3 ms·

> The really excellent insights come from people with seemingly irrelevant background I highly doubt it. Can you quote me some example of these really excellen

by irahul 15y ago

> The really excellent insights come from people with seemingly irrelevant background I highly doubt it. Can you quote me some example of these really excellent insights which came from people with irrelevant background? > As has use of deductive sorts of processes (philosophy is a lot like debugging). I still don't get it. deductive processes aren't something unique to philosophy. I studied Mathematical logic and induction more extensively than a philosophy major. The point you are making it is somehow philosohpy helps understand comp. sci. better. I fail to see how. > That's not really a good comparison. I don't have a fair survey at hand. From personal experience, good programmers have excellent communication skills. > GEB and the Feynman book are as much works of literature as they are technical pieces. That wasn't the point. The parent post said about technical people trained not to like non-technical stuff - I was just saying that I was forced to study History in high school an d I didn't like it at all. I don't have any use or interest in why did the opium war start or analyzing Shakespeare's writing - if I am going to read, it would be something which I find fascinating and/or useful. Technical people trained not to like non-technical stuff is non-sequitur.

ohyes 15y ago
> I highly doubt it. Can you quote me some example of these really excellent insights which came from people with irrelevant background? You might be interested in Paul Feyerabend's 'Against Method,' it is a similar topic to this and a pleasant read. > I still don't get it. deductive processes aren't something unique to philosophy. I studied Mathematical logic and induction more extensively than a philosophy major. The point you are making it is somehow philosohpy helps understand comp. sci. better. I fail to see how. Philosophy (particularly analytic philosophy), has a specific method breaking down problems that you don't really see elsewhere. That doesn't mean it is necessarily 'better' than another course of study... it is just a tool that I find to be useful and relatively unique to me. It seems pretty obvious to me that you can't get by at CS without acquiring knowledge of CS. The point is that the diverse background is better than being one dimensional. Note that philosophy helps my programming, not necessarily my comp sci. > I don't have a fair survey at hand. From personal experience, good programmers have excellent communication skills. It could just as easily be generalized that good programmers are smart, and smart people are good at communicating.

by irahul 15y ago

ohyes 15y ago

> I highly doubt it. Can you quote me some example of these really excellent insights which came from people with irrelevant background? You might be interested in Paul Feyerabend's 'Against Method,' it is a similar topic to this and a pleasant read. > I still don't get it. deductive processes aren't something unique to philosophy. I studied Mathematical logic and induction more extensively than a philosophy major. The point you are making it is somehow philosohpy helps understand comp. sci. better. I fail to see how. Philosophy (particularly analytic philosophy), has a specific method breaking down problems that you don't really see elsewhere. That doesn't mean it is necessarily 'better' than another course of study... it is just a tool that I find to be useful and relatively unique to me. It seems pretty obvious to me that you can't get by at CS without acquiring knowledge of CS. The point is that the diverse background is better than being one dimensional. Note that philosophy helps my programming, not necessarily my comp sci. > I don't have a fair survey at hand. From personal experience, good programmers have excellent communication skills. It could just as easily be generalized that good programmers are smart, and smart people are good at communicating.