Being scientific/logical: can you ever go too far?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

True, but at the same time, you could live a completely fulfilling life without poetry, for example. While some form of intellectual recreation is essential, it doesn't really matter which one you engage in, even if it's just stories told around a campfire or humming to yourself. The act of making art and literature into a formalized field of study is self-indulgent. Specific scientific discoveries such as germ theory, on the other hand, are crucial to society. And without running water, you might not live a life at all, since you would have been much more likely to die in childhood.

The study of art and literature can lend insights into a culture (in dealing with cultures that existed before the formalized study of history, literature is sometimes all you have to work with from the contempoary sources). But much as feel I'm supposed to leap to the defense of my liberal arts bretheren over in the lit department, you're right, the formalized study of the arts is an indulgence. That doesn't mean the arts themselves are worthless, though.

I would point out that, in my personal experience as a journalist, there is also a healthy dose of science involved in the art of writing. Good writing, for the sake of entertainment as well as information, involved a hellish amount of science. It involves not only the mechanics of the language but a solid knowledge of audience demographics, their standard language usage, and even a basic understanding of psychology. I think, personally, that the thin line between writing as science and language as art is crossed when one is talented enough to give the audience art and keep the science to oneself.

[Drewcifer]

They also don't like science because, to them, science is synonymous with math, and most people hate math and don't understand even basic algebra to any kind of usable degree. If you asked 10 random people to describe to you what "f(x)" means, 9 of them wouldn't have a clue.

I don't hate math, but I have always had a very hard time with it. It drives me crazy because having a good foundation in higher math is essential to understanding most scientific knowledge in full. I am endlessly fascinated by physics, but the math escapes me, and I know that I will most likely never truly understand many of the concepts in physics because of this. Same goes for chemistry; utterly fascinating, but mostly beyond me, due to the math behind it.

And I would have to guess at f(x). Function of (x)?

I find a great deal of hypocrisy in some of the arts and humanities people. They study arts and humanities because "there's more to life than just numbers and science," but I could just come back and say, "There's more to life than arts and humanities, too." They have a prejudice against science because they could never really be successful at it, so they want to make it seem like the humanities are equally, if not more, important than science, which is patently absurd.

I agree, scientific advancements have made indulgences in the humanities possible. You can't write poetry when you're busy chasing a bear out of your cave, or washing your clothes in the same river you crap in, or dying from smallpox. As well, I hope my life raft is stocked with a satellite phone rather than a coloring book.

[Durandal]

I would point out that, in my personal experience as a journalist, there is also a healthy dose of science involved in the art of writing. Good writing, for the sake of entertainment as well as information, involved a hellish amount of science. It involves not only the mechanics of the language but a solid knowledge of audience demographics, their standard language usage, and even a basic understanding of psychology. I think, personally, that the thin line between writing as science and language as art is crossed when one is talented enough to give the audience art and keep the science to oneself.

Just because something demands a high level of skill and competency doesn't make it a science. Yes, there are certain things you do, certain words you use and certain sentence structures you form to produce good writing, but you're certainly not describing nature through predictive theories or explaining natural phenomena.

The colloquialism, "He's got it down to a science" came from the fact that the real sciences demand extremely high degrees of precision, so the saying is used any time someone does a certain task with precision. That doesn't mean that the person is actually practicing a science.

If you classify writing as a science, then you're left with such an extremely broad definition of science that I could argue it includes masturbating.

I don't hate math, but I have always had a very hard time with it. It drives me crazy because having a good foundation in higher math is essential to understanding most scientific knowledge in full. I am endlessly fascinated by physics, but the math escapes me, and I know that I will most likely never truly understand many of the concepts in physics because of this. Same goes for chemistry; utterly fascinating, but mostly beyond me, due to the math behind it.

I dare you to find a physicist that likes math. Most of them hate it.

And I would have to guess at f(x). Function of (x)?

Yes, but what is the significance of the expression?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Just because something demands a high level of skill and competency doesn't make it a science. Yes, there are certain things you do, certain words you use and certain sentence structures you form to produce good writing, but you're certainly not describing nature through predictive theories or explaining natural phenomena.

Without wanting to engage in anything too involved here, I have to disagree on this point: Linguistic Science is a recognized science. It describes the nature of human communication and predicts results based on known principles of human communication.

[Drewcifer]

I dare you to find a physicist that likes math. Most of them hate it.

I actually really like math, it's just very hard for me to wrap my brain around it. I find higher math terribly interesting, and it pisses me off that I don't understand it!

And I would have to guess at f(x). Function of (x)?

Yes, but what is the significance of the expression?

<ChevyChase>I was told there wasn't going to be any math involved.</ChevyChase>

I honestly don't know. I remember that it stands for function, but that's about it.

[Durandal]

Just because something demands a high level of skill and competency doesn't make it a science. Yes, there are certain things you do, certain words you use and certain sentence structures you form to produce good writing, but you're certainly not describing nature through predictive theories or explaining natural phenomena.

Without wanting to engage in anything too involved here, I have to disagree on this point: Linguistic Science is a recognized science. It describes the nature of human communication and predicts results based on known principles of human communication.

Every field likes to call itself a science. Every field likes to have its own "theories" that are probably bullshit. What kind of predictions does it make? Physics, chemistry and biology use numbers in their predictions for a reason; numbers are objective, and there's absolutely no dispute over whether a prediction was consistent with observation if you're comparing numbers.

I've seen these so-called communications theories. They involve no numbers. They involve vague, subjective descriptions. They may qualify as predictions, but they're not particularly reliable or strict ones.

<ChevyChase>I was told there wasn't going to be any math involved.</ChevyChase>

The quote, according to my memory, was "It was my understanding that ... there would be no math." Classic stuff. I don't think any single person has ever been so responsible for the complete destruction of a president's image as Chevy Chase was for Gerald Ford's. He didn't even look like him; he just said, "Look, I'm Gerald Ford, now watch all the stupid shit I do!"

I honestly don't know. I remember that it stands for function, but that's about it.

A function relates one quantity to another. When I say that some quantity is a function of x, I say that that quantity's value depends on the value of x, so as x changes, so does whatever is a function of it. That's what makes graphs possible.

[lgot]

I've seen these so-called communications theories. They involve no numbers. They involve vague, subjective descriptions. They may qualify as predictions, but they're not particularly reliable or strict ones.

I may be wrong, but I think he refers to the study of linguistics, the formation of idioms and languagens of human societies rather than the Communication Theory which is the study of impact of ways of communication, cultural signs and myths over a society. Different fields.

But then, Science does not need to involve numbers- even if in Communication you can actually use numbers and prediction that are not vague - it just need to use the scientific Method to study a natural phenomena. I have the opinion that human society is natural phenomena therefore you can develop a scientific aproach to study that. You may have people who are doing it wrongly and claim to be right, but that does not dismiss those who did it correctly.

[Drewcifer]

<ChevyChase>I was told there wasn't going to be any math involved.</ChevyChase>

The quote, according to my memory, was "It was my understanding that ... there would be no math." Classic stuff.

I couldn't remember the quote verbatim and was too lazy to go googling for it Your memory serves you well.

Did you know that Chevy cracked one of his ribs while rehearsing that sketch the day of the show? (The falling over the podium bit) He still performed his slapstick that night, live, with a cracked rib. The show must go on...

I honestly don't know. I remember that it stands for function, but that's about it.

A function relates one quantity to another. When I say that some quantity is a function of x, I say that that quantity's value depends on the value of x, so as x changes, so does whatever is a function of it. That's what makes graphs possible.

Now that makes perfect sense to me, but you probably make ice-skating look easy too Thanks for the info.

[Durandal]

I may be wrong, but I think he refers to the study of linguistics, the formation of idioms and languagens of human societies rather than the Communication Theory which is the study of impact of ways of communication, cultural signs and myths over a society. Different fields.

Even so, how would you be able to objectively predict the development of something like language? Did any of these linguistic "scientists" successfully predict the rise of the butchery of the English language that is Ebonics?

But then, Science does not need to involve numbers- even if in Communication you can actually use numbers and prediction that are not vague - it just need to use the scientific Method to study a natural phenomena. I have the opinion that human society is natural phenomena therefore you can develop a scientific aproach to study that. You may have people who are doing it wrongly and claim to be right, but that does not dismiss those who did it correctly.

You're right; I shot my mouth off before thinking. Evolutionary theory's predictions don't necessarily involve numbers, but they do make objectively-verifiable predictions. What kind of predictions could you make about communication beyond "they'll like it" or "they won't like it"? Those are hardly scientifically precise descriptions. When you test something that is inherently subjective and largely unpredictable, you can't expect very good results.

Now that makes perfect sense to me, but you probably make ice-skating look easy too Thanks for the info.

The only way I could possibly make ice-skating look easy would be to convince those I'm teaching that it consists entirely of falling on your ass and getting back up.

[Darth Wong]

Now that makes perfect sense to me, but you probably make ice-skating look easy too Thanks for the info.

Ice skating is easy. Anyone can accelerate to prodigious speed with minimal practice. It's controlled stops that are tricky: something you would probably discover only when hurtling toward an obstacle.

[Master of Ossus]

However, apparently in some kind of interview, he said something like, "Poetry, literature, and history are useless. Why study them?"

Comments? Is there a point where one can become too "scientific"?

He's not being scientific when making that statement. In fact, he is being highly unscientific. Studying History is an examination of how people and societies act and react. We study history to try to learn to avoid making similar mistakes that have already been made in the past.

Studying literature is an exploration of the human mind, and human actions. We study literature so as to learn about ourselves and the world around us.

Studying poetry is an examination of feelings. We study poetry to learn about emotions, and to more fully understand and empathize with other people.

The fields overlap to a considerable extent, and it would be reasonable--even admirable--to eliminate one or two of the fields and study the remaining subjects more thoroughly, however to deny oneself exposure to such fields is simply unreasonable. It is not scientific to halt your studies of other people (or any animal) simply because it is very difficult to quantify, and particularly because humans have such a large impact on our lives.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Well, Durandal, language itself evolves -- or devolves, depending on your point of view. Ebonics is really not a recent thing. "Y'all" as a pluralism has been around for about a century, the catch-all "I be" instead of "I will" or "I am" has been around even longer. Most of the mechanics of Ebonics originated, predictably, in the Deep South. Ebonics is simply a Kentucky-Fried Drawl with an extra side of lazy pronunciation.

[Darth Wong]

If the scientific method is being employed, then it's a science.

[Durandal]

Well, Durandal, language itself evolves -- or devolves, depending on your point of view. Ebonics is really not a recent thing. "Y'all" as a pluralism has been around for about a century, the catch-all "I be" instead of "I will" or "I am" has been around even longer. Most of the mechanics of Ebonics originated, predictably, in the Deep South. Ebonics is simply a Kentucky-Fried Drawl with an extra side of lazy pronunciation.

ROTFLMAO! That's the most accurate description I've ever heard.

[Peregrin Toker]

However, apparently in some kind of interview, he said something like, "Poetry, literature, and history are useless. Why study them?"

History not a science?? Excuse me, but aren't historians capable of using the scientific method??

[Durandal]

However, apparently in some kind of interview, he said something like, "Poetry, literature, and history are useless. Why study them?"

History not a science?? Excuse me, but aren't historians capable of using the scientific method??

Sort of ... they can't exactly make predictions though, since everything they're studying already happened.

[neoolong]

However, apparently in some kind of interview, he said something like, "Poetry, literature, and history are useless. Why study them?"

History not a science?? Excuse me, but aren't historians capable of using the scientific method??

Sort of ... they can't exactly make predictions though, since everything they're studying already happened.

Actually it can sort of depend on what it is being used for. History is useful for analyzing trends and then trying to predict what will occur given similar circumstances.

[Peregrin Toker]

History not a science?? Excuse me, but aren't historians capable of using the scientific method??

Sort of ... they can't exactly make predictions though, since everything they're studying already happened.

Actually it can sort of depend on what it is being used for. History is useful for analyzing trends and then trying to predict what will occur given similar circumstances.

Yes. Some people appear to like predicting events, using history as a "measure."

[Durandal]

You could also find some artifact on an archaeological dig, make a prediction about a society based on it, and find other stuff to validate that prediction, I suppose.

[Illuminatus Primus]

With gratitude that civil engineers are around to certify their buildings and make sure they won't fall down and kill everyone.

Like Lloyd Wright's "art works" that have trouble standing on their own support structure? I think we need more of those civil engineers.

[Durandal]

With gratitude that civil engineers are around to certify their buildings and make sure they won't fall down and kill everyone.

Like Lloyd Wright's "art works" that have trouble standing on their own support structure? I think we need more of those civil engineers.

I'd imagine that once Wright gained fame that he could go into any city he wanted, ask to build something there, and they'd let him do it regardless of what a civil engineer said, simply because of the claim to fame.

[RedImperator]

History COULD be a science, but in order to be able to make predictions with any sort of accuracy, and not just observations, we need to wait for the psychologists to pull their heads out of their asses and turn THEIR field into a science, so we can make predictions worth a shit about complex human behavior. For now, history is like biology would be without chemistry--glorified taxonomy, and not all that great at that, either.

[RedImperator]

*Thinks of Frank Lloyd Wright's leaky roof designs*

Frank Lloyd Wright doesn't count. His designs looked like shit.

MY ASS! His pre-30's shit was too cool for school!

Modernist shit. Even if his early stuff was okay, his later designs were all big, concrete ass loafs. After art deco, 20th century architecture went right down the shitter.

[XPViking]

Actually it can sort of depend on what it is being used for. History is useful for analyzing trends and then trying to predict what will occur given similar circumstances.

Sounds like what Faith Popcorn does.

XPViking

[neoolong]

Actually it can sort of depend on what it is being used for. History is useful for analyzing trends and then trying to predict what will occur given similar circumstances.

Sounds like what Faith Popcorn does.

XPViking

What's that?