[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]

2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 55 KB, 650x400, qc-scienceverb.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

1747150

Help a Struggling Auto-Didact onto His Feet... G_Ruby !!rSJ9VDqSWtL Mon Sep 13 01:23:17 2010 No.1747150 [Reply] [Original]

Hello /sci/,

I'm a convert from across the divide [Philosophy and "Soft" Social Sciences] trying to do his part as a good Transhumanism-proponent, Practical Intellectual, Negentropist-Sympathizer and Stoic via acquiring knowledge and experience in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics fields.

There's just one problem --- I have no idea where to start!

So I was wondering if any good-natured /sci/entist could help this fledgling subjectivist gain some objective insight into the factors and forces that govern our universe by helping him create a list of basic-level and layman's literature in the following subjects:

* Logic [Rationalism]
* Objective Ethics
* Science [Physics, Chemistry, Earth Science, etc.]
* Empiricism & The Scientific Method
* Technology
* Engineering
* Mathematics
* Computing

I don't expect to be mentally solving applied calculus problems without a calculator inside of six months, but I promise any contributor to this thread that I damn well will study to eventually do so.

Much obliged.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 13 01:35:17 2010 No.1747189 >>1747150 Try asking reddit.com/r/science if /sci doesn't answer. Or make an account, and ask right now and leave the thread you made overnight to see results later.

>>

G_Ruby !!rSJ9VDqSWtL Mon Sep 13 01:40:17 2010 No.1747212

>>1747189

Thanks for the suggestion.

Truthfully, I'm about to go to bed and was hoping /sci/ moves slow enough for me to check this thread by tomorrow morning.

Failing that, I'll create a Reddit account first thing tomorrow and implement your suggestion.

I'm truly hoping something good will come out of this --- It pains me that I can so fully understand and agree with the qualitative commentary of Eliezer Yudkowsky and Robert Hanson, but fail so harshly at understanding their quantitative data.

>>	G_Ruby !!rSJ9VDqSWtL Mon Sep 13 02:57:17 2010 No.1747444 One last BUMP before bed!

>>	G_Ruby !!rSJ9VDqSWtL Mon Sep 13 10:38:17 2010 No.1748391 Post-wake up BUMP! CAPTCHA: prokind continueth

>>

Anonymous Mon Sep 13 10:47:17 2010 No.1748406

>Objective Ethics

I've found that the closest thing to an objective ethics is one that espouses personal consistency and generally only makes rules for personal behavior. From this, you can logically extrapolate how you should behave in situations with other players. There really aren't any classes of objectively wrong actions.

This could get really long if I explain how I extrapolate my set of ethics as a student and practitioner of science (biology)...
basically start with Sartre (total freedom, individual ethics), mix in Kantian ethics (Do unto others), avoid the extremes of Foucault and Derrida but learn the lessons, and always tell the truth because your existence as an ethical being is dependent on the good faith of others that you are accurately representing your worldview.

>>

Anonymous Mon Sep 13 10:51:17 2010 No.1748413

>Science [Physics, Chemistry, Earth Science, etc.]
I'm a biologist, and my goal has always been to understand the new complexities of every step up in organization, so learn how each of these things becomes the next:
Atoms/Molecules
Nucleic Acids
Proteins
Organelles
Cells
Tissues
Organs
Organ Systems
Organisms
Communities
Ecosystems/Nutrient Recycling Systems
Biosphere

Start at any place in the chain, and work your way down or up to infinity. As for books, I'll recommend a few when I get to my next lecture.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 13 10:52:17 2010 No.1748416 You are asking for a lot.... Where do we even begin....

>>

Anonymous Mon Sep 13 10:56:17 2010 No.1748424

>Logic [Rationalism]
>Objective Ethics

And you go to natural scientists to learn this shit? If you WERE a social scientist, you would know that this is YOUR FIELD OF STUDY

Also Science Theory is mandatory for all Social Scientists. Go read Popper to figure out what it SHOULD be like.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 13 10:56:17 2010 No.1748425 khanacademy.com goodbye

>>

G_Ruby !!rSJ9VDqSWtL Mon Sep 13 10:57:17 2010 No.1748428

>>1748406

Hah, I'm originally a philosophy-fag and I have to admit you condensed the issue of interpersonal ethics into a more concise and understandable explanation than most of my ilk could.

Kudos, /sci/-Anon.

>>1748416

Feel free to start from any subject you feel you have a decent expertise in and suggest progressive texts you'd give to someone starting from ignorance who desires to ascend to your level of understanding.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 13 11:02:17 2010 No.1748441 >>1748425 I think you meant .org anyways that's probably the best site for you to learn something op have fun

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 13 11:05:17 2010 No.1748449 Hello fellow autodidact. Learn to program in a functional language at the same time as you try to learn some math like linear algebra or abstract algebra.

>>

Anonymous Mon Sep 13 11:06:17 2010 No.1748451

>>1748424

I'm mostly referring to texts on objectivity and ethics that use cognitive and hard science data to explain their premises.

Two examples would be:

"Metamagical Themas" by Douglas Hofstadter

"Good and Real: Demystifying Paradoxes from Physics to Ethics" by Gary L. Drescher

Two books that I currently struggle with because of my ignorance of their diverse subject matter.

>>1748425

I think you mean http://www.khanacademy.org/ . Thanks for the link, though.

---

You can relax folks. This isn't some sort of subtle trolling attempt.

>>

chemfag Mon Sep 13 11:30:17 2010 No.1748537
File: 15 KB, 680x509, chemtree.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Alright, I shall try a hand at this anyway.
The structure of knowledge in chemistry seems to branch out into many sub fields but these branches also tend to recombine into hybrid fields.

To me, the essence of chemistry is in the hows and whys of interatomic and intermolecular interactions. The different types of chemical bonds and their properties. The chart I drew is by no means complete...

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 13 11:39:17 2010 No.1748578 Link to the reddit thread once you've made it, please, I am very interested in following your path.

>>	G_Ruby !!rSJ9VDqSWtL Mon Sep 13 11:44:17 2010 No.1748603 >>1748537 Ah, so I should probably study chemistry and physics in tandem... >>1748578 I've received one response since last night. ;_; http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/dd2r0/help_a_struggling_autodidact_by_suggestic_basic/

>>

Anonymous Mon Sep 13 11:47:17 2010 No.1748629

I always advice people who are getting into science for the first time to read Bill Bryson's "A short history on nearly everything" for a start, it's a very good summary of the "modern" history of science, although it has a few minor technical errors you'll learn to recognize yourself once/if you gain some depth in the relevant fields.

Seeing as Khan was already mentioned; Academic Earth and iBioSeminars are two more extremely good online resources, plus there's always MIT and UCLA's online courses.

Other than that: textbooks are your best friend.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 13 11:51:17 2010 No.1748642 >>1748603 >Ah, so I should probably study chemistry and physics in tandem... and genetics, if you go down that road

>>

Anonymous Mon Sep 13 11:54:17 2010 No.1748656

>>1748603
>Ah, so I should probably study chemistry and physics in tandem...

No, you should study math and physics in tandem until you get to quantum mechanics, then break off and go learn a lot of chemistry. General physics gives you a very good broad understanding of the workings of things, whereas chemistry is much more nitty gritty (up until QM, that is).

>>	chemfag Mon Sep 13 11:57:17 2010 No.1748667 >>1748656 This sounds good if you want a very deep understanding of chemistry. Which frankly, few chemists have.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 13 11:59:17 2010 No.1748675 This might be a bit off-"curriculum", but I'd advice you to read Taleb's Fooled by Randomness. It was what got me to switch from social to hard science.

>>	G_Ruby !!rSJ9VDqSWtL Mon Sep 13 12:14:17 2010 No.1748717 >>1748629 >>1748675 Thank you, I've added them to "The List". >>1748642 >>1748656 Much obliged. Also, is it just me or does /sci/ seem to have the most randomly difficult of CAPTCHAs out of all boards?

>>	G_Ruby !!rSJ9VDqSWtL Mon Sep 13 13:34:17 2010 No.1748983 Afternoon bump.

>>	G_Ruby !!rSJ9VDqSWtL Mon Sep 13 14:52:17 2010 No.1749297 Random BUMP!

>>	Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Mon Sep 13 14:58:17 2010 No.1749339 File: 164 KB, 900x500, 1267390779942.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] LEARN ROCKET SCIENCE ROCKET SCIENCE IS BEST SCIENCE YOU CAN COME FOR DRINKS WITH ME AND ELON MUSK LATER

>>

Anonymous Mon Sep 13 15:23:17 2010 No.1749404

>>1748603

I feel I should point out that the reason >>1748656 said you should do physics and math instead of physics and chemistry in tandem is that you won't last five seconds in physics without math. In fact I'd advice you to refresh your highschool math skills if you even want to get past the first chapter of a physics 101 textbook, unless you possess a naturally logical mind.