Danny in Japan.....translation please

[DannyinJapan]

This is a good thread.
I will put two more cents in:
It has been lamented in many schools that math is not hard to learn because it is so difficult. Rather, it is hard to learn because math teachers are notoriously bad at teaching.
That is, they lack the communication skills needed to teach math clearly and in such a way that the beginner can understand the concepts easily.

Ocassionally, there is an exception. I studied molecular biology under a man named DR. Benjamin at UNT and he took me to a level of understanding normally reserved for geneticists.
It was not my major subject, but he was soo good at teaching and communicating, and he made it all so interesting, that it just all made sense to me.

I had another such experience in cosmology under Wolfgang Rindler. (i think that was his name)
The second I left his class I didnt understand, but while he was talking my mind was enjoined to the mind of God, for lack of a better description.
Even today I look at my notes from those classes and I say, " What the hell was I talking about?"

 

[ichor]

I fixed the Boole link.

OK, I think that we are getting somewhere, and I think that "academic" may not be the correct term for what you mean.

You seem to troubled most by someone who claims to provide answers for societal questions yet lacks an adequate comprehension of the total society. I don't think that is a particularly uncommon condition. I could make the same complaint about the pubescent kids that knock on my door and tell me that I have to support converting the whole state to solar energy, or what-ever.

The issue is when such people are in a position to impliment those answers, or influence those who will be in that position in the future.

Greenspan is an interesting yet complicated example. Regarding his actual policies and perceptions, that has been touched upon in the "gold" thread on the political forum. That may be a better place for it.

I'd agree that he sucks at comunicating much of anything. There really isn't any reason to think that most of the members of Congress get any more out of what he says than anyone else. I actually suspect that may partly be intentional. As noted on the political thread, some of his recent actions don't seem to match up to his older writings.

I looked up his biography, and I would agree that he has spent his whole life making a living by telling others how to do things and not done things himself. I don't know that I'd condsider his private consulting firm part of academia though.

RE Greespan:

The only thing that would make him "understand" is for him to live 5 years on the income of the average person on social security. The only thing he understands is numbers......so he has lost his ability to communicate with anyone but congressional committes, et al.

This is where the bog deepens, and I must confess that I don't know where the path is--

That statement sounds suspicously close to the the arguments like "the only way for a white (or other majority ethnic group, or group perceived to be in "power") to "understand" is to be a colored (or minority, or whatever) person in this country", that the "leftists" you mention so often bring up.

This is another failure of communication--one that some say can never be corrected.

Of course the same could be said of a person that has lived their whole life within a large metropolitan city vs one who has lived in the country.I may currently live in a highly populated suburb of a large city, but I think it would be true to say that I haven't a complete concept of what it would be like living in downtown Manhattan.

Anyway, I don't know what the term is for the people I've described and who I think you refer too. "Academic" seems overly inclusive. Hubris seems to be one of their traits though.

I'm glad I was at least able to articulate what I was thinking enough that you can say "we're getting some where". Too many times disagreements are a lack of understanding what the other person is "really" trying to say and I think you nailed it down pretty well with, "You seem to troubled most by someone who claims to provide answers for societal questions yet lacks an adequate comprehension of the total society. I don't think that is a particularly uncommon condition. I could make the same complaint about the pubescent kids that knock on my door and tell me that I have to support converting the whole state to solar energy, or what-ever."

That's exactly what troubles me, and the professors of "higher learning" are such blatant examples that perhaps I have not been able to recognize it in others (or myself, for that matter). And I'm sorry to say I agree that, it "can never be corrected".

As for Boole, it will take me more than just a couple of minutes to read, absorb and ascertain how his view (that is to say, Sharpe's view of Boole's view) applies, or whether I think Boole is an "academic". Or how seriously latter day interpretations of someone else's writings, that are 150 years old, actually apply to me (I mean, Jeez, all you have to do is take the Bible for an example of the extremes of interpretation.....even of the language used to write) . I will admit, without qualification, that anyone who trys to reduce everyday things (in any subject) to mathmatics is , from the get-go way out in the poppies for my taste.

 

[firkin]

Ichor, I can see your point about the time gap regarding Booles.

Here is another question (sorry but I can't resist couching it in the language of a university social sciences test--call me an ass if you will...)

Which, if any, of the following is an "academic", and if so, why?

a) Robert Oppenhimer

b) Edward Teller

C) Albert Einstein

This is an "open book" question. You have as much time as you like and full access to any and all literature that you choose to consult.

Forgive me if I have a tendancy to choose topics from the "hard" sciences--that is what I am most familar with, though I do have a minimal exposure to other disciplines, including working in the "real world" before, during, and after my academic education, and a bit of philosphy of science.

I'm not trying to be flippant--my training and disposition tends towards succinctness when possible. When I appear to be verbose, it is an indication that I perceive communication to be problematic.