Technocrats Vs Humanities
In dealing with the techies had to deal with the opinion that technical science is much more difficult in understanding than humanitarian. Thanks to the techies we have all the benefits of our civilization - electricity, heat, modern appliances, etc. and all the techies who drive the progress.A good engineer can be a humanist and humanitari a good engineer can't.
Had to meet opposing views.
They say these geeks-techies on what is not capable. Only understand their physics Yes sopromata, and in everyday life - people are useless.Whether business - sociology, political science, Economics. For them the world is kept
What do you think. Whether to divide science into more important and less important.
AxCx
Remember Gödel. Who was he and what famous.
What's wrong with gödel? You mental state of mind?
The point is that the selection of scientists in society never happened according to intellectual abilities.
How this selection could still occur? The educational system has taken scientists by the criterion of social neededtrandate, not mental abilities? On the educational systems of all other States and times you have the same low opinion as ours? Just Express your point of view, so I know what we're arguing.
In most cases, the experience of the previous study and only this. And net interest.
Interest is the consequence of abilities. Children usually like to do mathematics if they are given easily. Experience, of course, also plays a role, for example, a person who is 100 brainteasers have proreal on a topic, understands her better than he who for the first time this topic has faced (he will even have the most extraordinary ability). Just someone to master the material you need 10 examples, and someone hundreds is not enough.
Oh? What if modern education system suppresses the desire to do science is often if not always the man himself might his ability to recognize? What then?
Well, you should genuinely happy for those who recognize yourself in these skills despite the system, rather than to hang labels and say that they're all nerds. In General, we probably dealt with different systems of education.
Are you in Antarctica live? Go to socpac MSU and in the audience of NMU. And compare. Don't be lazy, just compare.
NMU has already become an Internet meme on a national scale, as the highest concentration of the most uporotyh nerds. Go to any normal school- Baumanka, Moscow, MEPhI, MIPT, etc.
First, who said engineering is not difficult humanitarian? Just the opposite.
Second, it is sometimes necessary to turn the head, not only in the proof of the formula for the treatment of Moebius, but also in the analysis of social phenomena.
I do not argue that gumanitarnih Sciences sometimes you have to turn your head. But what is the inclusion of the head in the analysis of social phenomena in comparison, say, with the construction of the distribution law of function of random variables? Kindergarten, and only. However, you yourself agree with that, as I see it.
The question should be put differently: what makes you think that it depends on the abilities? In General, formaliste the concept of intellectual abilities. What set of criteria? And how is it expressed?
But because the whole world believes that all depends on the abilities. At least the part of it that is not so far from science, to suggest otherwise. So the question should be: what makes you think that the abilities do not depend on?
Reveal the concept of abilities to the exact Sciences: high learning ability, ability to analyze and draw conclusions, ability to think outside the box and find non-obvious solutions, the ability to think creatively.
And to speculate about the chronology of settlement or that renaissaince of ethnicity based on linguistic transformations under the beer can?
No, for this I would not have undertaken. You guys talked about it when he mentioned useless knowledge?
Bobr luch
So the more mathematics is based on facts, know a lot of these facts and be able to apply them to solve the problem.
That's just the facts a little. The main problem is to know how to use them.
And Izuchenie history textbook with ready-made conclusions different from raboty documents, archival materials, Chronicles, work with related Sciences, and on this basis, the construction of his vision.
In the technique also has a similar type of science. For example, to perform the work of several dozen laboratories in some area, to build regression on the experimental data to align the scale, or at least approximately to give some parameters to the same values to different experimental data can be drawn in the same coordinate system and compare. If the data of different papers contradict each other, it is necessary to explain these contradictions, to make some assumptions about the chemical or physical nature of the process. In the end, draw conclusions about the significance of these data for a specific area of technology in which you work. See for yourself to what extent this corresponds to the difficulty you mentioned in the archives and annals. Such systematization is, of course, a necessary thing, but too boring and doesn't require any exceptional talent. The development of a new design element or program for the calculations is much more complicated and interesting.
What's wrong with gödel? You mental state of mind?
No, he just did not have positions in the scientific hierarchy, it was about this.
How this selection could still occur?
You need to isolate children from collective study of disciplines and motivate them through discussions in depth study of the material to form your own informed opinion. It's about all the disciplines as a whole. Instead of repressive squalid school system.
The educational system has taken scientists by the criterion of social neededtrandate
the wording is incorrect - as if it were intentional. In General, the success of education rests much stronger on the many psychological aspects, such as frustration, reluctance to participate in the competition with more successful friends and so and so. As a result, the potential.
Interest is the consequence of abilities.
It's just a stereotype. No justification of this opinion no.
Just someone to master the material you need 10 examples, and someone hundreds is not enough.
I don't dispute that. However, I argue that someone that cannot be taught in principle. Still as possible. As regards the speed of absorption depends on many factors, from spatial modeling, for example, and so on. However, there is no guarantee that it can pump. Everything depends on the fact that the thesis about the difference of intellectual development by and large is not substantiated by anything. It's a cliché, to which all are accustomed, but few have thought about it to verify.
NMU has already become an Internet meme on a national scale, as the highest concentration of the most uporotyh nerds. Go to any normal school- Baumanka, Moscow, MEPhI, MIPT, etc.
While at NMU, the quality of education is much higher than in the same University or the Department of mechanics and mathematics of Moscow state University. Knowledge in this respect, my reference about Bauman, exactly as in part about mekhmat (from the teacher and professors, with whom I spoke about this), but judging by the communication with a number of students and educational programs - just see it. + experience communicating directly with recent graduates.
I do not argue that gumanitarnih Sciences sometimes you have to turn your head. But what is the inclusion of the head in the analysis of social phenomena in comparison, say, with the construction of the distribution law of function of random variables?
If you consider that mathematics do not need to resort to the empirical material that the physics of a controlled experiment to supply, generally, and for society - is impossible, the level of analysis and degree of accuracy of the researcher of social relations in a sense deeper than the activities of the techies. In a certain sense.
Well, I would in fairness (without regard to this conversation) that, in practice, ability in mathematics weakly correlated with critical thinking in relation to community outreach and so on. This, of course, the question is more hormonal or something, but, as I mentioned, to weed out the wheat from the chaff in this issue generally not easy.
However, you yourself agree with that, as I see it.
I agree, but the reason for this lies not in the fact of the Humanities, but rather in how they are implemented...
But because the whole world believes that all depends on the abilities. At least the part of it that is not so far from science, to suggest otherwise.
So argued in medieval scholasticism. Meanwhile, the cognitive Sciences are a field nepahannoe and statistics on the distribution of intelligence in population does not characterize the source of people's ability for intellectual progress.
So the question should be: what makes you think that the abilities do not depend on?
And what makes you think that I have a claim? So far, I operated by the method of Socrates: put you questions in an attempt to reveal to you the groundlessness of your ideas about the psychological mechanism of learning. I somehow just not saying anything at all, just saying that the null hypothesis would be worth to start from the thesis of the lack of available of the nature of the differences in cognitive abilities. And then, as a systematic screening of the results of socialization and individual experience to try digging to intellectual differences a priori as such.
Reveal the concept of abilities to the exact Sciences: high learning ability, ability to analyze and draw conclusions, ability to think outside the box and find non-obvious solutions, the ability to think creatively.
That's the whole problem. The Genesis of the emergence of such abilities should be considered, which no one does, but dogmatically establishes a direct connection between success in the scientific field and the existence of nature sane intellectual capacity.
You guys talked about it when he mentioned useless knowledge?
No, the linguistics as time is often the only appropriate tool to study renaissaince development.
Useless knowledge is the hundreds of useless marketing classifications, the political theory of the interaction of States, chronologic policy etc.
See for yourself to what extent this corresponds to the difficulty you mentioned in the archives and annals. Such systematization is, of course, a necessary thing, but too boring and doesn't require any exceptional talent.
A wrong opinion. To clear the wheat from the chaff in such areas is a Herculean task. Enough to see what is an attempt to understand the disappearance of the Viking colonies in Greenland or the credibility of tales about the journey those of the Vikings in Newfoundland. And what you described above, there are economists (in the framework of econometrics) and the details of the build can be easily expressed in a specific algorithm, I do not see any creative crush in this activity. Here is the solution non-trivial mathematical problems - Yes, I agree.
Me your conversation touches just, no offense(current honestly!!), read and smile. The funny thing about this is that the Humanities Ahsh more appeals to matematicheskoy rigor, typical of techies, and Manhattan(techie), to the intuitive perception, which is closer to the Humanities-philosophers))....Is something....
Go on, go on, I wonder how this will end.