Why all the science hate?

[Darth Wong]

There's a simple litmust test for this: "if your eyes glaze over at any equation which involves variables, you're not as smart as you think you are."

Well that's a little too broad if you ask me, there's a big difference between something like "4 + x = 5" and Durandal's sig, for example.

OK, let's be more specific: ask Joe Sixpack to solve for x where 5x^2-10x=2. That's a simple quadratic solution which is taught to all schoolchildren, and yet your average Joe Sixpack who says he's found flaws in the theory of evolution would be stumped by it.

[aerius]

I think I'll just break out my TI-85 for that one...

[Admiral Valdemar]

The point was not that you have to have uber-math ability to be smart, e.g. a neuro-surgeon or molecular biology isn't likely to be very good at math. But they're not going to think that they're good at math.

Joe Sixpack, on the other hand, doesn't even realise that there's such a depth of knowledge between his 'cleverness' and true knowledgability and intelligence.

I've always been so-so at maths. In fact, at secondary school, I was in the penultimate lowest maths set, whilst in the top set for science. Every other physics pupil was in the higher tier maths classes, while I was the anomaly. I guess I just hate straight maths, while when applied to physics, I love it. Having said that, I hated the maths in biology at uni. It wasn't all statistics like some think, but it was hard enough to warrant thorough explanations to the high-scorers of the class.

I'll tell you what I hate. People who substitute innate intellect and learned reasoning for knowledge of useless trivia. It's nice that you know random facts and all, but that means shit in anything outside your own society likely, letalone in a job of any respectable difficulty at the mental level. The gameshow generation is what has led me to loathe this, especially when I get someone like my father asking me why I don't know the quarter-million question on Millionaire when I went to uni and he didn't.

[aerius]

I'll tell you what I hate. People who substitute innate intellect and learned reasoning for knowledge of useless trivia. It's nice that you know random facts and all, but that means shit in anything outside your own society likely, letalone in a job of any respectable difficulty at the mental level. The gameshow generation is what has led me to loathe this, especially when I get someone like my father asking me why I don't know the quarter-million question on Millionaire when I went to uni and he didn't.

Yeah, bugs me too. It's one thing to know the difference between a PCM1792 and a PCM1704, anyone can look up those parts on a manufacturer's spec sheet. It's understanding the differences and applying them to electronic circuit design that's the hard part. Anyone can hit up the Texas Instruments site and rattle off trivia about those chips, but they wouldn't get anywhere in designing the DAC and output stage of a CD player. That takes years of electrical engineering experience and knowledge.

[Ariphaos]

Yeah, I've been working with simple algebra since middle school, and...I just simply cannot understand Durandal's sig. I don't recognise the first symbol, and the rest is just plain beyond my understanding of calculus.

A lot of it is knowing the various rules that apply to various situations.

The integral of cosine is sine, for example. So for the rightmost part of the equation, it becomes sin (pi/2) - sin (0), which is 1.

The first term on the right side involves the product rule and the quotiant rule of derivatives. To make sense of it there's probably something elegant you can do with the chain rule - I get 1*mess1 + x*mess2 - x^2/2! * mess1 - x^3/3! * mess2... and so on. When I took the Putnam things like this were clearer, because I was actively digging such questions at the time.

The left is a normalization of a cross product (a vector length that apparently turns out to be zero), probably more advanced linear algebra than I was ever exposed to.

But that's all it is - the knowledge of and application of rules, and sometimes finding innovative ways to apply them. The stupid don't bother or care - they're content with the way they are and don't seek to broaden their horizons or capabilities.

I tend to liken these people to Nietzsche's 'Last Man' - pathetic wretches who, at the end of the day, aren't willing to differentiate themselves from animals.

[kheegster]

I've always been so-so at maths. In fact, at secondary school, I was in the penultimate lowest maths set, whilst in the top set for science. Every other physics pupil was in the higher tier maths classes, while I was the anomaly. I guess I just hate straight maths, while when applied to physics, I love it. Having said that, I hated the maths in biology at uni. It wasn't all statistics like some think, but it was hard enough to warrant thorough explanations to the high-scorers of the class.

Here's a little secret that I have difficulty admitting even to myself: I suck at maths. If I'm constantly practising, then I'm good at it, but other times I'm so rusty that it takes me ages to do even simple problems. Last week I had to change the variables of an equation and it took me a minute or so to recall that d(ln x) / dx = 1 / x , and I'm supposed to be an astrophysics postgrad in one of the top universities in the world!

I have the same quirk as you though.... when applied to physics, I have no problems with maths. I've never dipped below 95% in my quantum mech exams all through undergrad, and yet I haven't solved a 2nd order ODE since my first year.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I'll have to buck up on general maths as well as mental arithmetic. The aptitude tests in the military aren't going to be like what I've done in uni, but I can guarantee that they'll be warranting a full look over on my behalf. Failing those tests because of complacency would be bad. I totally forgot how to do basic algebra and long multiplication at one point; too reliant on my scientific calculator.

[kheegster]

The first term on the right side involves the product rule and the quotiant rule of derivatives. To make sense of it there's probably something elegant you can do with the chain rule - I get 1*mess1 + x*mess2 - x^2/2! * mess1 - x^3/3! * mess2... and so on. When I took the Putnam things like this were clearer, because I was actively digging such questions at the time.

Actually the first term on the right is just the expansion for sin x, but obviously even when you differentiate the expansion you'll get the expansion for cos x.

[Ariphaos]

Actually the first term on the right is just the expansion for sin x, but obviously even when you differentiate the expansion you'll get the expansion for cos x.

Doh, thought it looked familiar :-/

[Big Orange]

I'm afraid I was deficient as maths in education, but it was hard to tell if I lacked a talent or I couldn't be bothered - however I was mostly good at English and History, plus competent in Science. I did well in my GCSEs and passed my A-levels with reasonable grades (in History and English, mind), but dropped out of college. I blame myself for my limitations in life and have no delusions about my intelligence, but even though I was mediocre at maths in school, I still passed a maths test when I applying for a job in the civil service a couple of months ago (but I "cheated" since calculators were provided).

But in response to this thread's subject I don't understand why some people would deride scientists or engineers and see then as "unreliable" and "untrustworthy"; why the blatant ignorance and hubris?

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

solve for x where 5x^2-10x=2.

Spoiler

Solving with GraphCalc after zeroing the 2 (adding a -2 on both sides of the = sign) it makes the answer appear to be 2.2 and -0.2.

And yes, I did it simply for Everest's Reason: It was there.

[SVPD]

Somewhat ironically, I've known mathematicians and bright students of mathematics whose eyes glaze over when there are too many numbers and not enough variables. Someone even remarked that in his experience, liberal arts majors are better at arithmetic. I'm not so certain that's actually the case, but there are mathematicians avoid actual numbers like the plague.

My father's undergrad is electrical engineering. He said there's electrical engineers out there that can't install a light switch. I guess sometimes you get so deep into the advanced stuff that you can't remember the basics.

We have a guy in our department (part time) who retired from Cleveland PD as an arson detective. When he started with us he had no idea how to write a traffic ticket.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

solve for x where 5x^2-10x=2.

Spoiler

Solving with GraphCalc after zeroing the 2 (adding a -2 on both sides of the = sign) it makes the answer appear to be 2.2 and -0.2.

And yes, I did it simply for Everest's Reason: It was there.

While it's a loose approximation, it's incorrect. If you attempt to multiply the two factors together to get the original quadratic, you see that it is, in fact a bit off.

Better to use the quadratic formula to solve for x:


x = (-b ± SQRT(b^2 - 4ac) / 2a)

So:

x = (2 ± SQRT(4 + 1.6) / 2)
x = (2±SQRT(5.6)/2)
x = 2.18321595.... or -0.18321595...

[Molyneux]

solve for x where 5x^2-10x=2.

Spoiler

Solving with GraphCalc after zeroing the 2 (adding a -2 on both sides of the = sign) it makes the answer appear to be 2.2 and -0.2.

And yes, I did it simply for Everest's Reason: It was there.

While it's a loose approximation, it's incorrect. If you attempt to multiply the two factors together to get the original quadratic, you see that it is, in fact a bit off.

Better to use the quadratic formula to solve for x:


x = (-b ± SQRT(b^2 - 4ac) / 2a)

So:

x = (2 ± SQRT(4 + 1.6) / 2)
x = (2±SQRT(5.6)/2)
x = 2.18321595.... or -0.18321595...

Jeez, I feel stupid...I actually misread the original problem to be "Solve for x where 5x^2-10x=-2", added 2 to both sides and solved it to x=1. When I read Ein's answer and realised my mistake, though, I went to the quadratic formula and got the right answer.

[dworkin]

Much of the anti-science hate I've encountered is when science runs into, often over peoples pre-concieved notions.

Evolution upsets most stupid people even the non-fundies. Which is not suprising. The facts can be upsetting to previously cherished beliefs.

eg

1) Humans are not the end result.
2) Humans are animals.
3) Humans will go extinct.

Add in the fun stuff from our understanding of behaviour and some would prefer not to know.

[The Spartan]

One of my calculus teachers could not do basic arithmetic with any speed. Stuff like 2+4. Which is supposed to be hardwired into the brain, but oftentimes in order to speed up the lecture students would answer or correct him.

Calculus he knew, though.

Granted, he was extremely old, so it might have been a stroke or some other form of minor dementia.

I had something similar happen in Calc II. He had to add two 2-digit numbers together and he wrote it out on the board. Most of us could do them in our head but he couldn't. His reason? He doesn't care about semi-basic arithmetic. He worked with theoretical Calculus, read Newton's Principia in the original Latin and taught one class entirely in German. Consequently, he never practiced much arithmetic and had to occasionally write it out.

[Molyneux]

Much of the anti-science hate I've encountered is when science runs into, often over peoples pre-concieved notions.

Evolution upsets most stupid people even the non-fundies. Which is not suprising. The facts can be upsetting to previously cherished beliefs.

eg

1) Humans are not the end result.
2) Humans are animals.
3) Humans will go extinct.

Add in the fun stuff from our understanding of behaviour and some would prefer not to know.

Eh...it's not really a 'will go extinct' so much as a 'may go extinct', unless you count offshoot species (with the decline of baseline human) as "extinct".

[sketerpot]

Eh...it's not really a 'will go extinct' so much as a 'may go extinct', unless you count offshoot species (with the decline of baseline human) as "extinct".

Five words: "heat death of the universe".

[LaserRifleofDoom]

Heat Death of the Universe?
Depressing, yes. But not particularily scary.

I have never met somebody my own age who denies evolution. So, I am hoping that such stupidity is a dinosaur of the previous generation. And will die with it. Once young, smart people start to replace the 'old guard' in government, I hope to see major changes.

[K. A. Pital]

So, I am hoping that such stupidity is a dinosaur of the previous generation.

So did millions of people before you, I guess. Stupidity, especially religious one, has a peculiar capability - it is self-replicating and self-sustaining.

[Molyneux]

Eh...it's not really a 'will go extinct' so much as a 'may go extinct', unless you count offshoot species (with the decline of baseline human) as "extinct".

Five words: "heat death of the universe".

We've got plenty of time to worry about it...if we don't blow ourselves up, and if there is ANY possible way to deal with that...we'll deal with it. Maybe we'll figure out a way to pipe in energy from other (uninhabited) universes, or something.

[salm]

I have never met somebody my own age who denies evolution. So, I am hoping that such stupidity is a dinosaur of the previous generation. And will die with it. Once young, smart people start to replace the 'old guard' in government, I hope to see major changes.

I thought the same a while ago. Then, not long ago, i met a real crationist about my age, at a party. We were both drunk and started discussing the topic and, hell, the stupid burned even in my beer goggled eyes.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Eh...it's not really a 'will go extinct' so much as a 'may go extinct', unless you count offshoot species (with the decline of baseline human) as "extinct".

Five words: "heat death of the universe".

We've got plenty of time to worry about it...if we don't blow ourselves up, and if there is ANY possible way to deal with that...we'll deal with it. Maybe we'll figure out a way to pipe in energy from other (uninhabited) universes, or something.

That's trillions of years away at the very least. We could be probing different universes in the bulk of hyperspace within a few centuries, millenia at most assuming society doesn't crumble and science and technology keep at a steady rate of improvement. I'd expect another species to wipe us out long before that event, if even that event comes about and doesn't end with a Big Crunch or Big Rip, depending on quintessence and dark matter.

[mr friendly guy]

OK, let's be more specific: ask Joe Sixpack to solve for x where 5x^2-10x=2. That's a simple quadratic solution which is taught to all schoolchildren, and yet your average Joe Sixpack who says he's found flaws in the theory of evolution would be stumped by it.

5x^2-10x=2
5x^2-10x -2 = 0

x = [-b +/- square root of (b^2 -4ac)] / 2a

x = [10 +/- square root of (100+40)] / 10
x = 1 +/- (square root of 140) /10
This is of course the answer in exact figures

[Ghost Rider]

There's a simple litmust test for this: "if your eyes glaze over at any equation which involves variables, you're not as smart as you think you are."

Well that's a little too broad if you ask me, there's a big difference between something like "4 + x = 5" and Durandal's sig, for example.

OK, let's be more specific: ask Joe Sixpack to solve for x where 5x^2-10x=2. That's a simple quadratic solution which is taught to all schoolchildren, and yet your average Joe Sixpack who says he's found flaws in the theory of evolution would be stumped by it.

Oh easily stumped, and then the retort of "How's sis gots anything to with Evolution?" will come spewing out of their mouths.

If anything I've learned from trying to couch friends why physics is not always easily explainable without the math is people in general agree with something that sounds right. Yes, it sounds stupid and inane...but I am not saying it's intelligent, I'm giving what I've seen(so it goes along with a pound of salt).