3 ms·
> at some level. (Sorry if I'm reading into an implication that isn't there) To clarify, everything is based on Math at some level, just like everything is ba
by cloverich 13y ago
> at some level.
(Sorry if I'm reading into an implication that isn't there)
To clarify, everything is based on Math at some level, just like everything is based on Physics at some level. My question is does it follow that solving difficult math problems make you better at solving difficult Foreign Policy problems, for instance? That is, if one student studies 10 hard math problems, and another studies 10 hard Foreign Policy problems, which will be better at solving the next Foreign Policy problem? The next Literary Analysis problem?
I don't think it follows that math being a required part of a solution for difficult problems makes it the best tool for the task of solving the problem at hand. But its common to argue that rigorous mathematical education will make you better at solving problems in general; I just wonder if there's any actual evidence to it, or if its all based on belief (however logical and well argued).
- HeyLaughingBoy 13y agoThat's actually what I wanted answered. While I do believe that study of math improves the ability to analyze problems that have an underlying logical framework, I also think it can be a hindrance in some cases. Something like Foreign Policy involves so much nuance and understanding of History, human and organizational behavior that I think attempting to take a purely analytical approach to solving those problems will fail. You reminded me of something an English professor said to my class decades ago when one of us complained about the amount of Liberal Arts classes we were required to take. As best I can remember it was, "as engineers, your job will be to solve problems, but you need to understand that not all problems can be solved logically. There probably is no better way to learn that than by studying Literature."