4 ms·

Answer is pretty clear. You are bringing them as some sort of trick question. Economics, inflation, hyperinflation calculations can all be related and on topic

by geodel 3y ago

Answer is pretty clear. You are bringing them as some sort of trick question. Economics, inflation, hyperinflation calculations can all be related and on topic of differential equations but bringing in *How neoliberal economics is causing hyperinflation does not belong to maths class. One could mention all above physicists and more in Physics class but talking about how Einstein was misogynist would not be topic for Physics class.

itishappy 3y ago
I don't think it's a trick question at all... I think these are standard, everyday, run-of-the-mill questions. Progress is driven entirely by people, and people are often influenced by their messy personal histories. Conflicts, disagreements, and interpersonal relations are deeply entwined with even the hard sciences! Can you imagine the situation in, say, linguistics? Einstein as a misogynist might not be appropriate, but how about as a Jew in Nazi Germany? Is the phrase "God does not play dice with the universe" indoctrination? Can we discuss the Solvay conferences? The first Solvay conference is likely the most important gathering of scientists in modern history. The third? Indoctrination. What about Galileo and the church? I guess my point is that history is messy, and not scientific. Does this mean we should remove dates from science classes?
- sponaugle 3y ago
  It is interesting that you referenced "God does not play dice with the universe". If you were to discuss it, I would suggest discussing what he actually said: "Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend. Aber eine innere Stimme sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist. Die Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher. Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt." There are a number of different translations, but one is: Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice. It is relatively easy to understand both the context and meaning of what Einstein said, especially if you read his numerous other works. The objection to some of the key underpinnings of Quantum Mechanics was something he mentioned a number of times. They key here is that you can explore and understand what Einstein was talking about without digging deep into the meaning of a god, or his view of religion. The concepts of Quantum Mechanics are complicated enough to keep any undergrad or grad student busy for a lifetime.
  - itishappy 3y ago
    That's more or less how it was discussed in either my QM or E&M class (sans German). I found it fascinating, and it's kindled a lifelong love of QM within me! But, in the context of this thread... Is it physics? I'd say no! It's metaphysics at best and really more along the lines of history and philosophy. That would make it indoctrination by many of the arguments in this thread! (I intend this to be a somewhat uncharitable interpretation.) My argument is simply that classification is hard. And again, this should be one of the easier field to classify! To bring it back to my linguistics example, can you imagine trying to discuss African American Vernacular English without leaving the confines of linguistic theory?

by geodel 3y ago

itishappy 3y ago

I don't think it's a trick question at all... I think these are standard, everyday, run-of-the-mill questions. Progress is driven entirely by people, and people are often influenced by their messy personal histories. Conflicts, disagreements, and interpersonal relations are deeply entwined with even the hard sciences! Can you imagine the situation in, say, linguistics? Einstein as a misogynist might not be appropriate, but how about as a Jew in Nazi Germany? Is the phrase "God does not play dice with the universe" indoctrination? Can we discuss the Solvay conferences? The first Solvay conference is likely the most important gathering of scientists in modern history. The third? Indoctrination. What about Galileo and the church? I guess my point is that history is messy, and not scientific. Does this mean we should remove dates from science classes?

sponaugle 3y ago
It is interesting that you referenced "God does not play dice with the universe". If you were to discuss it, I would suggest discussing what he actually said: "Die Quantenmechanik ist sehr achtung-gebietend. Aber eine innere Stimme sagt mir, daß das doch nicht der wahre Jakob ist. Die Theorie liefert viel, aber dem Geheimnis des Alten bringt sie uns kaum näher. Jedenfalls bin ich überzeugt, daß der nicht würfelt." There are a number of different translations, but one is: Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice. It is relatively easy to understand both the context and meaning of what Einstein said, especially if you read his numerous other works. The objection to some of the key underpinnings of Quantum Mechanics was something he mentioned a number of times. They key here is that you can explore and understand what Einstein was talking about without digging deep into the meaning of a god, or his view of religion. The concepts of Quantum Mechanics are complicated enough to keep any undergrad or grad student busy for a lifetime.
- itishappy 3y ago
  That's more or less how it was discussed in either my QM or E&M class (sans German). I found it fascinating, and it's kindled a lifelong love of QM within me! But, in the context of this thread... Is it physics? I'd say no! It's metaphysics at best and really more along the lines of history and philosophy. That would make it indoctrination by many of the arguments in this thread! (I intend this to be a somewhat uncharitable interpretation.) My argument is simply that classification is hard. And again, this should be one of the easier field to classify! To bring it back to my linguistics example, can you imagine trying to discuss African American Vernacular English without leaving the confines of linguistic theory?