/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 40 KB, 308x416, 114-dali-flowers..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:34:23 2011 No.2705940 [Reply] [Original]

Why is it that scientists, mathematicians, and engineers hold artists, philosophers, composers, and other non-scientific geniuses in contempt? It's quite obvious that, though they may not work in a particular field, theirs is nonetheless a very rigorous occupation. I would argue the artistic or philosophic genius is several orders more brilliant, more creative, and more intellectually endowed than the dime-a-dozen inventors, engineers, physicists, ant the like.

I do not overlook the fact that amazing men like Tesla and Daimler essentially built the world we all live in. But I cannot understand or for one minute excuse in my mind the haughty air wherewith everyone who is involved in the sciences looks down upon everyone who is not. In fact, in the very sphere these scientific men claim in defense of their arrogance, eminent minds both in philosophy and in art have often foreseen and presaged in their own ways the 'discoveries' of science which occur hundreds of years after their time. Yet these men are not acknowledged, nor are their kind given any due respect. Why? Are you, scientists, so in need of an intellectual hierarchy to preside over that any and all who offer a different intellectual spark are a most critical threat to be denigrated and ridiculed?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:37:23 2011 No.2705953 art is subjective, intelligence is not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:39:23 2011 No.2705969 File: 71 KB, 443x469, left-brain-right-brain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] It's the battle of the left brain versus the right brain.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:44:23 2011 No.2705983 Why,are you OP,so in need of an intellectual hierarchy to try to troll /sci/,when in reality /sci/ is perfectly capable to troll itself?

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:46:23 2011 No.2705989 >>2705969 If you think science, math, and engineering doesn't require great amounts of creativity then you are a fool

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:47:23 2011 No.2705994 Uhh, they don't. At least not the ones who aren't aspies.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:48:23 2011 No.2706002 I love all the creations of mankind. I don't hold contempt for anything we humans have created.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:48:23 2011 No.2706003 I am a scientist and a bassist. Explain that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:48:23 2011 No.2706004 >>2705940 >minds both in philosophy and in art Does not compute. Minds in philosophy and art == 0

>>	Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:48:23 2011 No.2706009 because in general art and philosophy contributes very little to nothing (all variable of course) to the furtherance of humanity sorry, but what did you expect to hear from a /sci/ence board?

Anonymous Mon Mar 14 23:55:23 2011 No.2706031

>>2705940

In order to be objective about this, I will speak of Scientists and Non-Scientists.

Scientist - Any individual who constructs and revises testable explanations for phenomena based on observation.

With this definition, philosophy is an applied science. One can use thought experiments (within obvious and accepted logical bounds) to come to objective conclusions. My favorite examples of deduction come from Renee Descartes. However, the value of their deductions is subject to the accepted values of the times. In today's society, we applaud the physical sciences for their contributions to our capitalistic world; perfecting the perpetuation of innovation and production.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:18:23 2011 No.2706047 >>2705940 uh what. i'm an electrical engineer/guitarist

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:18:23 2011 No.2706049

OP I agree with the premise that the two sphere's are roughly equal. Where the divide occurs is that anyone that's sub Newton, Tesla, Einstein etc, is essentially labeled a nerd by society. I would say that roughly 5% of the worlds population is involved in advancing the science and technology that is devoured by the other 95%, and yet zero appreciation is given. Comprehension is even less prevalent. The average iPod owner has almost no idea how it works, other than the ability to recognize and complain when it breaks.

Humanities (that may be to general a term, but i mean philosophy, artists of all disciplines, at any level of mastery) deal in completely subjective forms. Their products are completely based on what the consumer, for lack of a better word, thinks of them. There isn't the knowledge barrier that exists in science and technology.

The second most important thing is that the arts aren't necessary. They are important, and hugely beneficial, but not necessary. Some areas of science are just as useless. By and large however, science and technology gives us a better understanding of the world, and better tools to grapple with it. Both of those are fundamental needs of humanity. Literature, painting, music, drama and other such things aren't.

I don't mean to disparage the arts, in fact life would be pretty awful without them. However, science and technology are much more important, yet woefully less understood and appreciated.

Physicsfag btw.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:19:23 2011 No.2706053 >>2706031 >implying Decartes didn't invent the fucking Cartesian coordinate system

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:19:23 2011 No.2706054 >>2706047 Obviously you're in denial about your own self-loathing.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:24:23 2011 No.2706076 If we had no music, art, literature, religion, or philosophy, we'd just be animals who concern ourselves with nothing other than feeding ourselves and reproducing.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:24:23 2011 No.2706080

>>2705940
Artists and musicians won't be passing Turing tests for much longer. So there's that. Also, I have on occasion Googled witty poetry/quips that float into my head. I can count the times I've gotten 0 hits on one hand. On the one hard, you could say that this makes any new artistic work even more brilliant. I would say you haven't searched properly.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:25:23 2011 No.2706085

Who actually thinks that? It would take a really bizarre person to hold that no one should do anything except science/engineering, to the exclusion of all reacreational activities involving music, books, painting, etc.

Science/engineering/math/econfags make fun of people who study humanities/socsci probably because it's relatively difficult to get jobs with those degrees, making them "impractical" according to the dominant standards of our capitalist society (an unfortunate economic reality I would change had I the power to do so). That and the fact that humanities/socsci university classes are generally less demanding of time and effort perpetuates the idea that people who study them are lazy or don't think about the future. But I don't think very many people genuinely believe that the pursuit of art is in itself totally worthless.

Now how would you feel if I went to /lit/ and asked you guys why you hate science?

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:26:23 2011 No.2706094

paraphrasin Philsopher Francis Bacon

" the world does not move forward unless science takes it forward"

Honestly, I went to a philosophy school in my first year and none of them contributed too much. Most just liked to get high, perhaps in the past the OP was right, but nowadays i cant agree with that statement.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:26:23 2011 No.2706095 >>2706054 nigga wat

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:28:23 2011 No.2706104

Op, let's be honest. First of all, the geniuses as you put it are most certainly appreciated.

The downside, however, is that most people in those professions are no where close to being a genius. Anyone with half a brain can spew the bullshit that comes out of their mouths. Second of all, salaries are a pretty good indication of how much a profession is valued. Many of the liberal arts degrees promote professions that will contribute nothing to society other than a narcissistic attitude and, thus, typically offer a lower salary.

Here is a value chart for your convenience:
http://xkcd.com/435/

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:28:23 2011 No.2706106 >>2706049 Nice arbitrary definition of "importance" there.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:28:23 2011 No.2706110 Obvious troll is obvious, but whatever. I don't think I've ever met a scientist who made fun of the humanities in any other way than as a joke. Obnoxious high-schoolers who think they know everything, sure.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:29:23 2011 No.2706116 philosophy are the abstract theorists hard sciences such as engineering or physics are encompassed by philosophy, and simply apply it with real-world practicality, like building roads and shit

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:30:23 2011 No.2706120 a person that is good at what they do is appreciated no matter if they're a scientist or an artist but the fact is most lazy fucks tend to gravitate towards the arts because the effort required to be mediocre in those fields is pretty low

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:30:23 2011 No.2706126 It's notable that the more left-wing, socialistic, and atheistic a society becomes, the less and less cultural things it produces. Science also dwindles in that situation because it simply becomes a tool of political and social control.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:32:23 2011 No.2706133 >>2706049 While art for the sake of art might not contribute to society, philosophy and history definitely do to guide policies.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:32:23 2011 No.2706135 don't know many scientist that assign any ill will towards the likes of Rachmaninov or Tchaikovsky glaring oversimplification OP

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:32:23 2011 No.2706136 >>2706126 Wow. Amazing. You: 1) Pulled that beautiful rhetoric out of your ass 2) Turned this thread into a religious debate 3) Fuck your imaginary sky daddy!

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:33:23 2011 No.2706139
File: 33 KB, 350x450, salvador-dali1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>The downside, however, is that most people in those professions are no where close to being a genius

This I will agree with wholeheartedly. The professors of philosophy like nothing better than to play philosopher, as a child plays soldier. And students of philosophy are universally empty-headed cretins who attend philosophy lectures to give themselves airs.

I am speaking only of the actual philosophers, artists, etc. What carries on at the universities under these headings is an absolute burlesque.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:33:23 2011 No.2706148 File: 10 KB, 235x214, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2706126 Sorry, try again.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:41:23 2011 No.2706191

>>2706106

Every single definition ever is arbitrary if you really want to use semantics. Biologically, an organism's logical progression is to understand and adapt to their environment. Science and technology are artificial means of doing this.

>>2706133

Yes, but they only deal with things that are human in nature. Politics, economics and that stuff are all just different ways of looking at the same phenomenon, where the right answer is subjective. Who is to say whether communism is REALLY worse that capitalism? No one. In the same way, our review of the past can't be boiled down to essential truths.

Science is imperfect, obviously, but it is possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that certain things are true.

I really don't mean to disparage the arts. I've been an actor and playwright all through high school and college (I'm not that great, but I enjoy it so meh), and I think that's what's really informed this opinion.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:41:23 2011 No.2706192 >>2706126 >mfw the Soviet Union was more artistic than 3rd World capitalist countries <mfw i have no face

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:42:23 2011 No.2706203 >>2706191 Countdown to /new/fags. Goodnight all, I'm closing this tab.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:43:23 2011 No.2706213 >>2706191 >Every single definition ever is arbitrary You don't know the definition of arbitrary.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:43:23 2011 No.2706211 Because writing songs/poems/plays/musicals, painting/sculpting, etc is completely useless and boring while scientists and engineers are busy discovering the mysteries of the universe and advancing mankind to it's pinnacle.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:45:23 2011 No.2706222 >>2706211 >and advancing mankind to it's pinnacle Do you not own a window?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:46:23 2011 No.2706231 Art, humanities and all of the social sciences except economics are degrees for people that find math and science too difficult. Without those degrees universities and colleges would not be able to fund their own existence.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:47:23 2011 No.2706237

>>2706136

I didn't turn it into a religious debate per se. I was just saying that atheistic communist nations were not terribly science or knowledge-friendly. I read about some of the stuff that went on under Stalin. It wasn't pretty. As an example, they forbade teaching the theory of relativity and Mendelian genetics under the grounds that those constituted "bourgeois idealism."

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:53:23 2011 No.2706272

>>2706191
Doesn't it follow from your own view that the desire to advance humanity through scientific progress is itself subjective, since it is a moral/philosophical viewpoint like any other?
Yes, it does.

>>2706237
Your trolling hasn't improved since your initial post. 1/10 since I replied.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:53:23 2011 No.2706276 >>2706213 HA. You're right arbitrary is the wrong word. Things that are defined as arbitrary are things that are more based on whim. I meant debatable. Definitions are open to interpretation, and only as concrete as people make them.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:55:23 2011 No.2706285

>>2706272

Semantics, semantics everywhere. By your definition, every statement is an opinion, even if it's grounded in logic and fact. At some point, you have to call a halt to second guessing EVERYTHING.

However, all of my posts are obviously just my opinion. I'm almost certain that is what this thread was supposed to be about.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:56:23 2011 No.2706287

>>2706191
Alright, I'll concede your point that science can be proven to be objectively true, while the humanities cannot. There are some gray areas when it comes to history, because there are documents you can look at, but whatever.

However, I was addressing your second point, which was the claim that the humanities are less necessary than the sciences. Quite a lot of science deals with only humans, and political philosophies also attempt to model how the world works, and try to offer better solutions to problems. Although it's harder to determine if they're objectively better, their importance cannot be ignored.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 00:57:23 2011 No.2706293 >>2706237 Not because of Atheism or communism but because of their incompetent leaders.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:00:23 2011 No.2706313 >>2706293 Well, the Soviet Union was one of a number of communist states with enforced atheism. All of them were unlivable shitholes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:00:23 2011 No.2706310 >>2705940 Why is it that people make sweeping generalizations and no-one notices the logical fallacy

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:01:23 2011 No.2706317

>>2706285
That's not what I said at all. Go back and reread my post. My point was that the desire to advance humanity in a particular direction is an arbitrary one, even if you use objective knowledge gathered through the power of science to do so.
Surely someone so good at science wouldn't be so bad at basic reading comprehension?
And stop throwing the word "semantics" everywhere, it doesn't make you look smart.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:03:23 2011 No.2706329 >>2706313 They were shit holes despite being Atheist. Also, you can't force people to be Atheist, you can only force them not to worship in public.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:04:23 2011 No.2706331 >>2706287 Of course not! read lower on in that post. I love the arts, I just don't think they're QUITE as important.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:07:23 2011 No.2706356 >>2706331 I wasn't talking about "the arts" in the sense that you are. I'm talking about the importance of political philosophy, while you keep emphasizing the theatre.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:07:23 2011 No.2706358 >>2706329 What happens is that in the absence of religion, people have no moral code and so they require rigid social controls to keep them behaved. An amoral society cannot be free by definition.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:10:23 2011 No.2706386 >>2706356 I was just using that as an example. It doesn't take a genius to realize democracy is better than autocracy, i get the merit of political science. Still, subjective.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:11:23 2011 No.2706390

I love art, music, and philosophy, and have nothing but good will towards the people who make substantive efforts to practice these fields. Those who contribute to the beauty of the world deserves the highest praise. However, as a college student, I find that 90% of the people who study the humanities as their area of interest are slacknasty self-righteous assholes who do nothing but bitch about the world and smoke weed, and will be a drain on society for the rest of their lives. Basically, most people in technical fields are at least competent at their professions, while most people in the humanities are fucktards with nothing to give to the world.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:14:23 2011 No.2706410 >>2706386 Well, seeing as the definition of subjective is itself subjective, this conversation seems sort of pointless.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:16:23 2011 No.2706422 >>2706358 Morality is independent of religion. Morality derived from religion is no better than morality that comes from the government.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:18:23 2011 No.2706434 >>2706358 Most governments have laws to keep their citizens under control. Law ≠ morality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:21:23 2011 No.2706444 >>2706434 Yes, but the more moral people are, the fewer restrictions they need because they can be trusted to behave themselves better.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:22:23 2011 No.2706450 >>2706444 How is morality that comes from religion any different from laws?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:22:23 2011 No.2706453 File: 123 KB, 896x1094, sputnik-image-1.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2706390 SUP GUYS, WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS THREAD?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:22:23 2011 No.2706452 >>2706358 Freedom must always be sacrificed when living within a society. That's the trade you make for being a citizen.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:23:23 2011 No.2706456

>>2705940
Hello Mr.Sweeping generalization
Mr.Counterexampleton here

Chemistry major
art (specifically drawing and some attempts at music) is a big hobby of mine

not to mention that several of the chem/bio/biohem staff here play instruments (in bands, local preforming orchestra)

The people I don't like?
the willfully ignorant

arbitrary crack at engineers

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:24:23 2011 No.2706461 >>2706450 people argue laws based on logic and reason(mostly) and not based on "the word of god" bullshit. difference noted?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:25:23 2011 No.2706469 >>2706410 ...mmmmmk. I don't really know what to say to that. there is now way to win an argument against irrationality.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:25:23 2011 No.2706471 >>2706450 It all traces back to religion. At one time (up to about the middle of the 19th century), it was a requirement in the United States that you had to study theology in order to qualify for a law degree.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:27:23 2011 No.2706482 >>2706461 Yes. But what the troll seems to be arguing is that because there is religion and therefore morality, there is less of a need for laws. So while the source of one is much more legitimate, the end result is theoretically the same.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:27:23 2011 No.2706485

Compare this two dialogues OP:

A: This man is an artistic genius!
B: How so?
A: He made a lot of cool paintings in an innovative way. They are really nice to look at!

A: This man is a mathematical genius!
B: How so?
A: He solved a problem that nobody had been able to solve for decades, which has consequences that could benefit the entire human species!

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:28:23 2011 No.2706495

OP, do you understand the difference between foreseeing and actually doing something?
Also, you talk about philosophic and artistic eminences, geniuses,
but how many of those are out there, compared to the amount of brilliant scientists who by small contributions, make possible the discoveries that develop our civilization?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:29:23 2011 No.2706502 lmao morality based on religion naivete at its highest point

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:32:23 2011 No.2706515

>>2706469
It's not irrational. One could argue that the fact that Nazism killed millions of people, an indisputable fact, makes it bad. Although someone else could argue that killing people is not immoral, humans have collectively decided that killing is bad. Wikipedia defines objectivity to be that which collective editors agree to be true, while science defines it to be that which can be proved experimentally.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:36:23 2011 No.2706529 >>2706515 And nazsim is wrong in both cases. Biologically, a species killing millions of it's own is wrong. Morally and ethically, it is wrong for a multitude of reasons. EVERYTHING IS FUCKING SUBJECTIVE IF YOU CHOOSE TO BOIL IT DOWN ENOUGH.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:38:23 2011 No.2706542

>>2706485
There are problems in the humanities, such as composing a musical palindrome that actually sounds nice. And quite a lot of science, especially pure math, has no application to advancing humanity besides the acquisition of knowledge, which doesn't differ much from art.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:38:23 2011 No.2706543

Scientist and artists, to be good, must have great skill and vision.

However some "scientists" are little more than bean counters or button pushers. They count themselves scientists because they work in a scientific field and someone else gives them that label. I know university professors that are little more than modestly lucky grant proposal writers which usually use their grad students to supply the know-how and vision ... ie THEY understand little of what is actually going on in their labs.

Same with many artists. Some have been able to master the "skill" enough to copy their teacher/mentors but have very little innate abilities to progress beyond and little vision to produce something of real greatness. Indeed some have neither skill nor vision and are only "artists" by virtue of the fact that some art critics popularize them to such an extent that those with more money than sense or taste throw cash about willy-nilly and it happens to fall on them.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:38:23 2011 No.2706547

In high and middle school, music was my life. I wanted nothing more than to be a professional musician. Then I went through a MASSIVE period of change in my life near the end of high school/beginning of college.

Now I don't play music at ALL and I'm split between physics and math (freshman at a JC). Because of my history, I try to defend the arts but at times, it's all bullshit. The arts really shouldn't be taught at universities. I can't believe I wasted so much time on it.

I still love music, but the thing is...university programs CAN'T prepare you for the real world. My idol of music was a music major, now he's a truck driver pretty much (not big rigs, just delivering food). It's bullshit.

I appreciate art, but not the programs. Also, in the grand scheme of things the arts don't really contribute much.

I used to be so into it, but it's all bullshit. It's a fucking HOBBY at most. The only people that make money in the arts are prostituted as sex symbols.

Most people pick music majors and art majors because they're too lazy to learn something real and everyone feels entitled to a degree.

Because of my past, I hate saying this but it's true.

Some artists/musicians are awesome, but on the whole "artists" are half-wits.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:38:23 2011 No.2706548 >>2706529 The Nazis thought genocide was a pretty swell idea. Who am I to disagree?

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:39:23 2011 No.2706552 >>2706542 But a lot of pure mathematics turns into applied mathematics.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:40:23 2011 No.2706555

anybody notice a stark decline in musical genius?

not many gershwin's, rachs, or chopins in this world anymore

although one could argue because musicians rarely spend the time composing a massive requiem or concerto, their genius is veiled behind the demands of the market

im sure marinelli, desplat, john williams, and even alicia keys could compose a brilliant symphony, but just haven't been given the opporunity

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:43:23 2011 No.2706568 >>2706555 Because all music/movies/tv dramas are all mass produced canned goods that follow the same formula which maximizes consumption.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:44:23 2011 No.2706577

>>2706542
Except "sounds nice" is undefined.
And while an application of something mathematical might not be immediately evident, it could be really fucking important when used in other fields. If he indeed solved something useless, he probably won't be called a genius, unless the problem was extremely difficult.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:44:23 2011 No.2706573 >art have often foreseen and presaged in their own ways the 'discoveries' of science which occur hundreds of years after their time Art has also foreseen the distruction of the planet.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 01:46:23 2011 No.2706584

>>2705940
>art have often foreseen and presaged in their own ways the 'discoveries' of science which occur hundreds of years after their time

WTF is this shit? Given enough time, anyone could predict anything. Unless you can give a good reason, it's bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 02:00:23 2011 No.2706668 >>2706577 Alright, but then couldn't one argue that that would make someone more of a genius, because it's harder to know what makes something good?

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 06:40:23 2011 No.2708044

>2705940
Any retard can think of something, it takes someone amazing to create it, then optimize it and make it practical in all applications to be used to further society.
Engineers/scientists etc create things based on logic,maths etc
Philosophers are stuck in circular arguments based on logic.
In short OP is a fag.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 06:53:23 2011 No.2708093 you need a^n imaginations to even being math

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 07:11:23 2011 No.2708158 >>2706555 I think music has gotten less creative and more corporate since the 50's- mid 90's maybe. But I don't share your view that there isn't a living classical music community, both maintaining and creating music of that genre.

>>	Implying Tue Mar 15 08:02:23 2011 No.2708279 File: 15 KB, 262x228, 1295988979682.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>2705953 >art is subjective, intelligence is not.

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:37:23 2011 No.2709412 because engineers are gay

>>	Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:44:23 2011 No.2709443 >>2706555 What about lady Gaga? She actually has some creativity to her.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 12:50:23 2011 No.2709480

>>2706555
Maybe not in classical, but there's a lot of talent out there. Go to /mu/ if you want to find the next Mozart, you might find something amazing underground. Look at Radiohead. I don't know if they're Beethoven quality, but I'd say they were definitely musical geniuses.

Anonymous Tue Mar 15 15:07:23 2011 No.2710280

and not to take into account people working at animation sutdios such as pixar, which combine maths and beauty of the production. Not like the fucktards who are painters, for instance. Also, philosophy is always about one man trying to convince/persuade the rest of the world that his own vision is THE one (while it's probably not). And that same guy is pretty much convinced of what he claims. So this makes him a complete failure when it comes to his intellectual production.
And finally: every single person needs to consider themselves as valuable (it's pretty obvious), thus, scientists (and everyone else) thinks that what they do is amongst the best activities.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]