SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Mathematician Keith Devlin writes about how the capabilities to work with maths have changed since the late 1960s. He summarizes what he considers to be the essential skills and knowledge that people can focus on as more and more is turned over to software.
The shift began with the introduction of the digital arithmetic calculator in the 1960s, which rendered obsolete the need for humans to master the ancient art of mental arithmetical calculation. Over the succeeding decades, the scope of algorithms developed to perform mathematical procedures steadily expanded, culminating in the creation of desktop and cloud-based mathematical computation systems that can execute pretty well any mathematical procedure, solving—accurately and in a fraction of a second—any mathematical problem formulated with sufficient precision (a bar that allows in all the exam questions I and any other math student faced throughout our entire school and university careers).
So what, then, remains in mathematics that people need to master? The answer is, the set of skills required to make effective use of those powerful new (procedural) mathematical tools we can access from our smartphone. Whereas it used to be the case that humans had to master the computational skills required to carry out various mathematical procedures (adding and multiplying numbers, inverting matrices, solving polynomial equations, differentiating analytic functions, solving differential equations, etc.), what is required today is a sufficiently deep understanding of all those procedures, and the underlying concepts they are built on, in order to know when, and how, to use those digitally-implemented tools effectively, productively, and safely.
Source : What Scientific Term or Concept Ought to be More Widely Known?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by kazzie on Monday February 05 2018, @05:59AM (15 children)
Statistics. Specifically how they can be selectively used by others.
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Monday February 05 2018, @06:09AM
That's not statistics, that's defensive statistics.
Unless you learn some offensive statistics, you will lose 9 in every 10 encounters, with a standard deviation of +/-11 (that's an example of offensive statistics).
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday February 05 2018, @06:25AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Touché) by Prune on Monday February 05 2018, @08:55PM
But some of us are frequentists, not Bayesians, you insensitive clod!
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Monday February 05 2018, @07:13AM (4 children)
I think there are two separate things we are talking about here. I think, and the summary seems to agree, that while useful mathematical skills are in constant flux, the concepts are not, and are more important than ever. What distinguishes statistical predictions based on large samples from voodoo is exactly the practitioner's understanding that the expected probability of error is based on the properties of the normal CDF, which implies the understanding of the laws of probability, the real number line, a function, an inverse function, a curve on the xy-plane, and an antiderivative, though the latter may be not by that name. This is also the the bare minimum a skeptical non-statistician needs to know in order to research the validity of a published result. They do not need enough statistical background to detect bullshit, but these are the skills required to understand white papers which report whatever bullshit detected.
So I would go on a limb and suggest that we should expand and build up the entire pure math, and try to give everyone a really good understanding of at least statistics and logic, as well as computer-assisted computational skills, all at the expense of more traditional computational skills.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @07:30AM
Meanwhile, back at the farm, the University I teach at has decided that deductive logic is not a foundational skill. So students now have to take some class that involves more "calculaton". Blatant move by the Math dept to steal FTEs from the Philosophy Department. And do you know who else had a PhD in Math?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 05 2018, @07:01PM (2 children)
I disagree on two points. First, you can't separate the skills from the concepts in practice. While it is possible to treat math as a bunch of black box algorithms (and some students manage that well enough to pass tests), humans won't remember a pile of those things for the rest of their lives without context.
Second, I disagree that mathematical skills change much. While being able to calculate a cube root by hand has devolved from useful in very rare circumstances to a curiosity, the skill itself didn't change any. We haven't come up with new ways to calculate cube roots in living memory (it's pretty stable since the 18th century). But due to calculators and computers, the relative usefulness of the known approaches to calculating cube roots has changed. For example, it's better to calculate cube roots via calculator than by hand. On that calculator, it's better to calculate cube roots by Newton's method [mathforum.org] than trying to implement some of the known [wikihow.com] by hand algorithms or using logarithm tables [wikipedia.org].
There are new algorithms developed every day, but most of these are far from any relevance to the layman. For most of the math in normal use, they've been around for a while.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Monday February 05 2018, @10:10PM (1 child)
I can. For example, the notion of a cubic root is a concept, which is a special case of a more general concept known as rational exponent. Using something like R to compute exact and approximate cubic roots is a skill. One can clearly understand and manipulate the rational exponent in a pure setting without having a clue about what to do in order to compute the cubic root of 2 down to 5 digits after the dot. On the other hand, one can easily learn to type 2^(1/3) into R without knowing anything about the rational exponent, and copy down the answer. In my GP post I offered a view that understanding the rational exponent, for example, is crucial to an intelligent application of relevant skills, but not the other way around.
Well you are not disagreeing with me. I said, useful mathematical skills are in constant flux, and your example of calculator skills plays right into my goal. That skill used to be useful, now it's not. For a netizen, It would be far more effective to have a conceptual understanding of underpinnings of algebra and number theory. The only skill they need is basic programming, so that they can translate all of their computational questions into something an app can understand, and then use their broad understanding of concepts again to interpret the results.
I would be first to suggest that even the most foundational concepts in mathematics will eventually need a review, which is kind of what happened 100 or so years ago when everyone switched to the axiomatic approach, and several times before that (paradigm shift they call it). But the rate of change of useful concepts is at least an order of magnitude slower than the rate of change of useful skills, it seems like. And even when professional mathematicians rearrange the cornerstones of their cathedral, it rarely trickles up to the users. Defining every branch of math as a subfield of the set theory, for example, was a tremendously successful endeavor which failed to effect any change in the actual mathematical work being done, or 95% of it anyway. Analysts stopped banging their heads against the wall and spawned the field of topology, while everyone else safely ignored everything Cantor ever did. Feels like something truly amazing would have to happen before we change the definition of the derivative, for example, or stop explaining what a prime number is.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 05 2018, @11:57PM
Then compute the cube root without knowing what a cube root is.
Yes, I agree. They can learn this. But why expect them to remember this lesson ten minutes later?
Review for what? What's the justification?
Note that you aren't actually disagreeing with me. Useful skills is a proper subset of all skills.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @09:35AM (6 children)
Let's start with something more fundamental: Elementary logic. It's really astonishing how many people already fail at that.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @03:42PM (4 children)
On a related one, what is the scientific term for "God does not exist - it is a fictional story someone made up. You have to be really stupid to seriously believe that gibberish."?
Although a little dash of elementary logic aught to be enough to see through that old fairy tale, realistically it will take much more than that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @06:06PM (1 child)
You don't need a fancy word for that because it doesn't fit in that hypothesis [gsu.edu].
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday February 05 2018, @06:43PM
The problem with including God in scientific theories is to find a proper control group.
"Good morning, thanks for your time. Before we get started, we need you to form a line on the left if you have been formally Forsaken By The All-Loving Almighty. Please be ready to confess whatever sin and show your evidence of divine punishment, then fill out Page 2 of Form 12B, acknowledging that you will make every effort not to repent before this study ends."
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 05 2018, @06:35PM
Occam's Razor?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Monday February 05 2018, @07:04PM
Opinion.
(Score: 2) by melikamp on Tuesday February 06 2018, @12:16AM
You can see up the comment tree, I list (formal) logic along with statistics as 2 most important areas to learn concepts from these days, so I agree with you on that. The trouble with elementary logic is, it's not what most people would describe as elementary. The thought process of a logician is almost exactly the opposite of a though process which brings the most success in the real life. Out there in the world of sex and weather, the brain wins by taking hundreds, may be thousands of variables, and making an instant bayesian inference for an answer to a question like "should I schedule my wedding on June 1?" In the world of mathematical reasoning, just 2 or 3 premises are taken into account before painstakingly writing up, on paper or in one's mind, an algebraic inference of another formal statement.
Within the college curriculum for example, the first time students get a real good look at the elementary logic is past intermediary algebra, so I would say it's about as elementary as statistics. There are fewer concepts, but they are more abstract, and with more emphasis on proof, even mathy students can get overwhelmed easily.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday February 05 2018, @06:05AM (3 children)
TFA
Learning how to do computations on the back of the napkin is a valuable skill: you'll look to still be able capable to compute something* after a good meal in a restaurant with so much wine that your table palls can't contradict you** even if they'd be tempted to.
---
* for the purpose, the scribble doesn't need to make sense when sober
** that is, unless one of them have similar skills
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Monday February 05 2018, @06:44AM (1 child)
Ah, the B.A.C.* tarrif: whoever is drunk enough to put their credit card in without checking the bill gets to pay**
* Blood Alcohol Concentration
**only works in New South Wales, damn Victorian restaurants just happily divide the bill equally across all the cards offered.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 05 2018, @06:49AM
Keeps the patrons honest - no matter how high their B.A.C.
In turn, this encourages consumption.
(who said that honesty doesn't pay?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday February 05 2018, @12:55PM
Thanks for quoting that sentence, because it's actually the main point of TFA, which isn't at all clear from the summary. It seems discussion here has taken the form of a poll to answer the headline question (which is perhaps interesting discussion), but the author of TFA actually discusses his answer in great detail -- i.e., NUMBER SENSE.
I find the summary here rather confusing given the actual content of TFA. The only two paragraphs quoted are arguably just the introduction to TFA. The next paragraph (as quoted by parent here) actually provides the answer to the headline question (i.e., "number sense"), and the remaining five paragraphs of TFA discuss what the author thinks "number sense" is, why it's important, etc.
Again, it's interesting to discuss other possible answers to the headline question, but it's surprising to me that the summary here doesn't even mention the main topic of TFA.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by drussell on Monday February 05 2018, @06:07AM (9 children)
Truth
(Obtainable from distilling down something we used to call facts.)
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @06:17AM (7 children)
Read my lips: DO... NOT... TEMPT... aristarchus...
He'll show you so many facts about the wonders and limits of human cognition that you'll not be able to distill anything of value before going nuts and adopting his truth.
It will happen unless you are khallow - he's impervious to any other truth but his. And Runaway too. And TMB.
And... but enough already!!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday February 05 2018, @07:35AM (6 children)
Too late! Georg Wilhelm Friederich Hegel said that "truth" is a rather small word, but I said it is really close to being a four-letter word. However, even though truth may be the ultimate goal of human understanding, for philosophers the beloved is mere human wisdom. And the epitome of wisdom, according to Socrates, is knowing when you do not know. This is what we need. Scientific epistemic humility. Makes the wackos look all the more ridiculous with their claims about what they know to be absolutely true! Ha!
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Monday February 05 2018, @07:46AM (5 children)
I think this is why we need axioms. We can only say if A then B but if A is our axiom then it can always be doubted. I suppose logic itself can be doubted too.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday February 05 2018, @08:07AM (4 children)
Of course, but only at the cost of admitted madness. Conditionals are a tricky case, and will get us into the Duhem-Quine hypothesis, but let's just say, if you say "A then B" and you admit the truth of A, then you are committed to the truth of B. And if you disagree with the reasoning, you are either lying, irrational, or both.
Take for a more simple example the "excluded middle". The classical assertion is that any proposition is either true or false, and cannot be both. Paraconsistent logics hold that the same proposition can be both, and not in the mundane sense that it is true in two different senses, which implies of course that there are two different propositions. This is either very interesting, or quite insane.
So the doubt of logic is one of those things that you have to be logical to entertain at all, but by the very fact you are entertaining the possibility, you lose the very ground for the doubt. So, not possible? One might think? Do you doubt this?
(Score: 3, Funny) by PiMuNu on Monday February 05 2018, @11:07AM (2 children)
Everything I say is false.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by aristarchus on Monday February 05 2018, @04:22PM (1 child)
True, but paradox is not the same as contradiction, not even the same as Ayer's "performative contradictions".
(Score: 5, Funny) by PiMuNu on Tuesday February 06 2018, @11:33AM
> > Everything I say is False.
> True, but paradox is not the same as contradiction
Really not true. Sorry about that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @12:13PM
Excluded middle, meet quantum mechanics.
It seems we need a sort of generalization of logic, so that we can keep our sanity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @11:01PM
Like...there is an ether.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday February 05 2018, @06:15AM (6 children)
One term I enrolled in Computational Physics at Caltech, the next term I taught it.
The students were free to use absolutely any programming language they wanted. I used assembly code for some simple graphics. At first I used BASIC but then later I used C.
A very important tool in numerical modeling is the Runge-Kutta method. Roughly what it does is minimizing the accumulation of error by alternatingly underestimating than overestimating the result of a physical process.
My favorite program was a planetary motion simular. That actually worked quite well on an 8086 PC-XT without even an 8087. Doing it the straightforward way resulted in all the orbits spiraling in or out. With Runge-Kutta they stayed in proper elliptical orbits.
Once I had that all working well, I added a rogue star that would enter the solar system then gravitationally hurl the earth into interstellar space. Everyone else thought that was quite cool.
Today the same class is taught using Matlab. There is a place for Matlab but it should not be used in an introductory course. Instead the students should be taught how to create something like Matlab by coding it from scratch.
I expect today's computational physics students don't acquire more than a cursory understanding of how computational physics actually works.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday February 05 2018, @07:09AM (5 children)
Doh. Try some stiff equations [wikipedia.org] and come back to tell me how a straight Runge-Kutta (or any other basic ODE numeric ODE solver) performs.
You'll need to add a predictor-corrector to RK and transform it into an implicit RK [wikipedia.org] for this to work.
Roughly... it doesn't quite do it as you described. There's no "optimisation" step (either minimization or maximization) in there - it only increases the number of evaluation points and consider them in the computations of the next "func-value delta".
Not dissimilar with retaining more terms in Taylor expansion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday February 05 2018, @11:17AM (4 children)
Better use a symplectic integrator. Paper by Yoshida.
I was having a conversation on a bus a few months ago about how Kerbal Space Programme does the orbit calculation. We were discussing RK vs symplectic. A random stranger stuck their head over the partition and told us it just assumes a conic section. I was disappointed!
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 05 2018, @01:51PM (3 children)
Unfortunately, not all DE systems admit a Hamiltonian formulation.
Lotka-Volterra (predator–prey equations) is one of the cases. Interesting outside ecology - e.g. see iodine pit [wikipedia.org] where it usually produces stiff ODE due to concentrations (the variables in ODE systems) in 1015-20 range and constant coefficients in 10-28 range (neutron capture cross-sections in barns [wikipedia.org]). Nasty thing to model numerically when dealing with heaps of radioactive species and decay channels in the reactor soup.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday February 05 2018, @02:05PM (2 children)
Understood - original post was referring to elliptic orbits; I think orbit modelling can be described in the general case by Hamiltonians.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 05 2018, @02:21PM (1 child)
I'm not sure about the propulsive stage - the entire energy of the system is conserved, of course, but I doubt the potential chemical energy can be captured in the Hamiltonian. But maybe it can, with an artifice like "the inverse of a dissipative/friction force" (well, long time already since I knew the answer.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday February 05 2018, @03:00PM
Good point - you are probably right. Certainly atmospheric effects (e.g. low earth orbit) clearly create a dissipative force.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by physicsmajor on Monday February 05 2018, @06:23AM (5 children)
The myth of endless growth in a closed system (for example, a planet, or a country's economy).
We need to become a species enamored of stability; instead everyone is chasing the next biggest bubble before it bursts. From financial derivatives to loan interest to the truly insane growth of medical expenses, if the whole population knew how exponential functions work we'd be in a better place - or at least a place where lucid discussions could be had about what is and isn't feasible.
Instead it looks like we'll accelerate right up until we hit the wall, again and again.
(Score: 3, Disagree) by MostCynical on Monday February 05 2018, @06:49AM (2 children)
economics should be less widely known and taught.
It is, after all, neither a science, nor an art (excepting in the way magic can be art, of fooling people)
Economists should be treated the same way we treat astrologers (no, not like some US Presidents treated astrologers)
Novelty acts, right only by accident, relegated to the same page in the paper as the comics.
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @07:53AM
Economists should be treated the same way we treat astrologers
The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable. -- John Kenneth Galbraith
Economists state their GNP growth projections to the nearest tenth of a percentage point to prove they have a sense of humor. -- Edgar R. Fiedler
(Score: 1) by therainingmonkey on Monday February 05 2018, @09:31AM
Orthodox economics aught to be treated like astrology, I don't think we need to write off the whole field though.
Many heterodox economists have attempted to bring more rigour to the field (I'm thinking of Thomas Piketty and Ha Joon Chang, though they certaily aren't without their critics).
Mainstream orthodox economics serves to justify the position of the most powerful in our society, much like the astronomers who claimed the sun revolved around the earth in Galileo's day.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday February 05 2018, @07:14AM
Stability? No, that's a death warrant in a world where the change is the only constant.
Sustainability perhaps?
(the reader is advised to ponder on the difference between static and dynamic equilibrium).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @01:57PM
Yep, came here to say this too. If there was just one thing to teach, a basic understanding of exponential growth could make a difference.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday February 05 2018, @07:15AM
Learn your 9x9 addition tables. And your 9x9 multiplication tables. Add/multiply enough numbers that you get a good sense of "yeah, that don't suck".
Now you have a fork in the road. You can either stop there, and take Russian/GOP/DNC/FOX propaganda at it's word, or apply your newly developed math skills to basic statistics, then smoke a joint or two and take a class in something like human psychology 101. Just remember the pych 101 class is 30% bullshit and 60% wishful thinking, but the statistics class is 90% things happen vs 10% sux2bu.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday February 05 2018, @07:16AM (3 children)
I first heard about it when I was in graduate school. But some special cases of Noether's Theorem are so easy to prove that I fail to understand why it's not taught to Freshman, if not high school students.
It's simply this:
Every symmetry implies a conservation law.
For example of you rotate an object around an axis it eventually returns to its original position. From just that and that alone one can derive the conservation of angular momentum.
Einstein said her theorem was "quite deep".
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @09:43AM (1 child)
That is wrong. You know, with a physical pendulum (the one going vertically in a circle), it is also true that it returns to its original position after rotation around its movement axis. But its angular momentum around this axis is very decidedly not conserved (at low enough energy it even changes direction periodically!)
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday February 05 2018, @03:03PM
I believe the correct formulation is that isotropy (same in all directions) implies conservation of angular momentum. Obviously, gravity in this example is anisotropic, i.e. it pulls down. AC probably already knows this.
(Score: 3, Informative) by deadstick on Monday February 05 2018, @01:13PM
This set of MIT lectures on quantum physics goes into some detail on Noether's Theorem: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2013/lecture-videos/ [mit.edu]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by stretch611 on Monday February 05 2018, @07:29AM (4 children)
I really wish that these would be common knowledge.
Mainly because of the religious nutjobs.
Having Faith is usually a good thing... when you use it to deny facts faith goes too far.
Yes, evolution is a theory... "Intelligent Design" is only faith.
There is room for both faith and scientific theory... but the uniformed masses that use one solely to discredit the other need to get a clue.
Scientific Theory should be taught in classrooms... faith should be taught in church, not schools.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @09:45AM (1 child)
So you say it's the uniforms that are the problem?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday February 05 2018, @06:25PM
I've read enough Hentai to know where this is going.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday February 05 2018, @06:28PM
This.
Schools like to skate over the basics of science, things like the very definition of science, and dwell on the details. Sure, they cover the scientific method, but in about the same manner as a construction worker is introduced to a new tool. Barely mentioned is the crucial distinction between the natural and the supernatural, and the concept of objective reality. The classic philosophy questions "what is the meaning of life?" and "why are we here?" are entirely overlooked in K-12 school, put off and relegated to college philosophy as if that's specialized knowledge of interest only to those majoring in philosophy. Even "why is 1+1 equal to 2?" is not taken seriously, at best begged with the idea of mathematical axioms. Incompleteness is not mentioned. Reasoning is not well taught.
Perhaps religious conservatives are responsible for keeping the philosophy of science out of high school, as they surely understand it would make imposing their dogma a lot harder. Their attacks on the Theory of Evolution are not really attacks on evolution, they are attacks on science. Trying to show them tons of evidence in support of evolution misses the point, not addressing their contention that we can't know that an intelligent designer isn't faking us out.
Another possibility is that scientific philosophy is too hard for the teachers. Consequently, they shy away from it. If it hasn't been done, we could use a high or even middle school level class on it. If teachers really are the "those who can't do, teach" people, they would indeed have a rough time grappling with a difficult subject such as scientific philosophy. It should be possible to make it much less difficult, suitable for middle school students.
Or, perhaps educators count too much on the extremely impressive scientific advances and the technology that has spawned and with which we've surrounded ourselves, to make the case far more powerfully than mere lectures ever could.
A seemingly unrelated deficiency is that most people are abysmal at personal finance. It's badly taught, or not taught at all. There's a lot more to the subject than the math, though number sense is pretty important for figuring out whether a financial proposal is a good deal or not.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SomeGuy on Monday February 05 2018, @06:59PM
I disagree that there is room for both. By its very nature, science chips away at religion or "faith". The more one understands science and the world around them the more one may and should question the proof-less alleged existence of Imaginary Sky Fairy(s). (Of course, the number one rule of Imaginary Sky Fairy is "do not question Imaginary Sky Fairy")
You can try and simply avoid stepping on the toes of nutjobs, but then you wind up with schools "teaching" science like this: https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2017/09/18/dropping-science [penny-arcade.com] And people wonder why all of our science and technology jobs are going to China.
Teaching science needs to be heavily beefed up, and if it steps on some religious nutjob's toes or kicks them in the groin, well - THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS GOD, sorry about that :-/
These days the word "faith" usually comes across, more accurately, as meaning "ignorance". Of course teaching anything about the real world may put a dent in that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday February 05 2018, @08:15AM (3 children)
There are so many possible answers, but the more I think about it, the more basic it gets: How about basic reasoning skills.
Anecdote: I recently read a blog entry about someone who went to a new-age practitioner, to get their chronic headaches treated. The new-age derp informed them that they had loose crystals rolling around in their inner ear. The "cure" consisted of cleaning their ears less, so that the ear wax would catch the crystals. Plus, I'm sure, a hefty consultation fee for this gem of wisdom.
This level of gullibility in an adult makes them unable - and frankly unfit - to participate in a lot of aspects of society. Dunno how one fixes it, though...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @10:22AM
Don't know about ear wax catching them, but there are crystals in the inner ear: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otolith [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Funny) by lentilla on Monday February 05 2018, @10:29AM
It is obvious you have no understanding of the mechanisms behind crystal healing. This wise practitioner saw that the client's energies were out-of-balance and that the crystal equilibrium needed rebalancing.
The client's headaches would have disappeared as the crystals were contained in ear wax, and; in order to preserve equilibrium; that energy has to be dissipated elsewhere. That is the real reason why you are now suffering from headaches.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @05:58PM
Since I have started using "The Brainclub for Men"(tm), I have not had one synapse lost or stolen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 05 2018, @05:29PM
Metastability is almost unknown in the civilian society. Explaining to people how a device that is either on or off can be in a variety of states in-between would be so much easier.
Self-organisation is another of my favorite concepts, that very few people know or care about.
Things like attractors and limit cycles... who am i kidding, nobody except a few nerds gives a fuck.
Generally, most of non-linear phenomena should be wider known. Those things can be used to explain so much, mmmm.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Geezer on Monday February 05 2018, @06:15PM (1 child)
Because entropy. It melts ice cream and makes beer warm.
(Score: 2) by cellocgw on Tuesday February 06 2018, @01:39AM
And, sadly, it also makes pizza cool and hot coffee merely lukewarm.
Which reminds me of a joke about a thermos bottle...
Physicist, cellist, former OTTer (1190) resume: https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Monday February 05 2018, @11:02PM
Boolean logic. It could be called common sense, if developed sufficiently.
(Score: 2) by everdred on Monday February 05 2018, @11:57PM
And for good measure, causation.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday February 06 2018, @12:47AM
Asks about scientific terms and concepts then goes on a mathematics rant.
Really spreading any scientific concept at all would be a good start. Maybe the scientific method? Maybe start with highschool science teachers who actually seem to be loser arts students who couldn't hack it in the job market... teach them the scientific method? Sprinkle in some critical reasoning and maybe for shock and awe, teach it in the social sciences and history classes! The madness that would ensue. I know this would conflict with indoctrinating with the current PC culture experimentation on our youth. I think it's worth it in the long run though. Having citizens that can autonomously reason and draw conclusions based on facts and sound critical thinking skills.
As far as math skills go - Understanding comes through practice and effort grasshopper. Now more than ever the fundamental, face-in-the-mud math skills need to be taught. You don't obtain a "deeper understanding" without first building an absolutely solid foundation of the "boring and tedious" fundamentals. So many dumb monkeys using Matlab and scipy these days.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 06 2018, @03:53AM (1 child)
The Founding Fathers obviously had a good grasp of probability.
Today's law enforcement, not so much.
I would like to see citizens, police, lawyers and judges able to explain, with mathematical reasoning, how they arrive at the conclusion that probable cause exists, in court hearings. I want to see probability demonstrated mathematically.
For instance: policeman shoots kid with gun. Cut and dried, right?
Is it a gun or is it a toy? 50-50.
If it is a gun, is it loaded? 50-50.
If it is loaded, is the safety off? 50-50.
Properly assessed, it seems to me that there was not probable cause to shoot the child. Mathematically, it seems to me that the odds were AT LEAST 7 to 1, against.
Rinse and repeat, citizens.
Maybe we should legalize gambling.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Tuesday February 06 2018, @09:41AM
It seems to me that your grasp of probability is lacking as well.
Just because you can narrow options down with only 2 possible answers does not make probability 50%.
Many toy guns are made now with either unrealistic shapes, shiny plastics, and/or fluorescent colors... Specifically to make them identifiable as a toy and prevent tragic mistakes. To say that half the guns are toys is to commit suicide if your life depends on the situation.
As for being unloaded or having the safety on? (From: http://www.ibtimes.com/accidental-gun-deaths-involving-children-are-major-problem-us-2250568 [ibtimes.com] )
Again, assuming unloaded or guns with the safety on to have 50% odds is reckless. And while 1.7m children live in those households is a small percentage compared to children overall, many live in households without guns. Of the ones living with guns, a safe assumption would be that people willing to take the proper safe steps of keeping their gun unloaded, with the safety on, would most likely store the guns in a place where the children can not access them in the first place.
When you consider that police encountering children with guns are usually responding to a report of a crime in the area (including violent threats to other community members,) the probability of an actual threat to the police is quite high.
I am not a police apologist, I abhor the authoritarian attitude that they take far too often... But if they shoot in a threatening situation when someone has a gun pointed at them, adult or child, I would not blame them. Place the blame where it is deserved... On the people that provided the child with the gun, without regard to proper safety, or the attitude that made them think it is ok to actually point a gun at an officer.
AND GET A BETTER GRASP OF PROBABILITY TOO!!!
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P