From: "Arny Krueger"
Subject: Re: The need for a well rounded education
Organization: www.pcavtech.com & www.pcabx.com
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 08:42:11 EST
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 13:42:11 GMT
"James Llort" wrote in message
> I'm concerned about the narrowm view of the world 'hard' science
> students have these days.
Why not tell it like it is? There's a tendency for all people,
college students or not, to have an unecessarily and harmful narrow
view of reality. Simplifying things can make thing seem easier, at
least in the short run. And, narrowing the point of view can
temporarily be an effective analytical and rhetorical methodology.
However, picking out any particular group of students is in itself,
an artificial narrowing. So James, what benefit do you propose to
provide with this artificially narrow viewpoint that you have set up
>I think the problem starts at college -
> There's a culture that somehow science is more rational and
> usefull then the humanitities.
There's another culture that likes to pretend that the humanities are
somehow more useful and relevant than the sciences and the arts.
> Lecturers encourage students to
> joke about arts students, and humilaite them whenever possible.
Speaking of jokes and efforts to humiliate science students, don't
you think that this is waht you are perpetrating here, James?
> This encourages eliteism, and I for one am sick of it.
Yes James, I'd say that your hypocritical efforts to set up an elete
that demeans science students is sickening.
> Let's tell it like it is. 'science' is just as much about opinion
> as the humanities.
Yes, I have this opinion that Force equals Mass times Acceleration.
Where might I have come up with that?
James let's be very factual here. Science and Math seems to be simple
enough, and pursued long enough that it has some very hard and fast
rules. These rules hold in all practical situations where they apply,
and they predict a vast number of very useful things with extreme
precision. In contrast, there are no such rules in the studies of the
humanities. You can't say that all frustrated Jewish artists are
going to become world leaders and precipitate the most destructive
war of all time. In the humanities the entities are far more complex
and the interactions aren't nearly as simple and predictable as they
are in the sciences.
> Research simply follows the fad of the day.
True for both the sciences and the humanities.
> Take dieticians for example. These men and woman believe that
> just because they have degree in medical science that they are
> all knowing.
This is not even a bad joke, James. I know some dieticians and they
are completely aware of the fallibilites of their sciences and their
> Why, what they recommend one day may kill you the
> next! (see the DDT story for more information.) Science is 95%
> opinion then facts, lets face it. What about astrology, the most
> rediculious of the sciences! But I degress...
You're not serious about this James, are you.
> Another example is music. We know what sounds good.
Is that a glaring false premise or what?