Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Pls comment on this quotation

  1. Feb 3, 2006 #1
    i found this somewhere in peter reinhart's "the bread baker's apprentice":

    seems to me to be obviously true now that i've read it, but i hadn't thought of something like that before. now i kind of wonder why. he was referring to baking bread, but the general idea easily applies to science & math i would think. one would have to completely understand a theory to be able to figure out what's wrong with it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 3, 2006 #2

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Which is the main reason, of course, why crackpots won't ever forward science, even though within their gibberish you may find statements that superficially agrees with later revolutions in scientific thought.

    One of the best examples I know in that context, is that Hegel in "The Science of Logic" argues (in his muddled way) that light has neither a particle nature nor a wave nature.

    That doesn't make him into an outstanding physicist, though..:wink:
     
  4. Feb 3, 2006 #3
    What you're saying here, though true, isn't the same thing as what the quote is saying.

    "Breaking the rules" of breadbaking, doesn't mean you think there's anything wrong with the way it's done, rather that you might want to deliberately make a different kind of bread for a different kind of taste effect, for instance. You won't understand what to do to get that effect unless you know how regular bread is made.

    That's different than examining a theory and realizing there's a mistake in it.
     
  5. Feb 3, 2006 #4

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Well, but in aphoristic form, "breaking", "bending", "progressing beyond" should be regarded as "synonoms".
     
  6. Feb 3, 2006 #5
    could you also say that "one must break the rules before mastering them"?
     
  7. Feb 3, 2006 #6

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Hey mister, it is simple to create an "off-side" in soccer, but I won't ever become a soccer professional by doing so..
     
  8. Feb 3, 2006 #7
    lol, wow i got shot down quickly there! However, would you not say that if you never made that off-side in the first place, then even as a proffessional you won't know when you do?
     
  9. Feb 3, 2006 #8
    yeah that makes more sense. you would have to know when it would be appropriate to break the rules & what rule is getting broken, why it's ok in that situation, etc.
     
  10. Feb 3, 2006 #9

    honestrosewater

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If you must do A before B and you must do B before A, um...
     
  11. Feb 3, 2006 #10
    Right. There's a difference between deliberately making pita bread cause that's what you want, and only being able to come up with something like pita bread because you don't understand leavening agents and really wanted something different.

    This quote often comes up in art and music. Alot of beginners don't think it's of any use to learn standard techniques because they plan to be doing personal, abstract, quirky stuff anyway. Teacher's tell them you have to master the rules before you can break them to push them to learn some discipline and technique without which, it turns out, you can't even successfully do the personal, abstract, quirky stuff. You have to have the mastery of the medium to be able to achieve any effect you want.
     
  12. Feb 3, 2006 #11

    BobG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    I think it applies to fuzzier situations, such as the law, etc.

    Soccer is a very good example. You have 17 laws of the game, but referee's are taught that Law 18 is the most important - Law 18 is common sense. If the first 17 laws covered every conceivable situation that could come up, new referees would be sidelined with a hernia before they ever stepped onto the field. You have to understand the intent of the laws as well as the letter of law and sometimes you have to use a little creativity to make the laws fit the situation - plus have enough common sense not to use the players' game to show off how much trivial knowledge you possess.

    The law about send-offs for denying a goal for an offense punishable by a free-kick is a good example. The law doesn't say it has to be a foul, or that the offense has to punishable by a direct free kick - it says denying a goal by any offense punishable by any free kick results in a send-off. New referees ask what offense punishable by an indirect free kick could result in a send-off. The answer is that they'd probably be better off if they don't go off looking for the opportunity - if the situation comes up, it will be obvious enough (i.e. - you know the person has to be sent off before you figure out which clause in the law applies).

    The constraints on the goalkeeper on penalty kicks is probably an even better example. Keepers can move their feet or side to side, but can't leave the goal line before the ball is kicked (you know, just the way Briana Scurry did it in the Womens World Cup '99 :rofl: )
     
  13. Feb 3, 2006 #12
    I am confused...which one of the soccer players is supposed to bake the bread??:biggrin:

    Actually I see the quote as equating to "thinking outside the box", because to do so one must first be familiar with the inside of the box.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Pls comment on this quotation
  1. Quotation (Replies: 2)

  2. Need comment (Replies: 2)

Loading...