[deleted]
The Two Cultures (1959) [pdf]
21–30 of 78 posts
Re: The Two Cultures (1959) [pdf]
#22> Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's? But that's not quite true, is it. In the one case, he's asking someone to explain a very specific thing (one particular physical law), and i…
I don't buy that. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is not only basic, but can be stated in a sentence. Being able to generally recall the plot of Romeo & Juliet (or any Shakespeare play) is objectively harder than being able to spit out that sentence. I'll make the bold claim that Second Law of Thermodynamics would be recalled by far more scientists than the plot of Coriolanus would be by MFAs. The worst thing we do…
I would bet you money if you asked a random sampling of college grads, 10x the number of people could roughly summarize Romeo and Juliet than the second law of thermodynamics.
Re: The Two Cultures (1959) [pdf]
#23> Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's? But that's not quite true, is it. In the one case, he's asking someone to explain a very specific thing (one particular physical law), and i…
It's also picking on a particularly difficult area. The "second law of thermodynamics" is actually extremely subtle. In its original formulation it's basically a big mess talking about energy flows. In its simple/elegant/modern form, it relies on an understanding of this crazy thing called "entropy" which is measured like energy but isn't, and which gets pushed with an "intuitive" interpretation that is anything but…
Lots of people just don’t have the brainpower to be comfortable with abstract physical or mathematical concepts. Nearly everyone can understand a love story.
Re: The Two Cultures (1959) [pdf]
#24Another quote which gets to the heart of it, I think: >I remember G.H. Hardy remarking to me in the 30's with some mild puzzlement: 'Have you noticed how the word "intellectual" is used nowadays? There seems to be a new definition that doesn't include Rutherford or Eddington or Dirac or Adrian or me.' Its scientists complaining about not being accepted by the "cool kids". A tale as old as time.
That’s because studying the humanities is quite a bit different than studying a technical field.
The humanities are broadly trying to answer “what does it mean to be a human, and how should we live?”
Sure, physics provides the occasional relevant answer, but less directly. It discovers facts about nature, and sometimes those facts give the discussion more context.
Re: The Two Cultures (1959) [pdf]
#25During my CS degree, I had an opportunity to take a course which sought to bridge these two cultures. The class was described as a kinetic art and embedded systems class opened to EE, CE, CS and art students. We'd study some essays like Snow's "The Two Cultures" and create reports on contemporary artists before breaking up into groups consisting of both engineering and art students with the goal of designing and impl…
[deleted]
Re: The Two Cultures (1959) [pdf]
#26> Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's? But that's not quite true, is it. In the one case, he's asking someone to explain a very specific thing (one particular physical law), and i…
But the second law of thermodynamics is such a fundamental physical law.
Here is a more apt equivalent question: "do you read a book front to back or back to front?"
(Mostly joking)
Re: The Two Cultures (1959) [pdf]
#27> Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's? But that's not quite true, is it. In the one case, he's asking someone to explain a very specific thing (one particular physical law), and i…
It's also picking on a particularly difficult area. The "second law of thermodynamics" is actually extremely subtle. In its original formulation it's basically a big mess talking about energy flows. In its simple/elegant/modern form, it relies on an understanding of this crazy thing called "entropy" which is measured like energy but isn't, and which gets pushed with an "intuitive" interpretation that is anything but…
It is not that hard to understand that a broken glass won't mend itself spontaneously
Re: The Two Cultures (1959) [pdf]
#28I think the issue is far greater than just two cultures. Yes, people from the humanities and the sciences have problems talking to each other, but people in different fields of science do too. And not just major differences like chemists talking to biologists -- I mean even biologists from different subfields.
Re: The Two Cultures (1959) [pdf]
#29Another quote which gets to the heart of it, I think: >I remember G.H. Hardy remarking to me in the 30's with some mild puzzlement: 'Have you noticed how the word "intellectual" is used nowadays? There seems to be a new definition that doesn't include Rutherford or Eddington or Dirac or Adrian or me.' Its scientists complaining about not being accepted by the "cool kids". A tale as old as time.
That’s because studying the humanities is quite a bit different than studying a technical field. The humanities are broadly trying to answer “what does it mean to be a human, and how should we live?” Sure, physics provides the occasional relevant answer, but less directly. It discovers facts about nature, and sometimes those facts give the discussion more context.
>The humanities are broadly trying to answer “what does it mean to be a human, and how should we live?”
That's quite condescending. Scientists must not know how to live, or what it means to be human, since they don't have an English degree.
Look, the humanities is where people who say things like "I'm not good with numbers" go. That's it.
Re: The Two Cultures (1959) [pdf]
#30This is starting to trend in the opposite direction, however I find the problem is more along these lines: https://massivesci.com/articles/chaos-in-the-brickyard-comic...
1963?
The progress hasn't stopped since then though the comics seem even more relevant today.