Culture of Physics, Math, Philosophy, and History
Charles
kinds of inquiries are almost guarenteed to draw some flames. This is
probably one of them; but I'm hoping for some thoughtful responses as
well. So, with shields at 50%, here goes:
In college, and in the years since then, I've studied physics, math,
and philosophy. It seems to me that all three of these fields share a
common culture, which I would describe as elitist and exclusive.
Basically, if you are not quick enough to keep up, or if you can't
grasp the rarified subtle issues of these fields, you are not a
"player." This is often reflected in teaching which is meant less to
try to help all the students grasp the material, and more to see which
ones are clever enough to keep up in spite of a breakneck pace. Among
professional physicists, mathematicians, and philsophers, there is
certainly cooperative work done; but there is also a fierce rivalry.
History, I get the sense, has more of an inclusive culture. Everyone
is welcome, and everyone is invited. And again, based on limited
experience, this seems reflected in teaching which is more accessible,
and more reasonably paced.
All generalizations, of course. Still, as far as generalizations go,
anyone think I've got some merit here? And if so, does anyone have
any comments on why these cultures are the way they are?
Charles J.
charles...@yahoo.com
Sir Frederick
Different persons brains are more different than their faces,
no surprise there. Cultures, including academic cultures are
both constrained and promoted by the supporting media (brains).
--
Best,
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
http://www.fuzzysys.com
*************************
Phrases of the week :
'The idea of not wanting to go after the
senior leadership of a paramilitary group
that has declared war on you is such a
perversion that it's mind-boggling.'
-- Pentagon adviser (2002)
:-))))Snort!)
*************************
Uncle Al
[snip]
> In college, and in the years since then, I've studied physics, math,
> and philosophy. It seems to me that all three of these fields share a
> common culture,
[snip]
Uneducated idiot. The seats you occupied could have been more
valuably left unoccupied:
1) Mathematics is a self-consistent axiomatic construct without
empirical constraint;
2) Physics is math with empirical constraints;
3) Philosophy is dysfunctional bullshit pure and simple, no
wastebasket necessary in proximity to any writing instrument.
India has 5000 years of philosophy. 1.1 billion Indians have fewer
flush toilets than Boulder, Colorado. Go philosophize away a half
trillion pounds of human waste/year.
> History, I get the sense, has more of an inclusive culture.
[snip]
History does not exist. History is a historian's agenda.
> anyone think I've got some merit here?
[snip]
No. Waste of sci.physics bytes.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Gregory L. Hansen
My impression of classes at school was more that there was a lot of
material to cover, and it was difficult stuff. The scientists I work with
now seem universally friendly and helpful. I don't really see the elitism
or rivalry happening outside of sci.physics. How do you determine the
openness or elitistness of a group of people? Approach them in a bar and
ask them what they do?
I haven't had a lot of contact with historians, at least not
professionals. But maybe they seem more open because their subject is
easier to explain to the uninitiated. It's a lot easier to explain the
role of the width of tank treads in Germany's campaign in Russia during
World War II than it is to explain what a virtual particle is, for
instance.
--
"A nice adaptation of conditions will make almost any hypothesis agree
with the phenomena. This will please the imagination but does not advance
our knowledge." -- J. Black, 1803.
Eugen Winkler
> I've been posting on the Internet long enough to know that certain
> kinds of inquiries are almost guarenteed to draw some flames. This is
> probably one of them; but I'm hoping for some thoughtful responses as
> well. So, with shields at 50%, here goes:
Obviously you have masochistic tendencies and imbalance. So you seem to be
experienced with those stupid sado-maso games.
[...]
> And if so, does anyone have
> any comments on why these cultures are the way they are?
>
No comment.
Eugen Winkler
Miller
"Charles" <Charles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4cbd6372.02122...@posting.google.com...
Because all of those humanity professors are trying to protect their
phoney-baloney jobs, that's why!
Scott
John Jones
jargon than when applying it.
Wittgenstein in his later writings went to the heart of
the matter in plain-speak.
JJ
Charles <Charles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4cbd6372.02122...@posting.google.com...
Miller
"John Jones" <scooby...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:au0eao$fue$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> There is a great deal more to be said when not applying
> jargon than when applying it.
> Wittgenstein in his later writings went to the heart of
> the matter in plain-speak.
> JJ
>
You mean, while speaking plainly?
Scott
John Jones
The heart of the matter.. yes, it need not be
earthshattering, though sometimes plain speak can be
like that.., it would be speaking plainly,
nevertheless.
Plain speaking.
or is that Speaking plainly.
God.
Its enough to send the professor home in shame thinking
there was a difference.
JJ
Miller <chumleyN...@chartermi.net> wrote in
message news:v07fqng...@corp.supernews.com...
Lee Rudolph
That's silly. Plains don't have peaks.
Lee Rudolph
Miller
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:au0gml$dlr$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> > plainspeak
>
> That's silly. Plains don't have peaks.
>
> Lee Rudolph
LOL
Scott
Chan-Ho Suh
>
> In college, and in the years since then, I've studied physics, math, and
> philosophy. It seems to me that all three of these fields share a
> common culture, which I would describe as elitist and exclusive.
> Basically, if you are not quick enough to keep up, or if you can't grasp
> the rarified subtle issues of these fields, you are not a "player." This
> is often reflected in teaching which is meant less to try to help all
> the students grasp the material, and more to see which ones are clever
> enough to keep up in spite of a breakneck pace.
For some reason, I really doubt that you have been through any math
classes that go at a fast pace. In fact, I suspect you have been only
been through the usual (reasonably paced, or sometimes slow) math courses like
calculus.
Students that don't like to think, or have not learned to think by the
time they reach the college level, find their required mathematics
courses difficult and unreasonably paced. They never like to
consider the possibility that they are lacking in the critical reasoning
abilities they should have developed during high school and before.
Among professional
> physicists, mathematicians, and philsophers, there is certainly
> cooperative work done; but there is also a fierce rivalry.
>
Oh? And there's no fierce rivalry among historians? See below.
> History, I get the sense, has more of an inclusive culture. Everyone is
> welcome, and everyone is invited.
I would say historians are less welcoming than mathematicians are. If
you disagree with someone's version of the Civil War, watch out! In
mathematics, as long as you aren't a complete nutjob, people will listen
to you.
Regarding rivalry among historians, their fights can get quite ugly. If
two mathematicians disagree over the correctness of one's results, they
will do so in a constructive manner, without calling the other a racist,
sexist, militant feminist, etc. Historians, on the other hand,
don't hesitate to use slander, and pull dirty tricks during tenure
decision time. The nature of the subject allows it, since unlike
mathematics, there is not a universal standard to judge work.
And again, based on limited
> experience, this seems reflected in teaching which is more accessible,
> and more reasonably paced.
>
This has nothing to do with elitism, but everything to do with the fact
that mathematical concepts are by nature difficult to grasp.
Because you (and a lot of other people) find history classes easier than
math classes does not mean the Big Bad Elitist Math Prof is tyrranically
punishing less capable students.
Jason Wojciechowski
<pan.2002.12.20.18....@math.ucdavis.nospam.edu>, Chan-Ho
Suh wrote:
> Students that don't like to think, or have not learned to think by the
> time they reach the college level, find their required mathematics
> courses difficult and unreasonably paced. They never like to
> consider the possibility that they are lacking in the critical reasoning
> abilities they should have developed during high school and before.
I'd watch where the blame on a statment like that lies. How many
students have a set of parents, elementary schools, middle schools, and
high schools that all promote developing critical reasoning skills to
the point where it's not just a "learning goal" in the handbook, but an
actual well-thought-out part of the curriculum?
Note that I'm not trying to make a blanket statement, either, that all
students who don't know how to think can blame it on their schools.
-Jason
jmfb...@aol.com
Chan-Ho Suh <s...@math.ucdavis.nospam.edu> wrote:
<snip good commentary>
>>And again, based on limited
>> experience, this seems reflected in teaching which is more accessible,
>> and more reasonably paced.
>>
>
>This has nothing to do with elitism, but everything to do with the fact
>that mathematical concepts are by nature difficult to grasp.
>Because you (and a lot of other people) find history classes easier than
>math classes does not mean the Big Bad Elitist Math Prof is tyrranically
>punishing less capable students.
Heh. I found math classes to be so much easier than history classes.
Back then, when I was in school, history didn't make any sense. :-)
I'm correcting this now.
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
Charles
> For some reason, I really doubt that you have been through any math
> classes that go at a fast pace. In fact, I suspect you have been only
> been through the usual (reasonably paced, or sometimes slow) math courses like
> calculus.
>
> Students that don't like to think, or have not learned to think by the
> time they reach the college level, find their required mathematics
> courses difficult and unreasonably paced. They never like to
> consider the possibility that they are lacking in the critical reasoning
> abilities they should have developed during high school and before.
Sorry, my friend, your assessment of me is mistaken. Studied math and
physics through senior level (complex analysis, quantum theory), and
got B+ and A- all the way -- decent grades, if not top grades. My
"critical thinking skills" are pretty solid. However, I my suspicion
about *you* is that you may have been a top student -- nothing wrong
with that per se, of course -- but the highly competitive system is
perpetuated precisely by those students who breeze through; make it
to the very top of physics or math; and are unaware that many of
their peers of lesser but still significant abilities are weeded out.
(Yeah, I was one of them.)
Partly, my views on this whole matter were reinforced recently when I
read the biography of Feynman called "Genius", by James Gleick. There
are repeated stories in that book where physicists of average ability
would be working on some physics problem for six months or a year.
They would go to Feynman, or one of *his* peers, like Schwinger, and
say, "Can you help me with this problem?" Feynman would scribble a
solution on the blackboard in three minutes. Or Feynman would pull an
unpublished paper from his filing cabinet; it was a paper he had
solved years before, and thought too insignificant to publish. Some
of the people who encountered this kind of casual one-upmanship were
so crestfallen they dropped out of theoretical physics, or dropped out
of physics altogether.
> Oh? And there's no fierce rivalry among historians? See below.
>
> > History, I get the sense, has more of an inclusive culture. Everyone is
> > welcome, and everyone is invited.
>
> I would say historians are less welcoming than mathematicians are. If
> you disagree with someone's version of the Civil War, watch out! In
> mathematics, as long as you aren't a complete nutjob, people will listen
> to you.
>
> Regarding rivalry among historians, their fights can get quite ugly. If
> two mathematicians disagree over the correctness of one's results, they
> will do so in a constructive manner, without calling the other a racist,
> sexist, militant feminist, etc. Historians, on the other hand,
> don't hesitate to use slander, and pull dirty tricks during tenure
> decision time. The nature of the subject allows it, since unlike
> mathematics, there is not a universal standard to judge work.
Your point about history may be valid. I know the classroom
experience is more friendly than the physics/math classroom
experienice -- at least, for the classes I took.
> And again, based on limited
> > experience, this seems reflected in teaching which is more accessible,
> > and more reasonably paced.
> >
> This has nothing to do with elitism, but everything to do with the fact
> that mathematical concepts are by nature difficult to grasp.
> Because you (and a lot of other people) find history classes easier than
> math classes does not mean the Big Bad Elitist Math Prof is tyrranically
> punishing less capable students.
The question is whether or not the mathematician is willing to repeat
an explanation, or try two or three different explanations, until
everyone in the class has the concept. More often than not, the focus
is: "We have a syllabus we must get through, that take's priority,
even if some of you get lost and can't keep up along the way." Do you
agree that often happens? If including all the students was really
the priority, it would be deemed acceptable to slow down the
presentation, even if the material that was planned for the last two
or three weeks of the course was not covered. (Of course, that would
mean it would have to be covered at the beginning of the next
semester, but that would be okay if letting all the students keep up
was the priority.)
CJ
Uncle Al
>
> There is a great deal more to be said when not applying
> jargon than when applying it.
> Wittgenstein in his later writings went to the heart of
> the matter in plain-speak.
http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/resources/articles/gary-hardcastle/clip-8.html
Themes in Contemporary Analytic Philosophy
Wittgenstein was an insular sad heap of petty linguistic debates who
thereby demonstrated philosophy is as relevant to human endeavor as
Karl Marx is to an empirically validated macroeconomic model. Imagine
that you're wealthy, queer, and go to school with Hitler. Wouldn't
you be bitter, too? At least Spinoza could grind lenses.
"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence,"
Wittgenstein. OK, so why didn't Wittgenstein shut up early on? "
"The facts in logical space are the world," Wittgenstein. The man is
a jargon-spewing farceur. At least the Germans concatentated nouns
and publshed all their verbs in a second volume so their drivel was
utterly unfathomable - bullshit protected by complexity. Wittgenstein
is a blatant fraud, as is the rest of his profession.
"Do I exist?" Idiots.
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)
Pmb
> In college, and in the years since then, I've studied physics, math,
> and philosophy. It seems to me that all three of these fields share a
> common culture, which I would describe as elitist and exclusive.
> Basically, if you are not quick enough to keep up, or if you can't
> grasp the rarified subtle issues of these fields, you are not a
> "player."
Sorry. This has not been my experience. While there may be that
attitude among some students in these areas it's not something
inherent to the fields. There are arrogant snobby people in all walks
of life.
> Among
> professional physicists, mathematicians, and philsophers, there is
> certainly cooperative work done; but there is also a fierce rivalry.
I'd say that's more so in buisness then in physics and math etc.
> History, I get the sense, has more of an inclusive culture. Everyone
> is welcome, and everyone is invited.
I'd say that your impression is based on the ratios of snobs. For
example: math, physics etc. are difficult fields and as such they draw
brighter people. Some of these people will be arrogant or snobs and
since they're good at these fields they think they're smarted then
everone else and they think that gives them a reason to look down on
people. History on the other hand is different. You don't have to be
an Einstein to know history. So people in history tend not to be there
because they like it - not because for the intelectual challenge.
Although there are some very brilliant historians I'm sure.
> All generalizations, of course. Still, as far as generalizations go,
> anyone think I've got some merit here?
I an see how you would draw that conclusion. I don't agree with it but
I can see how you arrived at it. But not being into history I'm not
familiar with historians.
Pmb
Immortalist
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3E038058...@hate.spam.net...
> Charles wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > In college, and in the years since then, I've studied physics, math,
> > and philosophy. It seems to me that all three of these fields share a
> > common culture,
> [snip]
>
> Uneducated idiot. The seats you occupied could have been more
> valuably left unoccupied:
>
> 1) Mathematics is a self-consistent axiomatic construct without
> empirical constraint;
> 2) Physics is math with empirical constraints;
> 3) Philosophy is dysfunctional bullshit pure and simple, no
> wastebasket necessary in proximity to any writing instrument.
>
your philosophy of math, physics and philosophy seems to be self-refuting.
Immortalist
>
> That's silly. Plains don't have peaks.
>
> Lee Rudolph
but abbriviations and compressed symbols of another thing are as old as
civilization and noise making creature for that matter
Don H
is a mixture of inquisitiveness and acquisitiveness - desire to learn, with
need to get a meal ticket. Perhaps one way of coping with your problem is
to grade students so that the slower thinkers (who are not necessarily
stupid) can proceed at their own pace - ie. have different levels, with
different teachers/students.
Cramming data into people is undesirable, but maybe unavoidable.
There should be time for questioning, reflective thinking, and revision - so
that with learning comes understanding.
Even "lay" people who want to learn some physics, maths, philosophy or
history - should be able to dabble, in later life, with possible benefit to
themselves, and even to the subject itself.
=========================
Charles wrote in message
<4cbd6372.02122...@posting.google.com>...
Immortalist
> John Jones wrote:
> >
> > There is a great deal more to be said when not applying
> > jargon than when applying it.
> > Wittgenstein in his later writings went to the heart of
> > the matter in plain-speak.
> [snip]
>
>
http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/resources/articles/gary-hardcastle/clip-8.html
> Themes in Contemporary Analytic Philosophy
>
> Wittgenstein was an insular sad heap of petty linguistic debates who
> thereby demonstrated philosophy is as relevant to human endeavor as
> Karl Marx is to an empirically validated macroeconomic model. Imagine
> that you're wealthy, queer, and go to school with Hitler. Wouldn't
> you be bitter, too? At least Spinoza could grind lenses.
>
Bitterness aside, some discoveries are stumbled upon and others are
confirmed by testing a theory. At least some theorists have contributed to
experimentation without themselves experimenting at all except in their
brains. Others use their ideas as goals. We would have a hard time showing
that Wittgenstein offered no theories resulting in others experimentations
and any history of economic thought would be incomplete without the
generalisations of Karl Marx.
Gregory L. Hansen
Charles <Charles...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Chan-Ho Suh <s...@math.ucdavis.nospam.edu> wrote in message
>news:<pan.2002.12.20.18....@math.ucdavis.nospam.edu>...
>Partly, my views on this whole matter were reinforced recently when I
>read the biography of Feynman called "Genius", by James Gleick. There
>are repeated stories in that book where physicists of average ability
>would be working on some physics problem for six months or a year.
>They would go to Feynman, or one of *his* peers, like Schwinger, and
>say, "Can you help me with this problem?" Feynman would scribble a
>solution on the blackboard in three minutes. Or Feynman would pull an
>unpublished paper from his filing cabinet; it was a paper he had
>solved years before, and thought too insignificant to publish. Some
>of the people who encountered this kind of casual one-upmanship were
>so crestfallen they dropped out of theoretical physics, or dropped out
>of physics altogether.
How do you figure this is one-upmanship or ego stroking or anything of the
sort? A person goes to Feynman (or other genius) and asks "Can you help
me with this?" If he can, either he helps as asked, or he says "I can
solve it for your right now, but I don't want to." You're putting Feynman
in a difficult situation here; either he's practicing one-upmanship or
he's an unhelpful jerk, but there's no correct response.
Some people are geniuses. They shouldn't have to hide their talent behind
a facade of false incompetence for fear that the person who came to them
will become crestfallen.
Does Miss Manners offer any guidelines on how long one must wait before
presenting the solution to a problem brought to you?
Gregory L. Hansen
Pmb <pm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Charles...@yahoo.com (Charles) wrote
>
>
>> In college, and in the years since then, I've studied physics, math,
>> and philosophy. It seems to me that all three of these fields share a
>> common culture, which I would describe as elitist and exclusive.
>> Basically, if you are not quick enough to keep up, or if you can't
>> grasp the rarified subtle issues of these fields, you are not a
>> "player."
>
>Sorry. This has not been my experience. While there may be that
>attitude among some students in these areas it's not something
>inherent to the fields. There are arrogant snobby people in all walks
>of life.
>
>> Among
>> professional physicists, mathematicians, and philsophers, there is
>> certainly cooperative work done; but there is also a fierce rivalry.
>
>I'd say that's more so in buisness then in physics and math etc.
What about artists? Painters and composers and the like.
William S.C. Joseph
Deletia.
I am young, still in college to be exact, but from my limited
experience I disagree with you. It is actually philosophy that does
not belong with the other subjects. Physics, math and history are
completely based on facts. Physics and math are figuring out the way
that the universe is made and history is figuring out the details of
what exactly happened after the universe was created. In all three
subjects, especially history, there are facts yet to be determined.
Like you, I happen to prefer history because I enjoy it more than
physics and math, so I am arranging my life accordingly. Because of
this, we are more likely to get along with historians better because
people like people they have something in common with generally.
Philosophy, on the other hand, is simply thought. It is highly
unlikely that the perfect philosophy will ever be agreed upon by
everyone, not that the perfect history will be agreed upon by everyone
either, but philosophy cannot be proven by facts and study as much as
history, physics and math can. There is no oviously wrong philosophy,
while it is obviously wrong that the first president was Abraham
Lincoln and that 2+2 = 5. That has been determined by memory and
study. I have never taken an advanced physics or math class, but I
know from my history study that history is not welcome to everyone.
History aficianados want people who give obviously wrong answers,
whether on purpose or not, to get lost as much as a math or physics
person would.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>
>Partly, my views on this whole matter were reinforced recently when I
>read the biography of Feynman called "Genius", by James Gleick. There
>are repeated stories in that book where physicists of average ability
>would be working on some physics problem for six months or a year.
>They would go to Feynman, or one of *his* peers, like Schwinger, and
>say, "Can you help me with this problem?" Feynman would scribble a
>solution on the blackboard in three minutes. Or Feynman would pull an
>unpublished paper from his filing cabinet; it was a paper he had
>solved years before, and thought too insignificant to publish. Some
>of the people who encountered this kind of casual one-upmanship were
>so crestfallen they dropped out of theoretical physics, or dropped out
>of physics altogether.
>
such situation? Pretend that he cannot solve the problem?
In any area of human activity there are people who are more capable
(at times *way more* capable) than others. Should we force them to
hide their abilities, so as not to endenger the feeble egos of others.
Perhaps, better (you can't really trust them to hide these abilities,
can you) eliminate these people alltogether, and live in a state of happy
mediocrity ever after.
I've a CD with the first recording of the Russian pianist Evgeny
Kissin, recorded when he was 12, playing both Chopin's piano
concertos with the Moscow Philharmonic. I doubt that there is more
than handful of pianists on this globe )of any age, not just age 12)
that can come close to his performance there. And, yes, I won't be
surprised to hear that quite a few aspiring young pianists just gave
up after hearing this performance, mumbling "what chance do I've to
compete with this?". So? Should Kissin have been forbidden to play
the piano? Should somebody break his hands or lobotomize him, for the
"greater common good"?
Go, rent the movie "Amadeus". Then tell us what you think.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
William S.C. Joseph
lot of professors who speak more plainly.
Leonard Pardin
Math was always a bore. It didn't require much thought; just
memorizing a lot of rules, and then a lot of practice to apply the
rules to made up problems to get to an answer that had no meaning. It
was like learning to use a wrench or some other tool but never getting
to use the tool to do something worthwhile. I guess it would have been
more interesting if I wanted to be a physicist or a chemists, but math
itself was a drag.
As for competition between the scholars, the history and sociology
people were always "discussing" viewpoints, but what could Math
professors argue about? There is usually only one answer to any given
problem.
Gene Foxwell
>
> The question is whether or not the mathematician is willing to repeat
> an explanation, or try two or three different explanations, until
> everyone in the class has the concept. More often than not, the focus
> is: "We have a syllabus we must get through, that take's priority,
> even if some of you get lost and can't keep up along the way." Do you
> agree that often happens? If including all the students was really
> the priority, it would be deemed acceptable to slow down the
> presentation, even if the material that was planned for the last two
> or three weeks of the course was not covered. (Of course, that would
> mean it would have to be covered at the beginning of the next
> semester, but that would be okay if letting all the students keep up
> was the priority.)
>
> CJ
proffesour during his office hour, or learn the material on your own.
In the long run, if you are unable to teach the material to yourself,
or seek out understanding outside the classroom - that is your
responsibility there's no sense complaining about elitist mathies.
Second, if you miss two weeks in one math course by "letting the slow
ones keep up" and just tack it on to the next course, you end up doing
this to every course, and in the end come up with mathematicians that
are missing part of thier ciriculum. Personally, I paid for my
tuition to be taught and be given an oppurtunity to learn as much as
possible, and would find comming out of school "handicapped" to be
unacceptable. Besides, you should be able to learn mathematics on
your own eventually, and if the prof's hold your hand all the way, how
will you be able to think and learn new skills independently of them?
Narasimham G.L.
Philosophy acknowledges the reality and relevance of the unknown, to
be able to continuously add or attempt to link to the already known.
Philosophy operates on the dividing coastline between
familiar/mysterious, between the deja vu experiences and experiences
that vaguely scratch a creative sensing mind or feeling heart on a
physical plane seeking future extrapolations. Although abstract, it is
more powerful, potentially resourceful than anything else in
consequential dynamism. The creative mind leans heavily on belief and
philosophy until a theory is verified, until which time it supports
temporal risks taken. It is valuable in scientific endeavors.
In its most rudimentary form, philosophy is imagination and belief. It
is the source, the storehouse of all tangible things to come.
Isaac Newton's thesis was Natural " Philosophy" . He saw that the rate
of, rate of the distance changes was invariant in motion of falling
objects. He was compelled to invent the tool of calculus where
addition was replaced by differentiation, tackling physics and maths
at the same time. Now, it may be fait accompli, but three centuries
ago, it was pure philosophy of Nature, even earlier it was personal
cover against risks of heresy.
Phenomenological observations fill up all of Physics, convincingly
linking to previously known facts using some tools. It often takes
help of mathematical tools to order concepts logically, to express
them symbolically and systematically, often as equations by supplying
or filling in the missing links.If no links are found, it is just a
conjecture, a guess,a theory, or philosophy.
Hamilton put down the equations of Electromagnetic Theory filling up
the blanks from symmetry among other considerations. Boltzman wondered
whether it was God who put down the equations. If it was not
intelligent guesswork, was it not also Philosophy?
Maths stores up information systematically into filing cabinets with
labeled titles of well ordered sets. Maths is a toolbox of techniques
employed for legitimizing a proposed extension of knowledge in pure
and/or applied science. Maths is a 100% effort of the conscious human
mind, and is not a record of given/recognized things in nature,
philosophy being the source of its creative part. " Genius is 1 %
imagination and 99 % perspiration"; mathematicians have to sweat it
out to put forward a new creation.
When we say Maths or Physics, or for that matter any branch of
knowledge or philosophy, we mean its History record or the body of
recognized or accomplished tasks of the past. History has its rightful
place in books and review documents or can be stowed in computers.At
most, it could help in avoiding the same errors again.
A Physics+Maths+Phiolosophy trilateral bond appears unbreakable.
Unfortunately, Philosophy can be a refuge for those rendered unfit in
the discovering or proving game and who may even manage to get
rewarded for it.
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<3E038058...@hate.spam.net>...
India has 5000 years of philosophy. 1.1 billion Indians have fewer
flush toilets than Boulder, Colorado.
It may earn such disrespectful remarks when not resulting in
appropriate action, perhaps not undeservingly so....
Narasimham G.L.
India
jmfb...@aol.com
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>In article <4cbd6372.0212...@posting.google.com>,
Charles...@yahoo.com (Charles) writes:
>>
>>Partly, my views on this whole matter were reinforced recently when I
>>read the biography of Feynman called "Genius", by James Gleick. There
>>are repeated stories in that book where physicists of average ability
>>would be working on some physics problem for six months or a year.
>>They would go to Feynman, or one of *his* peers, like Schwinger, and
>>say, "Can you help me with this problem?" Feynman would scribble a
>>solution on the blackboard in three minutes. Or Feynman would pull an
>>unpublished paper from his filing cabinet; it was a paper he had
>>solved years before, and thought too insignificant to publish. Some
>>of the people who encountered this kind of casual one-upmanship were
>>so crestfallen they dropped out of theoretical physics, or dropped out
>>of physics altogether.
>>
>Aha. So, what would you want Feynman (or one of his peers) to do in
>such situation? Pretend that he cannot solve the problem?
Yes. That is exacly what the child wants.
>In any area of human activity there are people who are more capable
>(at times *way more* capable) than others. Should we force them to
>hide their abilities, so as not to endenger the feeble egos of others.
>Perhaps, better (you can't really trust them to hide these abilities,
>can you) eliminate these people alltogether, and live in a state of happy
>mediocrity ever after.
>
>I've a CD with the first recording of the Russian pianist Evgeny
>Kissin, recorded when he was 12, playing both Chopin's piano
>concertos with the Moscow Philharmonic. I doubt that there is more
>than handful of pianists on this globe )of any age, not just age 12)
>that can come close to his performance there. And, yes, I won't be
>surprised to hear that quite a few aspiring young pianists just gave
>up after hearing this performance, mumbling "what chance do I've to
>compete with this?". So? Should Kissin have been forbidden to play
>the piano? Should somebody break his hands or lobotomize him, for the
>"greater common good"?
>
>Go, rent the movie "Amadeus". Then tell us what you think.
I just learned about Lavoiser. Perhaps that's why my mother
tried to teach me to hide; I was too stupid not to listen ;-).
/BAH
jmfb...@aol.com
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote:
>In article <4cbd6372.0212...@posting.google.com>,
>Charles <Charles...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>Chan-Ho Suh <s...@math.ucdavis.nospam.edu> wrote in message
>>news:<pan.2002.12.20.18....@math.ucdavis.nospam.edu>...
>
>>Partly, my views on this whole matter were reinforced recently when I
>>read the biography of Feynman called "Genius", by James Gleick. There
>>are repeated stories in that book where physicists of average ability
>>would be working on some physics problem for six months or a year.
>>They would go to Feynman, or one of *his* peers, like Schwinger, and
>>say, "Can you help me with this problem?" Feynman would scribble a
>>solution on the blackboard in three minutes. Or Feynman would pull an
>>unpublished paper from his filing cabinet; it was a paper he had
>>solved years before, and thought too insignificant to publish. Some
>>of the people who encountered this kind of casual one-upmanship were
>>so crestfallen they dropped out of theoretical physics, or dropped out
>>of physics altogether.
>
>How do you figure this is one-upmanship or ego stroking or anything of the
>sort? A person goes to Feynman (or other genius) and asks "Can you help
>me with this?" If he can, either he helps as asked, or he says "I can
>solve it for your right now, but I don't want to." You're putting Feynman
>in a difficult situation here; either he's practicing one-upmanship or
>he's an unhelpful jerk, but there's no correct response.
Thank you. We just went through this exercise with an idiot. It
didn't matter whether he got an answer to his question or not.
He didn't accept either because we all were not sufficiently
nice to him.
>
>Some people are geniuses. They shouldn't have to hide their talent behind
>a facade of false incompetence for fear that the person who came to them
>will become crestfallen.
It happens. That's when those geniuses get sent to touchy-feely
classes so they learn how to become a team player. I don't know
if this has infected your biz yet, but it will. The Sesame Street
generation is getting old enough to be in charge.
>Does Miss Manners offer any guidelines on how long one must wait before
>presenting the solution to a problem brought to you?
That would be an improvement. Nowadays, the expectation is Instant
Answer that does not include "none of the above" or "don't know".
jmfb...@aol.com
>Pmb <pm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Charles...@yahoo.com (Charles) wrote
>>
>>
>>> In college, and in the years since then, I've studied physics, math,
>>> and philosophy. It seems to me that all three of these fields share a
>>> common culture, which I would describe as elitist and exclusive.
>>> Basically, if you are not quick enough to keep up, or if you can't
>>> grasp the rarified subtle issues of these fields, you are not a
>>> "player."
>>
>>Sorry. This has not been my experience. While there may be that
>>attitude among some students in these areas it's not something
>>inherent to the fields. There are arrogant snobby people in all walks
>>of life.
>>
>>> Among
>>> professional physicists, mathematicians, and philsophers, there is
>>> certainly cooperative work done; but there is also a fierce rivalry.
>>
>>I'd say that's more so in buisness then in physics and math etc.
>
>What about artists? Painters and composers and the like.
It's everywhere. People who think they have to compete are never
at the top.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <1H4N9.113$K4.1...@news.uchicago.edu>,
> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>>In article <4cbd6372.0212...@posting.google.com>,
>Charles...@yahoo.com (Charles) writes:
>>>
>>>Partly, my views on this whole matter were reinforced recently when I
>>>read the biography of Feynman called "Genius", by James Gleick. There
>>>are repeated stories in that book where physicists of average ability
>>>would be working on some physics problem for six months or a year.
>>>They would go to Feynman, or one of *his* peers, like Schwinger, and
>>>say, "Can you help me with this problem?" Feynman would scribble a
>>>solution on the blackboard in three minutes. Or Feynman would pull an
>>>unpublished paper from his filing cabinet; it was a paper he had
>>>solved years before, and thought too insignificant to publish. Some
>>>of the people who encountered this kind of casual one-upmanship were
>>>so crestfallen they dropped out of theoretical physics, or dropped out
>>>of physics altogether.
>>>
>>Aha. So, what would you want Feynman (or one of his peers) to do in
>>such situation? Pretend that he cannot solve the problem?
>
>Yes. That is exacly what the child wants.
>
>
>>In any area of human activity there are people who are more capable
>>(at times *way more* capable) than others. Should we force them to
>>hide their abilities, so as not to endenger the feeble egos of others.
>>Perhaps, better (you can't really trust them to hide these abilities,
>>can you) eliminate these people alltogether, and live in a state of happy
>>mediocrity ever after.
>>
>>I've a CD with the first recording of the Russian pianist Evgeny
>>Kissin, recorded when he was 12, playing both Chopin's piano
>>concertos with the Moscow Philharmonic. I doubt that there is more
>>than handful of pianists on this globe )of any age, not just age 12)
>>that can come close to his performance there. And, yes, I won't be
>>surprised to hear that quite a few aspiring young pianists just gave
>>up after hearing this performance, mumbling "what chance do I've to
>>compete with this?". So? Should Kissin have been forbidden to play
>>the piano? Should somebody break his hands or lobotomize him, for the
>>"greater common good"?
>>
>>Go, rent the movie "Amadeus". Then tell us what you think.
>
>I just learned about Lavoiser. Perhaps that's why my mother
>tried to teach me to hide; I was too stupid not to listen ;-).
>
Chan-Ho Suh
> Chan-Ho Suh <s...@math.ucdavis.nospam.edu> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2002.12.20.18....@math.ucdavis.nospam.edu>...
>
>> For some reason, I really doubt that you have been through any math
>> classes that go at a fast pace. In fact, I suspect you have been only
>> been through the usual (reasonably paced, or sometimes slow) math
>> courses like calculus.
>>
>> Students that don't like to think, or have not learned to think by the
>> time they reach the college level, find their required mathematics
>> courses difficult and unreasonably paced. They never like to consider
>> the possibility that they are lacking in the critical reasoning
>> abilities they should have developed during high school and before.
>
> Sorry, my friend, your assessment of me is mistaken. Studied math and
> physics through senior level (complex analysis, quantum theory), and got
> B+ and A- all the way -- decent grades, if not top grades. My "critical
> thinking skills" are pretty solid. However, I my suspicion about *you*
> is that you may have been a top student -- nothing wrong with that per
> se, of course -- but the highly competitive system is perpetuated
> precisely by those students who breeze through; make it to the very top
> of physics or math; and are unaware that many of their peers of lesser
> but still significant abilities are weeded out. (Yeah, I was one of
> them.)
Why is it that someone like me, who don't find math classes unreasonable,
is automatically thought to be someone who "breezes through"? Let me
give you some news, very few people find it easy. Most of those people
you consider to have gotten through effortlessly actually spent quite a
bit of time thinking and studying for their math classes.
Did you ever go to the professor and TA's office hours? Perhaps you did,
but you would be surprised by how little people ever show up. You may
also be surprised at the amount of time math profs and TAs particularly
spend helping the least capable students. Or the amount of time they
take to grade tests, trying to give as much credit as possible to a
student who is obviously clueless.
>
> Partly, my views on this whole matter were reinforced recently when I
> read the biography of Feynman called "Genius", by James Gleick. There
> are repeated stories in that book where physicists of average ability
> would be working on some physics problem for six months or a year. They
> would go to Feynman, or one of *his* peers, like Schwinger, and say,
> "Can you help me with this problem?" Feynman would scribble a solution
> on the blackboard in three minutes. Or Feynman would pull an
> unpublished paper from his filing cabinet; it was a paper he had solved
> years before, and thought too insignificant to publish. Some of the
> people who encountered this kind of casual one-upmanship were so
> crestfallen they dropped out of theoretical physics, or dropped out of
> physics altogether.
>
I don't understand the point of this story. Or its relevance to this
thread (other than the fact that you think Feynman is like other Big Bad
Physicists). You may consider this a story of one-upmanship, but I doubt
Feynman himself considered the event important enough to have considered
it such. That is frequently the case with geniuses.
What's clear about this story is that some people have big egos, and
unless they are geniuses, they'll find out that egos are fragile. Many
other physicists had such encounters with Feynman and they continued to
be physicists. Because they were able to put aside their egos and pursue
their discipline for the sheer love of it.
Students, who first start studying mathematics, are often in for a rude
awakening and sometimes a disastrous blow to their egos: mathematics is
more difficult than they realized, and some people find it easy. I was
able to survive this blow because I loved what I was learning. It's a
shame others were not.
Scott Allen
[snip]
:
: I've a CD with the first recording of the Russian pianist Evgeny
: concertos with the Moscow Philharmonic. I doubt that there is more
: than handful of pianists on this globe )of any age, not just age 12)
: that can come close to his performance there. And, yes, I won't be
: surprised to hear that quite a few aspiring young pianists just gave
: up after hearing this performance, mumbling "what chance do I've to
: compete with this?". So? Should Kissin have been forbidden to play
: the piano? Should somebody break his hands or lobotomize him, for the
: "greater common good"?
Your comment reminded me of the short story, Anthem, by Ayn Rand.
In it, the protagonist Equality 7-2521 has been made to believe
he is evil and sinful because he is exceptional. From the book:
We are six feet tall, and this is a burden, for there are not many men who are six feet
tall. Ever have the Teachers and the Leaders pointed to us and frowned and said:
"There is evil in your bones, Equality 7-2521, for your body has grown beyond the bodies
of your brothers."
Equality is also more intelligent than his "brothers" and would like
to be sent to the home of the scholars, but when his profession is
chosen for him by the council of vocations, he is made a lowly street
sweeper.
The book is an attack on the ideals of collectivism and the notion
that the "greater common good" comes before the individual.
I enjoyed the story when I read it. It took a while to get used to
the absence of singular pronouns in the first half of the book, but
there is an obvious reason for omitting them.
: Go, rent the movie "Amadeus". Then tell us what you think.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>me...@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
>[snip]
>:
>: I've a CD with the first recording of the Russian pianist Evgeny
>: Kissin, recorded when he was 12, playing both Chopin's piano
>: concertos with the Moscow Philharmonic. I doubt that there is more
>: than handful of pianists on this globe )of any age, not just age 12)
>: that can come close to his performance there. And, yes, I won't be
>: surprised to hear that quite a few aspiring young pianists just gave
>: up after hearing this performance, mumbling "what chance do I've to
>: compete with this?". So? Should Kissin have been forbidden to play
>: the piano? Should somebody break his hands or lobotomize him, for the
>: "greater common good"?
>:
>
>Your comment reminded me of the short story, Anthem, by Ayn Rand.
>In it, the protagonist Equality 7-2521 has been made to believe
>he is evil and sinful because he is exceptional. From the book:
>
>We are six feet tall, and this is a burden, for there are not many men who are six feet
>tall. Ever have the Teachers and the Leaders pointed to us and frowned and said:
>
>"There is evil in your bones, Equality 7-2521, for your body has grown beyond the bodies
>of your brothers."
>
>
>Equality is also more intelligent than his "brothers" and would like
>to be sent to the home of the scholars, but when his profession is
>chosen for him by the council of vocations, he is made a lowly street
>sweeper.
>
>The book is an attack on the ideals of collectivism and the notion
>that the "greater common good" comes before the individual.
>
And one has to remember that these ideals were quite popular at the
time the story was written.
>I enjoyed the story when I read it. It took a while to get used to
>the absence of singular pronouns in the first half of the book, but
>there is an obvious reason for omitting them.
>
Yes, a nice touch.
John Jones
Witgy, OUR Witgy upset someone.
Now then.. I'd put some poultice on that. Yees.
you know you like it
herbal remedies your thing dearie
No, he was right though. But only because he said was,
instead of me.
Cheek.
More poultice.
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3E04AAE1...@hate.spam.net...
John Jones
clarification, not discovery!
Immortalist <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:v09j59f...@corp.supernews.com...
Spindizzy
> jmfb...@aol.com wrote in message news:<au1i3f$276$2...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > In article <pan.2002.12.20.18....@math.ucdavis.nospam.edu>,
> > Chan-Ho Suh <s...@math.ucdavis.nospam.edu> wrote:
> > <snip good commentary>
> >
> > >> And again, based on limited
> > >> experience, this seems reflected in teaching which is more accessible,
> > >> and more reasonably paced.
> > >>
> > >
> > >This has nothing to do with elitism, but everything to do with the fact
> > >that mathematical concepts are by nature difficult to grasp.
> > >Because you (and a lot of other people) find history classes easier than
> > >math classes does not mean the Big Bad Elitist Math Prof is tyrranically
> > >punishing less capable students.
> >
> > Heh. I found math classes to be so much easier than history classes.
> > Back then, when I was in school, history didn't make any sense. :-)
> > I'm correcting this now.
> >
> > /BAH
>
> Math was always a bore.
OK, this might be true for you, as a personal, subjective response.
> It didn't require much thought; just memorizing a lot of rules,
> and then a lot of practice to apply the rules to made up problems
> to get to an answer that had no meaning.
Then you clearly missed the whole point. There is far more to math,
even at the introductory level, than "memorizing a lot of rules".
And by the way, at some point it's up to you to supply the meaning.
Learning should be an active process; don't expect the lecturer to
fill in every blank.
> It was like learning to use a wrench or some other tool but never
> getting to use the tool to do something worthwhile. I guess it
> would have been more interesting if I wanted to be a physicist
> or a chemists, but math itself was a drag.
Math has a far greater range of applications than physics and chemistry.
I lecture a class in nuclear medicine - lots of math there. I can't
count the number of times students have complained to me that they
didn't know / weren't told how important math is (in a wide range of
disciplines). Most math courses have applied ("word") problems. It's
only when students assume that being able to work the machinery without
understanding the applications that this becomes a problem.
> As for competition between the scholars, the history and sociology
> people were always "discussing" viewpoints, but what could Math
> professors argue about? There is usually only one answer to any given
> problem.
Math isn't nearly so cut-and-dried. On the contrary, there are usually
many ways to get a result. As an undergraduate student I can remember
comparing marked assignments with others and frequently admiring the
elegance of some solutions. Later, I remember being surprised by
unusual tacks taken by students answering my assignments.
There is a tale, concerning the young Gauss I believe, in which his
teacher attempted to keep the class busy for a while by asking them to
add the integers from 1 to 100. Gauss was done in a minute (and he
didn't _add_.) A more modern and more advanced example is the controversy
surrounding the method of proof used in solving Fermat's Last Theorem.
Lots of professional mathematicians found the method, admittedly correct,
to be distasteful - sort of like a garbage goal. - spindizzy
Bill Margolis
here we have disciplines that often seem to have no other value than to
attract and legitimatize the selfworth of smart-asses[!].
At first one could imagine that the ordering would go according to the
perceived purity of the deductive sciences approach : math >> engineering >>
logic >> physics >> chemistry >> etc. (and how about law >> theology >>
surgery >> ...?) much of which will appeal to those least curious about the
world of humanity, and therefore most guilty of being unconcerned about the
human situation. But, there is so much (at least anecdotal !) evidence of
great and humane physical scientists and teachers in times past , that one
can only assume that the current situation is exacerbated by the incredibly
anti-social environments provided by american TV and computers.
The educational and societal harm has been noted, and you will probably
observe the now increased emphasis of teamwork in math, science and
engineering courses.
-Bill.
"Charles" <Charles...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4cbd6372.02122...@posting.google.com...
> I've been posting on the Internet long enough to know that certain
> kinds of inquiries are almost guarenteed to draw some flames. This is
> probably one of them; but I'm hoping for some thoughtful responses as
> well. So, with shields at 50%, here goes:
>
> In college, and in the years since then, I've studied physics, math,
> and philosophy. It seems to me that all three of these fields share a
> common culture, which I would describe as elitist and exclusive.
> Basically, if you are not quick enough to keep up, or if you can't
> grasp the rarified subtle issues of these fields, you are not a
> "player." This is often reflected in teaching which is meant less to
> try to help all the students grasp the material, and more to see which
> ones are clever enough to keep up in spite of a breakneck pace. Among
> professional physicists, mathematicians, and philsophers, there is
> certainly cooperative work done; but there is also a fierce rivalry.
>
> History, I get the sense, has more of an inclusive culture. Everyone
> is welcome, and everyone is invited. And again, based on limited
> experience, this seems reflected in teaching which is more accessible,
> and more reasonably paced.
>
> All generalizations, of course. Still, as far as generalizations go,
> anyone think I've got some merit here? And if so, does anyone have
> any comments on why these cultures are the way they are?
>
> Charles J.
> charles...@yahoo.com
>
Crockett Charlie the Churl Davies
>>"I would say historians are less
>>welcoming than mathematicians
>>are. If you disagree with someone's
>>version of the Civil War, watch out!
>>In mathematics, as long as you
>>aren't a complete nutjob, people will
>>listen to you. Regarding rivalry
>>among historians, their fights can
>>get quite ugly. . . . .[historians]
>>calling the other racist, sexist,
>>militant feminist, etc. . . . .[they]
>>don't hesitate to use slander. . . . ."
You surely won't get an argument concerning this all too obvious point
from me. Elitist, self-described, and self-proclaimed historians like
Oscar "Schlau" Schlaf of this particular UseNet soc.history newsgroup
definitely do prove that very point. All over the U.S. kids in high
schools, colleges, and universities who are required to take history
courses to graduate and to receive their degrees end up unnecessarily
hating the universal subject of history because the professor's elitist,
stuffy, holier-than-thou attitude turns the majority of students
completely off to a potentially worthwhile and rewarding discourse. It
logically follows, then, that students failing to grasp the importance
of history also fail to understand the full significance of political
science, law, sociology, psychology, and human biological and cultural
evolution. This makes them less than perfect citizens when they finally
leave school and go out in the _real_ _world_ to make their mark, to
attempt to seize the proverbial brass ring, to find and/or to earn their
fortune, and to raise a family, and especially to vote in an informed,
reasonable, unemotional manner. It results in the unfortunate "dumbing
down" of America, and, more importantly, in an implosion of political
and legal general awareness, confidence, and interest among the majority
of American citizens. In other words, history professors loving to hear
themselves talk quite frequently -- very frequently -- prefer to preach
to the choir instead of truly educating the masses.
Math and science are actually 'safe havens' of reason in academia.
Business and applied sciences and technological and especially technical
colleges are even more free of restrictive socio-political agendas.
However, the humanities lovers have political agendas that are often
downright socially destructive, especially those of the philosophy
(so-called) afficionados who worship Marx as some sort of god, even
though his ideas are well over a century and a half old and are clearly
outdated and no longer apropos to our Western society because of the
passing of the Industrial Age into the Information Age of this, the 21st
century.
C.D.
Immortalist
> Yes hang on though, I said that philosophy was about
> clarification, not discovery!
>
i supose economists and philosophers, through clarification, produce
discoveries and some don't. but a missionary position upon this subject may
not be appropriate here.
Pmb
> >I'd say that's more so in buisness then in physics and math etc.
>
> What about artists? Painters and composers and the like.
I dunno. I'm only speaking from experience and I don't know that many
artists. How ever the ones I did know were anything but competative.
Pmb
Big Z
> kinds of inquiries are almost guarenteed to draw some flames. This is
> probably one of them; but I'm hoping for some thoughtful responses as
> well. So, with shields at 50%, here goes:
>
> In college, and in the years since then, I've studied physics, math,
> and philosophy. It seems to me that all three of these fields share a
> common culture, which I would describe as elitist and exclusive.
> Basically, if you are not quick enough to keep up, or if you can't
> grasp the rarified subtle issues of these fields, you are not a
> "player." This is often reflected in teaching which is meant less to
> try to help all the students grasp the material, and more to see which
> ones are clever enough to keep up in spite of a breakneck pace. Among
> professional physicists, mathematicians, and philsophers, there is
> certainly cooperative work done; but there is also a fierce rivalry.
>
> History, I get the sense, has more of an inclusive culture. Everyone
> is welcome, and everyone is invited. And again, based on limited
> experience, this seems reflected in teaching which is more accessible,
> and more reasonably paced.
>
> All generalizations, of course. Still, as far as generalizations go,
> anyone think I've got some merit here? And if so, does anyone have
> any comments on why these cultures are the way they are?
>
> Charles J.
> charles...@yahoo.com
You're sort of onto something here, Calc classes are often wielded to
prune an overabundant supply of pre-Med students, creating artificial
elitism even in the absence of an elitist presentation of the
material, which may in fact be pretty easy concepts to grasp: related
rates, limits, etc. (see my experiences in Calc below) but I still
have to come down on the side of the meritocracy (as it's usually seen
in math and physics classes). Including Philosophy in this discussion
is sort of a red herring: that's still a somewhat artsy-fartsy field,
its administration in the academy can often be controlled by the whim
and the political predilections of the inclusionist professor who may
be giving the course).
By way of anecdote I took two different classes at Columbia in which I
achieved the "same" 'B+' grade: Calculus IB and Economic
Anthropology. In both classes I felt I knew the subject matter cold,
the one by virtue of having had AP Calc in high school but not having
bothered to take the AP test, the other by virtue of having gone to
one of the few high schools that offered a "good" anthropology
elective taught by a PhD student at the New School. Obviously
Columbia is viewed as an elitist school and I had very "good" SAT
scores but I was not necessarily the hardest worker around and I never
took advantage of the "extra help" offered by the professors and
TA/RAs: I wasn't politically astute in the nuances of "knowing your
professor and schmoozing it up during so-called office hours."
At any rate in Calc IB I was tripped up (not getting an A/A+) by the
fact that the tests were strictly timed and had a strong tendency to
throw a lot curves that just weren't there in the lectures or the
textbook. Given that the text was Lang rather than Apostol, the
school was Columbia rather than Cal Tech or MIT, and that this was a
Calc 101 course rather than tensor calculus/Lie Algebra/etc., I should
have, by any way of looking at it, got an easy A. After all, to this
day I can do just about any problem in Bers, Lang, or Thomas given
sufficient time. My feeling is the prof intentionally gave Calc IB
tests that were way beyond the difficulty of the textbook and indeed
his simplistic presentations of the material, in order to both
distinguish his class from Calc IA and to get the desired "bell
curve." At any rate his tests were far beyond the simple level of the
course itself, sort of confirming an elitist rather than a
"hand-holding" perspective.
In the process this course managed to both weed out a huge quantity
of "elitist" pre-med students who were enrolled in it and to keep many
students like myself (who already knew the material cold via AP
coursework) from getting slam dunk 'A's without bothering to attend
the lectures, having to study hard, or to attend his office hours. By
throwing in all the messy algebra, trig, and sheer numbers of problems
he ensured that no one finished the tests or had an easy time of it,
regardless of how easy the actual problems were in Lang itself and in
his presentation of the actual material. I have a feeling the
curveballs (the messy algebra/trig/etc.) may have been covered at the
"extra help" sessions the AP whizzes weren't going to ...
By way of contrast, in Economic Anthropology at Barnard, there was
very little "elitism" ... rather than a majority of pre-meds, most if
not all of my fellow students (Barnard women rather than Columbia men
like myself) were affirmative action students seeing Anthro for the
first time. In a bizarre scenario, my high school Anthro course had
already exposed me to most if not ALL of the material and at a
profounder level, free of PC propaganda. There was no stopping for
slow AA students nor was there any underlying political agenda and
indoctrination process at work. Trobriand islanders, Margaret Mead,
the "potlatch," cultural relativism, pratik, etc. were all covered at
a more detailed level than in my "intro" Barnard course ...: so
while the rest of my fellow wide-eyed students were seeing this
Cultural Anthro. stuff for the first time I was busy skewering the
professor's feminazi perspective: basically in her lectures she had
just about dismissed all of physical anthropology with the exception
of Franz Boas as the work of "racist men." She was also the type of
person who had no problem using cultural relativistic arguments to
equate the one/two/many mathematics of the Tuva with the QED of
Feynman: in spite of Feynman's obsessions with the Tuva I had no
illusions that they would one day put a (sha)man on the moon (at least
any time soon :-)). At any rate this feminazi,anti-jock, managed to
give me one of the lowest grades in the class (the only B+ given in a
literal sea of 'A's and 'A+'s, in contrast my 'B+' in Calc IB was one
of the higher grades in the class, especially considering my level of
effort in the class. As you can guess there were no competitive tests
in this Economic Anthropology course, just a term paper graded on the
degree of your willingness to be indoctrinated by her (Catherine
Stimson's) lesbian, feminazi drivel. Ie. I was one of the few people
who actually participated in any of Stimson's "discussions" while
everyone else just basically agreed with anything she said no matter
how political or anti (physical) anthropology.
IOWs, two B+ grades one well earned in the crucible of the
mathematical meritocracy, with no interaction with the professor other
than attending a (few) of the lectures and taking and doing well in
DIFFICULT tests of profound mathematical concepts) the other a
politically motivated hatchet job on an uppity, male, elitist, varsity
athlete, who dared to challenge her prevailing world views in "her"
class. In fact it was with great relish that I read recently about
Columbia's Franz Boas being skewered for his politically correct brand
of physical anthropology. Boas was in fact outed by an expert in
mathematical statistics. Boas' bogus argument was that previously
undertaken bone density studies for various tribes had not taken into
account the differing diets that the various tribes would have eaten
on different continents and that once diet is taken into
consideration, the skeleton alone has no predictive value in the
racial classification of it. This view was obviously "coloured" to an
extraordinary degree by the prevailing politically correct, liberal
views of the academic culture to which he belongs. I.e. even the
"physical anthropologists" at Columbia at the time were "culturalist
dieticians" at heart, with no qualms about dealing the race card from
the bottom of the deck, especially if it served their PC purposes.
The science and math behind the statistical data be damned; especially
if a novel, PC idea can be advanced to both pad the vita and expand
the cultural currency of the respect of your fellow liberalist if not
scientifically and mathematically inclined colleagues.
Looking back at it, I was probably one of the preeminent physical
anthropologists at Columbia at the time: as a student I was
probably the only person on campus who respected the field of physical
anthropology as a legitimate and scientific area of inquiry in and of
itself with no political agenda or axe to grind :-). Boas probably
would have agreed with Stimson instead of me; by having that world
view Boas advances further in his liberal, "cultural" milieu; ie.
"anthro" like most of the "liberal arts" is a profession which eschews
meritocratic/scientific avenues of inquiry and endeavours, in favour
of political correctness and expediency (wouldn't it be nice if not
boring if in fact all persons were created with equal abilities) :-)
...
John Jones
discovery.
God, that ship image aye?
Immortalist <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:v0eld2e...@corp.supernews.com...
Immortalist
> the ships out the dock - looking for clarification, not
> discovery.
> God, that ship image aye?
>
so you say but the log was reade
the age of discover rustles the wave in it's wake
so you say you know tis philosophy this & that
Croc Davies
artists have neglected to consider the fierce race among young musicians
to be accepted to the long standing, long famously reputable Juilliard
School of Music in New York City, the intense on stage improvisation
duels that Beethoven had with fellow pianist / composers in the late
18th and early 19th centuries ("Ludwig van" generally blew his
challengers off the stage), or the present day Tchaikovsky and Van
Cliburn competitions. In fact, Van Cliburn's fame was launched by his
winning the Tchaikovsky Competition.
Speaking of Tchaikovsky, he and Brahms intensely hated each other and
disparaged each other's music, primarily because they were the top
symphonic composers of the late 19th century and their works competed
for the number one billing at symphony concerts whereupon they received
royalties and commissions, and not solely because the former was Russian
while the latter was German in one of the heydays of rife nationalism.
This is not to mention the notorious modern day goings-on for the
struggle for choice parts in T.V. series and movies among actors in
Hollywood since its inception, if one indeed considers acting a true art
form.
Crockett "C.D." Davies
darth_versive
<snip>
> I haven't had a lot of contact with historians, at least not
> professionals. But maybe they seem more open because their subject is
> easier to explain to the uninitiated. It's a lot easier to explain the
> role of the width of tank treads in Germany's campaign in Russia during
> World War II than it is to explain what a virtual particle is, for
> instance.
Some questions in history are more difficult than the role of the
width of tank treads in Germany's campaign in Russia during World War
II. Like why did millions of Germans follow Nazi ideology and
cooperate in the Holocaust, and what made Hitler think up such an
ideology in the first place?
Compared to some questions in history, explaining what a virtual
particle in physics is seems like child's play.
DV
Randy Poe
I haven't known many artists. I've known a lot of musicians,
and they are intensely competitive. The film "The Competition"
is fairly accurate on that score and on the personalities of
people who spend most of their time devoted to their instrument.
- Randy
Nope
>Pmb wrote:
>> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote
>>
>>
>>>>I'd say that's more so in buisness then in physics and math etc.
>>>
>>>What about artists? Painters and composers and the like.
>>
>>
>> I dunno. I'm only speaking from experience and I don't know that many
>> artists. How ever the ones I did know were anything but competative.
>>
My best friend is a painter and he isn't competitive either. He is
also a successful painter (he makes money). He is in many galleries.
How can an artist be competitive anyway? It is all so subjective. No
person can tell you your work stinks and be correct - it is an
opinion.