4 ms·

> From looking at your responses here and elsewhere on this post, it seems that you have difficulty accepting the idea that other fields of study might present

by irahul 15y ago

> From looking at your responses here and elsewhere on this post, it seems that you have difficulty accepting the idea that other fields of study might present skills that are not ordinarily available to a CS student. I have difficulty accepting the idea philosophy, humanities or any other discipline makes you more competent at CS than CS education itself. If philosophy taught you something valuable, good for you. It didn't teach you CS and didn't make you more competent at CS. You are the one who is having difficulty understanding that your abstract and esoteric questions aren't unique to philosophy, and things which are unique to philosophy don't add anything to make you more competent at CS. > This seems like it would be the wrong thread for you to participate in. This seems like unnecessary fluff. EDIT: On second thoughts, this really is the wrong thread for me to participate in. You keep editing your posts, not because you are correcting a typo or adding a new perspective, but based on if my post is downvoted or not. You use offensive language when my post is grayed, and delete that when it's not.

jessedhillon 15y ago
Nobody made any of the points you claim -- about a humanities education contributing to CS excellence -- and you have been told this already, yet you insist on responding to this imaginary argument. Why you continue to do that is beyond me, nor is it clear to me why you think that abstract reasoning about nodes in a graph is the same as abstract reasoning about life and existence. Your argument -- inasmuch as you have presented one, between your fits of pettiness -- hinges on this idea, presented without any sort of justification, that all abstraction skills are equal. It's as silly as saying that a programmer must know linguistics, since programming results from the study and expression of a language. And therefore, the linguistic field of study presents no benefits over CS, since all programmers know linguistics. (Just saw your edit and I'd like to note that none of your posts here are gray. I don't even know if you and I are responding to the same thread at this point.)

by irahul 15y ago

jessedhillon 15y ago

Nobody made any of the points you claim -- about a humanities education contributing to CS excellence -- and you have been told this already, yet you insist on responding to this imaginary argument. Why you continue to do that is beyond me, nor is it clear to me why you think that abstract reasoning about nodes in a graph is the same as abstract reasoning about life and existence. Your argument -- inasmuch as you have presented one, between your fits of pettiness -- hinges on this idea, presented without any sort of justification, that all abstraction skills are equal. It's as silly as saying that a programmer must know linguistics, since programming results from the study and expression of a language. And therefore, the linguistic field of study presents no benefits over CS, since all programmers know linguistics. (Just saw your edit and I'd like to note that none of your posts here are gray. I don't even know if you and I are responding to the same thread at this point.)