The Two Cultures (1959) [pdf]

Post by watwut » Fri, May 12, 2023, 5:53 AM UTC

karaterobot wrote: post #6

> 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…

Post by watwut » Fri, May 12, 2023, 5:57 AM UTC

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #49

ajross wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Is the plot of Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet not as subtle or layered as to provoke the exact same analysis? You could describe it in a sentence or two, or you could write a book explaining why the typical summary misses out on the subtle details that really make it so interesting.

Post by lordgrenville » Fri, May 12, 2023, 6:47 AM UTC

agnosticmantis wrote: post #45

Related articles in math and stats communities: - The Two Cultures of Mathematics by Tim Gowers: https://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~wtg10/2cultures.pdf Discusses theory builders (think algebra) vs. problem solvers (think combinatorics) in mathematics, and how the latter have been sort of marginalized and under-appreciated in the community. - Statistical Modeling: The Two Cultures by the legendary Leo Breiman https://projec…

Post by silvestrov » Fri, May 12, 2023, 9:14 AM UTC

groby_b wrote: post #37

pessimizer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>>> is objectively harder I don't think it's objectively harder - at the very least, [citation needed]. It might be subjectively harder for you. But one is a random factoid, the other one is a story. Humans are, in general, exceedingly good at stories. Facts, we tend to focus on the areas we know. You and I might be good at physics facts, or software facts. Somebody else might be good at agriculture facts, or knittin…

Post by cwmoore » Fri, May 12, 2023, 10:18 AM UTC

watwut wrote: post #62

cwmoore wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"First be a human" is objectively hard. Stories "appear designed to coordinate social behaviour and promote cooperation" from your link, as a functional component of groups of people. Scientific laws, and other random factoids abstracted from character plotlines typically do not "arise spontaneously in children". The frequent retellings of familiar stories with new characters and plot twists suggests to me that there…

Why would frequent reteling sugest there is not much learning?