From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Howard Ferstler)
Subject: Re: Thanks for all the laughs people
Date: 23 Dec 2002 10:50:47 -0800
References: <4SBN9.36823$zX3.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Dec 2002 18:50:48 GMT
Daniel L. <email@example.com> wrote in message news:<firstname.lastname@example.org>...
> I'm concerned about the narrowm view of the world 'hard' science
> students have these days. I think the problem starts at college -
> There's a culture that somehow science is more rational and usefull
> then the humanitities. Lecturers encourage students to joke about arts
> students, and humilaite them whenever possible. This encourages
> eliteism, and I for one am sick of it.
You must have gone to a rather bush league college. I only encountered
that on two occasions, and at that time one of them was in the context
of a science professor thinking that he should have been earning more
money than an art professor. The science guy was researching energy
sources and the artist was a photographer who (in my opinion) had
never mastered the art of printing well-finshed photographs.
> Let's tell it like it is. 'science' is just as much about opinion as
> the humanities.
This is a nonsense statement. While scientists have opinions, when it
comes to science the good scientists back up those opinions with some
research. The humanities is a rather broad area (I was a humanities
major in graduate school, by the way, and so I do not have an ax to
grind against the literati), that sometimes involves research
(linguistic analysis, historical analysis, etc.) and sometimes does
not (the creative arts). Because it is so broad, it is rather unfair
to compare it to the sciences the way you have.
> Research simply follows the fad of the day. Take
> dieticians for example. These men and woman believe that just because
> they have degree in medical science that they are all knowing.
Which of them say that? Most do not have degrees in medical science,
by the way.
> 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
You sure do; and then some.
> Another example is music. We know what sounds good.
We do? I think we'll get some pretty wild divergences when it comes to
musical taste. For example, I think that music started its long
downhill slide after Telemann, Bach, and Vivaldi.
> Everyone aggreed
> that Valves for instance sound great.
Under some conditions, I am sure this is the case. They, of course,
have some serious drawbacks. (See below.)
> But knowitall engineers use
> trensastors with inferious sound quality just to save a few bucks.
Says you. I think that transistors beat the pants off valves (tubes)
in a lot of ways that mean quite a lot: greater power, greater
durability, less heat (far less), less space, and greater
adaptability, to name a few. If valves (tubes) were as good as you
claim they would still be in the ascendency. However, they are not,
and are not for very good reasons.
> They argue with numbers. Hey, I don't want to do maths just to listen
> to music. I know what I like.
Fine. However, you are basically off topic. The numbers determine how
good the gear is and they have nothing to do with musical realities.
Also, you may know what you like and that is fine. However, what you
like may not be as high in fidelity as you believe, particularly if
you think that tubes have some kind of sonic edge over solid state.
> You cannot apply objective reasoning to
> a subject which is intristically subjective. But try telling those
> recent grads with their useless piece of paper that and they go all
I am not sure what you are driving at. Sounds to me as if you have a
self-esteem problem. While musical tastes are certainly subjective,
the performance of the hardware designed to reproduce that music can
most certainly be evaluated in a very objective manner. Well, speakers
and surround processors have their subjective sides, but most of the
other stuff does not.
> The problem with you technical guys are that you are all so eliteist.
This is not a problem if what they say is correct. You appear to be
ranting against the messengers.
> Whilst you want to trun collage into a trade school with yore narrow
> minded views that collage should be a job training centre, humanities
> are focused on making you a well rounded person who is auctually
> interesting to be with, not a boring focuesed geek.
This certainly has nothing to do with audio equipment. Perhaps you
should try posting to another forum; one oriented towards educational
> Really, it makes
> me so mad when people say "oh, he's doing a humanities degree, that's
> easy". I have to read *3* *books* *a* *week* on average. Not picture
> books either I assue you. It is a lot of work, but the upshot is
> improved grammer and spelling skills that are lacking in the
> technical. As for those that say "you will be working at mcdonalds" ,
> I'm going on to so a PhD in socialolgy where I'll be line for tenure
> where I have a much more rewarding job then beeing a science freak or
> an engineer. Anyways, all I have to do to be a engineer wold be to get
> my MSCE and how hard couyld that be? techincal stuff is simply
> whatever fad the market thinks is hot at the moment, but all great
> things were done by humanities.
Yep. You need to post this info to another forum. Your above comments
certainly have little to do with audio.
> You technical types are far to narrow minded and cynsical. You should
> learn to enjoy life.
Are you saying that technically minded people do not enjoy life? I
think you need to get out more.
> Peace be to god, he transcends all.
Which one. There are so many.