5 ms·

> I challenge you to find more than a handful of English or History majors who are familiar with the works of Turing, Galois, Knuth, or Euler. The thing is, ad

by walterk 18y ago

> I challenge you to find more than a handful of English or History majors who are familiar with the works of Turing, Galois, Knuth, or Euler. The thing is, advanced works of mathematics and computer science are almost completely irrelevant for people not working in these disciplines, whereas the humanities and social science arguably have applicability for anyone who considers him or herself a citizen. And in fact, these "English or History majors" are very likely to be versed in, not the works, but the insights of many mathematicians whose contributions are taught in high school and college mathematics courses, albeit without attribution. Some people wind up majoring in the humanities and social sciences because they can't cut it in highly mathematical disciplines, sure. But it's also true that many of the mathematically adept are also weak in the humanities and social sciences. As for Einstein's field equations and deconstruction, I can't claim to have studied the former (nor am I aware of why I should have), but I suspect you're overlooking the extent to which understanding them requires a considerable background of non-intuitive knowledge and an understanding of symbolic conventions in a way that understanding deconstruction doesn't. So pointing out that the set of folks who understand deconstruction that could understand Einstein's field equations with relative ease is likely to be much smaller, at least in proportion, than the other way around, doesn't imply much about how smart the two sets are on average. Incidentally, the number of sci/math types who cling to the Sokal Affair as an excuse for believing much of contemporary humanities theory is gibberish suggests that an understanding of things like deconstruction probably don't come as easily to them as you might think. At the end of the day, I really don't understand what disciplinary elitism gets you, other than an inflated sense of self-importance. What matters isn't what one is capable of understanding (except to college admissions staff), but rather what one does.

yummyfajitas 18y ago
Your example of Einstein's field equations is a terrible one; I've got a Ph.D. in math phys and I don't understand them very well. How about just the laws of thermodynamics, basic probability, statistics and logic, and perhaps the basics of how computers work? Basic economics would be gravy. These are all very relevant to the world we live in today. By the way, the whole Sokal affair is forgotten in the sciences. I first learned about it when a random passerby (an english prof) made an unkind comment about Sokal when he saw the name on a (physics) paper I was reading. Admittedly, this was at NYU (the epicenter). But this was also 11 years after the prank. Also, engineers can pick up deconstructionism relatively quickly: http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html
- smanek 18y ago
  Yeah, you're right about my example - several of those you listed would have been better. Hell, basic conservation of energy would be a good start.
trominos 18y ago
>Some people wind up majoring in the humanities and social sciences because they can't cut it in highly mathematical disciplines, sure. But it's also true that many of the mathematically adept are also weak in the humanities and social sciences. Well, in the sense that those with hard majors tend not to have learned the body of knowledge associated with any one discipline, sure. But in terms of the ability to write—which is pretty clearly the most important skill in the humanities—I'd put money on a technical major's skills over those of a non-technical major. >Incidentally, the number of sci/math types who cling to the Sokal Affair as an excuse for believing much of contemporary humanities theory is gibberish suggests that an understanding of things like deconstruction probably don't come as easily to them as you might think. "Cling"? The Sokal Affair showed pretty clearly that there's no easy way to tell the difference between honest literary criticism and bullshit. And the reason is that the entire institution of "literary criticism" consists essentially of people coming up with really trivial ideas and wrapping them in layers and layers of obfuscation. I understand deconstruction. And my reaction to it is, "People think that these ideas are profound enough to be given names?" >I really don't understand what disciplinary elitism gets you. Elitism isn't the driving force here. The driving force is that roughly 50% of academic disciplines are complete bullshit, and I (and presumably other logical, unbiased people) quite simply feel compelled to call that kind of stuff out. It might look like elitism if I happen to be working in a discipline that's NOT bullshit when I make that accusation, but rest assured that I would act in the same way even if I were doing nothing at the time.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]

by walterk 18y ago

yummyfajitas 18y ago

Your example of Einstein's field equations is a terrible one; I've got a Ph.D. in math phys and I don't understand them very well. How about just the laws of thermodynamics, basic probability, statistics and logic, and perhaps the basics of how computers work? Basic economics would be gravy. These are all very relevant to the world we live in today. By the way, the whole Sokal affair is forgotten in the sciences. I first learned about it when a random passerby (an english prof) made an unkind comment about Sokal when he saw the name on a (physics) paper I was reading. Admittedly, this was at NYU (the epicenter). But this was also 11 years after the prank. Also, engineers can pick up deconstructionism relatively quickly: http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/decon.html

smanek 18y ago
Yeah, you're right about my example - several of those you listed would have been better. Hell, basic conservation of energy would be a good start.

trominos 18y ago

>Some people wind up majoring in the humanities and social sciences because they can't cut it in highly mathematical disciplines, sure. But it's also true that many of the mathematically adept are also weak in the humanities and social sciences. Well, in the sense that those with hard majors tend not to have learned the body of knowledge associated with any one discipline, sure. But in terms of the ability to write—which is pretty clearly the most important skill in the humanities—I'd put money on a technical major's skills over those of a non-technical major. >Incidentally, the number of sci/math types who cling to the Sokal Affair as an excuse for believing much of contemporary humanities theory is gibberish suggests that an understanding of things like deconstruction probably don't come as easily to them as you might think. "Cling"? The Sokal Affair showed pretty clearly that there's no easy way to tell the difference between honest literary criticism and bullshit. And the reason is that the entire institution of "literary criticism" consists essentially of people coming up with really trivial ideas and wrapping them in layers and layers of obfuscation. I understand deconstruction. And my reaction to it is, "People think that these ideas are profound enough to be given names?" >I really don't understand what disciplinary elitism gets you. Elitism isn't the driving force here. The driving force is that roughly 50% of academic disciplines are complete bullshit, and I (and presumably other logical, unbiased people) quite simply feel compelled to call that kind of stuff out. It might look like elitism if I happen to be working in a discipline that's NOT bullshit when I make that accusation, but rest assured that I would act in the same way even if I were doing nothing at the time.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]