The argument's fine, given the usual caveats about the validity of its assumptions - I'm more concerned that the author's writing off mathematics as a "conventi

The argument's fine, given the usual caveats about the validity of its assumptions - I'm more concerned that the author's writing off mathematics as a "conventional skill" by conflating it with mechanization, and it's certainly not his fault. (I'm very aware of this - just about to be passed through the GI tract of high school, and there's nothing like poring through boiled down revision guides to make you feel miserable about what you're doing with your life.) In fact, I'm convinced the problem of attempting to convey a high-level appreciation of the sciences and mathematics is intractable, given the pressure we already put on the education system. And it's a pity - we'd all like to say that we're far better off investing in giving a kid a grand unified appreciation of what a mind can do (the arts bleed into rhetoric bleed into mathematical formalism and so on and so forth). (Un)fortunately, self-motivation seems to be a prerequisite. But the argument works both ways: I've seen, for that matter, just as many people going through my school's art program end up still inarticulate about what their art means (you can make a cogent argument that art doesn't have to mean anything, but I haven't seen anyone take that tasty intellectual biscuit) or even what they appreciate in the subject. So I find it annoying to claim that art is inherently special because it is something inherently better to occupy the mind with - it's true by observation, but there was nothing much to observe in the first place.