something" other than science in terms of science being in the business of establishing an empirically verified model. You may want to call that "something" science and if it's just you involved then fine. But others can legitimately call it what ever they like, it does not carry the kind of objective truth that is contained within the empirically verified model or the potential of scientific truth contained within a testable hypothesis. It's still a valid form of inquiry and often important, but it needs to be properly distinguished from the real fruits of the scientific method, namely the verified predictive model or the testable hypothesis.

 

[Sayajin]

Well all I'm saying is that I consider the bottom line of science to be empirical verification, that is what gives us scientific truth within the domain of applicability of the model and that is what gives science its power - I can't see what's so wrong in teaching that to school children in the context of the models scientific applicability to empirical reality and its philosophical applicability to independent reality. Empirical reality is our here and now and consists only of phenomena, independent reality is that which may exist behind the phenomena.

Let's just agree that "real" science involves a mandatory end result of empirically verified models. If inquiry (of whatever form) can't get to the point of a testable hypothesis then that mode of inquiry is "something" other than science in terms of science being in the business of establishing an empirically verified model. You may want to call that "something" science and if it's just you involved then fine. But others can legitimately call it what ever they like, it does not carry the kind of objective truth that is contained within the empirically verified model or the potential of scientific truth contained within a testable hypothesis. It's still a valid form of inquiry and often important, but it needs to be properly distinguished from the real fruits of the scientific method, namely the verified predictive model or the testable hypothesis.

The problem is that it is mandatory to learn uselsess subject like Philosophy. The other problem is that there are infinite number of "indipendent realities" that you can construct but we live in only one.
Further more philosophy is like doing mathematics without knowing mathematics.
Mathematicians just like philosophers define new structures objects and work with them without caring if they are real or they can be found anywhere in reality. Despite that fact even if their objects are not real the mathematics that they make is consistent and don't contradict itself. Philosophers try to define their own ways the things could possibly work but the thing is that not only they don't exist but they are also logicaly flawled. The problem is that the human language is not as consistent as mathematics. It have many flaws and you can construct paradoxic sentences that can contradict themselves and go dead end. Philosophers use the language as their main tool to think about certain things without understanding or having any knowledge about them.

Nevertheless they try to talk about every subjects including science and often try to disprove certain theory or say that what they do is somehow important for it. You just can't make something that is useless to be useful.
I am not saying that people who want to learn this stuff should stop but it should't be mandatory. This is killing real scientific way of thinking.
I am not sure how educating system in other contries work but at least of what I have seen from philosophy in my country's high school it was pure BS.

 

[PhysicsGente]

Classical Mechanics.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Classical Mechanics.

=O whaaat

 

[Lyrassia]

Anything related to English and the humanities.

 

[PAllen]

As far as classes that I'm forced to take for my major, I would say organic chemistry. For classes that aren't related, I don't care for art classes much

It's all so personal. My father loved Organic Chemistry and based his career on it (and post career - continued to consult well into retirement), in many variations.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

I could have just said that, and so could you have in your first response to me, instead you said..



which doesn't make it all clear that many modes of thought (including philosophical ones) lead to a testable model and that it is only beyond that point (in terms of empirical verification) that models stand on their own as being scientific "truths" (in terms of their domain of applicability).

I simply responded to that vague statement and Sayajin's comments in a manner you consider to be "rambling", but I rather just call it a very basic clarification of notions that I find useful in the field of scientific inquiry, namely empirical reality, independent reality, realism and idealism. Those four terms are all you need in order to appreciate the role of philosophy within physics as a whole.

Fair enough, I was originally nit-picking one part of your first post, anyway.

In an unrelated manner, I would like to say that I enjoy your writing style.

 

[Len M]

In an unrelated manner, I would like to say that I enjoy your writing style.

Thank you

 

[BobG]

History of Eastern Civilizations. It wins because, while I remember what the textbook looked like, I don't actually remember anything else about the course. It must have been really boring for me to forget everything about the course. It was one of those "every university has to have its own special mandatory courses just to penalize students (i.e. - transfer students) that dare spend any of their money at a rival college" courses.

A public speaking course I took in college was really bad, as well. That was mainly because of the instructor. He was really, really old and actually missed about half the classes. We'd show up and hang around for awhile just to make sure he wasn't late (which he often was) and then just leave when it became apparent he wasn't going to show at all. Learned absolutely nothing from the course. It was the typical "learn to speak by not repeating the things that have humiliated you in the past" type of public speaking course. The only bright side was that he wasn't going to give anyone less than a 'B' for a course where the instructor had such a lousy attendance record.

Later on in the military, I took a different public speaking course with an instructor that actually helped students learn to speak in public. That was one of the most valuable courses I ever took in my life. I went from hating to have to speak in public to being incredibly good at it.

So, a lot of any course is the instructor that teaches it.

 

[AlephZero]

Classical Mechanics.

I can't remember what the Latin for "torque wrench" is, either.

The worst course I ever took (though not compulsory) was mathematical economincs. There was no math content beyond A + B = C + D + E (and this was in the final year of a math degree). But if you couldn't remember the exact difference between the definitions of 57 different types of money supply, you stood no chance.

 

[nitsuj]

Information systems - Context is business admin. Taught by a 70-something in 2002.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It had to be that class in political science. They flunked me when I got caught not cheating.

 

[PAllen]

It had to be that class in political science. They flunked me when I got caught not cheating.

Oh, so it was a practical course.

 

[WannabeNewton]

It had to be that class in political science. They flunked me when I got caught not cheating.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-11-2013/crimson-lied

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

How about that. I no longer have any respect for Jon Stewart.

 

[BobG]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-11-2013/crimson-lied

Students Disciplined in Harvard Cheating Scandal

Howard Gardner, a professor at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education who has spent much of his career studying cheating, said that eventually, the university should “give a much more complete account of exactly what happened and why it happened.”

Wait! What?!

Administrators said that on final-exam questions, some students supplied identical answers, down to, in some cases, typographical errors...

Okay, I have to admit that's a major FAIL!