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: 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
(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.