Why study math?

Post Reply New Topic

I am just saying, either you are consistent or you are not. But if you are not, then you can't argue with other people if they do the same thing you do.

The mathematics beatdown is on! It will be a melee, and in the ring we'll have Orwell, Awesomelyglorious, Shiggily, and myself!

I seem like the underdog, but I'll seek the tutelage of the legendary Chever! IT IS SO ON!

Sure I can. If ad hominem arguments are fallacies, then my arguments should stand regardless of who I am. This means my attacks on the inconsistency of other people should stand regardless of who I am. This allows me to criticize other people for doing the exact same things I do. In any case, in an argument, there is no reason I have to hold myself to the same standards as I hold my opponents, for example, let's just assume that I am some variant of epistemic skeptic or nihilist and do not believe in the reality of inconsistencies, but recognize that other people do. I could easily be inconsistent because I don't believe that inconsistencies are a problem, but I could easily criticize other people for their inconsistencies because *they* believe it is a problem, and I could try to destroy other people's beliefs as a means of spreading my own epistemic views.

Shiggily'd win the math beatdown, even if all 3 of us ganged up on her.

I've never denied that I am lacking in mathematical knowledge, so I can be fully consistent in dismissing your own level of knowledge, which is basically mine plus multivariable calculus and differential equations, neither of which are *that* imposing or big a difference to distinguish between us. I fully recognize that I have studied only the rudiments and have a long way to go; you on the other hand have studied marginally more math and consider it to be a "significant amount."

AG, this is quite possibly the dumbest post you have ever made to WP.

I'd enlist the help of an MIT-bred autie I know from UM. (he's a grad student here)

MIT is my goal. As is Cambridge or University of Tokyo. It depends on where I can get my next job. I am tossing it back and forth between physics and math. I might do both.

My husband insists that I get a degree in mathematics education since I pretty much already have my dissertation planned out.

But a Doctorate in Education seems so... bland. I would do it only for the pay raise, and to see if my ideas worked.

And I don't consider myself all that great at math. I only have a BS. It makes me marginally knowledgeable in a math circle and completely over-knowledgeable in normal conversation.

I'm confused about this whole debate. "Significant amount" seems to be dependent on the context of the debate, which would be contingent upon the meaning of questioning his understanding to begin with. Now, a grasp not just in the math courses listed but also in the math oriented courses that AG said he's taken implies a working knowledge of a "significant" amount of math inasmuch as any debate on the nature of mathematical truth would possibly find relevant, but moreover the apparent lack of the classic undergrad "hard" courses (e.g. advanced calc, algebra) is in no way a shortcoming as he clearly demonstrates an understanding at least of math's philosophical foundations (it don't take a degree to read e.g. Frege) and the conceptual underpinnings of formal math.

I mean, the debate of the truth of math is philosophical, and the usefulness of math is a matter of history.

it wasn't much of a debate as a vague answer to a question I asked. So when I inquired how much math he had studied to understand where his ideas were coming from he responded with a vague "significant amount". It was an offshoot of the original debate which was a combination of the philosophy of the importance/worth of math and the usefulness of math.

I only gave him a hard time because he because while he has a working knowledge of very basic mathematics answering "a significant amount" in response to a question on how much math have you studied seemed purposely evasive and because he responded "my level of math knowledge is not something you can make much fun of, or dismiss while upholding the importance of your own opinions." to Orwell which is something he has does a few times to me with math and education.

I like my discussions without vagueness as it lays everything out on the table. There is no hiding things to make yourself appear more of less knowledgeable than you really are. Which is why I repeatedly stated that while I may have a BS in math, I do not consider it advanced math, I am not an expert in math and I do not consider it a significant amount of math. It is at best, above average.

I must say, that's a pretty hilarious and dead-on description of the bachelor's degree.

And it can apply to any discipline. I'm a sophomore college student and I don't know nearly enough to be remotely competent in professional circles, but I possess just enough arcane, specialized knowledge to stand out in everyday conversation.

Ah yes, the bachelor's degree- with it, you are overqualified for "regular" jobs and underqualified for most of the jobs in your degree field. Stuck in limbo, as it were.

Some degrees you can get along quite fine with just a BS/BA. Not psychology, medicine, science (save for maybe general biology), or math. Not sure of any others. But education you can get just a BS/BA, stats I think just a BS/BA is fine, communication, computer degrees, etc.

While we're talking about math, I was thinking about all the math texts I've ever used.

As far as teaching is concerned, it seems that math is a cursed subject in the sense that it's usefulness is basically demanded. I get to hear my little brother (a high school student) and his friends complain about his schoolwork every day. I commonly hear from a lot of people who dislike mathematics that "it serves no purpose" or "when am I going to use this".

Doesn't it seem like an odd double-standard that the humanities or sciences are exempt from? Learning about valance electrons or writing in trochaic pentameter are equally useless in terms of everyday living, but these subjects can be learned for their own sake and not judged in terms of practicality. Now even my college-level calculus text that spans to calc III (which is really only for science/engineering/math majors and those fairly serious about mathematics in general) is still riddled with huge "application" cutaways. It's not enough to learn related rates by making a triangle with as much area as possible with a set perimeter, it has to be a couple of country roads intersected by Farmer Brown's pickup truck at the hypotenuse.

So, basically my point is, do you think this ongoing infatuation with applicability and everyday use is an unhealthy direction for mathematics education? Don't you feel that mathematics, like other "useless" fields like literature and the arts, should be instilled in young students as a subject to be enjoyed for its own sake, and not just a set of tools reliant upon application?

I would have thought a general bio BS would be pretty tough to get a job with, but perhaps it's just that I'm thinking of different jobs. In my home state you need a master's degree for education. State law.

Where is it dumb though? To be honest, I think your expression of "dumb" is really less of an expression of the quality of thinking, and more just an expression of disgust. And for you to mistake the 2 really seems characteristic of you.

Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 25 Dec 2008, 1:06 am, edited 1 time in total.