/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3658231]

>Write history paper, takes an hour and a half
>re-read instructions, make sure I covered everything
>Nope, you did everything wrong
>carefully rewrite entire thing, takes two hours

I'm glad I did it but it made me realize that you science and math folks have it way easier. There's not allot of ambiguity in you work, it's either right or wrong, but you can still exercise creativity to solve problems. In history the professor can just read your paper and say "hmmm, I don't like the cut of his jib." Boom C-

It's also allot easier to see who is sharp on their shit and who is just a big phoney in Science/math.

BTW As a historyfag I realize that you guys are doing all the heavy lifting for humanity and all we do is just shuffle around after the fact and try to reconstruct the pieces using literary techniques

[Anonymous No.3658250]

[Anonymous No.3658266]

>>3658231
Very interesting post -- I understand because I became a math major initially just because of that: it's easy. Also don't have to study as hard in the sense of "memorize a bunch of shit" because if you have the thinking processes down and forget something on the test, it's easier to just figure it out from scratch than attempting to resurrect a factoid from the corner of your mind.

[Anonymous No.3658284]

>>3658266
yeah it would be nice to have that kind of certainty. History right now is in such a state of flux as far as theory that if you don't figure out somebodies training before you speak you could end up pissing them off

do you guys have any problems like that? like is there any kind of post-structuralist math that makes you turboface palm?

[Anonymous No.3658296]

You can start by saying a lot not "allot"

[Anonymous No.3658298]

>>3658231
softsciences are like that. did an anthro paper on neanderthal interbreeding with european humans, complete with citations from credible sources, got a D on it for unsubstantiated claims.
He didnt like the idea, basically.

[Anonymous No.3658300]

That's certainly true for exams and stuff, but once you're publishing actual research the protocols for publications and citations are much, much stricter than anything in the humanities.

[Anonymous No.3658316]

You're right, appealing to someone's subjective tastes and political bias is a minefield, if you do one thing wrong and it touches a nerve it's over. However it's pointless, people who care too much about society's shit are either useless or contributing to society's shit, you are the "silver tongued liberals and smooth talkers" who fuck up the democratic process for a 6 figure income.

Also it's worth noting that since math and science is "easier" this only means we can get through the easy parts and reach greater depths of complexity and sophistication while you're still stuck trying to prove to some marxist profressor that the gradual rise of an educated middle class is the major force for political liberalization not shitty revolutions and civil wars that replace one tyrant with another.

[Anonymous No.3658322]

>>3658284
An interesting thing a favorite teacher of mine used to say about Godel. Basically Whitehead and Russel were prancing around trying to make concrete the CITADEL OF MATH, give it foundation and stability. And then Godel comes along and says 'hey guys, any system you propose which is as rigid as you suggest will necessarily -- and I can prove this -- it will necessarily have true statements which are unprovable." This is earth-shaking, you want to have an axiomatic system in which every true statement can be proven true, and every false statement can be proven false. No such mathematical system exists.

And yet, did we stop doing math? The twentieth century produced more mathematicians than ever. Our quest is futile yet we fight on, like the Norse Gods who know a priori that they will fail, yet they fight nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.3658324]

>but once you're publishing actual research the protocols for publications and citations are much, much stricter

specifically what branch of the sciences are you referring to?

[Anonymous No.3658338]

>>3658316
>marxist profressor

these guys are retiring and most people in the field nowadays don't buy their reductionism

Most of the people I deal with (and me) would agree with your ideas about class and political liberalization

[Anonymous No.3658341]

It should be possible to determine what someone's politics are without exposing your own, you just need to probe them.

It's what I do when I try to figure out if I should discuss politics with my friends. I suppose you don't get much opportunity to talk to your professors unless you actually visit them, but then professors have to stand in front of you and talk for a long time on topics that are heavily politicized. I don't see the difficulty.

[Anonymous No.3658351]

>>3658322
This is fucking awesome.

I share your appreciation for striving toward an unattainable ideal. Historians know that they can never really piece together what happened in the past but they keep trying to be as accurate as possible anyway.

[Anonymous No.3658356]

>>3658341
oh, I love doing that.

I've actually embraced this method to excess and I am in danger of becoming a schizoid because of it

[Anonymous No.3658363]

>>3658341
Just treat it as a study of historiography, any interpretation is valid if its supported.

[Anonymous No.3658372]

>>3658356
Now I'm sitting here wondering if we're all higher risk for SPD.

[Anonymous No.3658392]

>>3658322
While what Godel said is true, the implications you draw from it are a little out there don't you think? We may have true statements that are unprovable, but there're infinitely many provable ones, so its not like we're trying to do the impossible in the development of new theorems. Though then when you look at the amount of time people have spent trying to prove things like Fermat's last... I guess you do have a point.

[Anonymous No.3658405]

>>3658392
Well just the fact that there exist statements which are true but undemonstrably so is very troubling. This is exactly what Godel did -- in the axiomatic system we should be able to take a proposition and 1. determine its truth or falsehood and 2. prove such assertion based on axioms or theorems derived from axioms. What Godel did was prove that any system *derived from axioms* has statements which are true and inherently unprovably so. I don't think what I said was an exaggeration.

[Anonymous No.3658415]

>>3658392
Oh! And Fermat's last theorem is decided, has been for a decade and a half -- in '95 Wiles proved it, and it's funny because it was not far after an episode of TNG in which Picard asserts that the 'theorem' was unproven 'til his day...

[Anonymous No.3658420]

>>3658338
I once wanted to study philosophy or economics but after doing some research and discovering I would spend most of my time learning how to pretend to agree with something I knew was wrong or pretend to care about things I know are meaningless I decided to go back to physics instead. Maybe it wouldn't have been useless though, maybe these skills and credentials would prove useful when battling it out with pseudo-intellectuals unless you intend to become a teacher, still, you won't be advancing history or journalism, politics or whatever, you will advance it a little then desperately try to get everyone else to see sense.

[Anonymous No.3658437]

>>3658420
Don't you think that's a little harsh considering a little advance is better than no advance at all?

Plus I'm having a good time.

It hard for me to imagine the kind or arguments you physicists have. Knowing human beings it's hard for me to imagine that you are never in the position of "learning to pretend to agree"

Don't get me wrong though, my own skeletal scientific training has taught me that physics is the only real science, anything else is just stamp collecting. History is half stamp collecting half art.

[Anonymous No.3658508]

>>3658437
No, it would actually take balls to take on the "establishment", I'm taking the easy way out lol. I suppose there are some niches in history or whatever history leads you to which are not politicized and which you are free to research without having to contend with butthurt ideologues offended by your work, also not everyone can be a physicist or the guy who brings reason back to humanities.

Back to the original point, how hard it is depends on how much effort you put in, so maybe it is just as hard if you set yourself the goal of finding out how to appease professors and direct your research into that area along with history, dialectic and writing skills. So I was wrong, I confused progress with difficulty.

[Anonymous No.3658515]

>Wait till last minute to write paper
>Panic
>Get my shit together the night of the day before
>Write paper 4 paper long paper despite being tired as shit
>Think everything is fine
>"HOLY SHIT I ACTUALLY PULLED IT OFF!"
>Go to sleep thinking i accomplished the impossible
>Hand it in next day
>Get 0
>Turns out i missed reading some of the instructions/misread them

[Anonymous No.3658560]

>>3658508
Ha Ha I can see that you are a true gentleman, couldn't agree more with your sentiments

btw
>the guy who brings reason back to humanities.

FUCK I'd like to meet that guy.

[Anonymous No.3658568]

>>3658415
I know it is - that is why I referred to it in the past tense. I understand that its troubling that we can have unprovably true statements. but you spoke as if this made the study of mathematics futile, which is absolutely untrue - provably so.

[Anonymous No.3658631]

>write paper.
>accused of plagiarism.
>get 0 obviously.
>seemeinmyofficetomorrowat11:15.exe

Yet I still passed the module.

Also, mfw I got my result.

[Anonymous No.3658637]

A paper in 2h?
I've been working on mine for two weeks now. I wish I was in an american college.

[Anonymous No.3658645]

>Write paper.
>It's concise and to the point. Gives clear and definite answers.
>Tutor: Not good enough, please rewrite
>Pad it out with useless waffling on
>Tutor: 10/10

[Anonymous No.3658681]

>Take English 101 for undergrad requirements.
>Teacher has a horribly thick accent and occasionally speaks in broken English.
>Marks down my paper for having appropriate commas. Adds inappropriate ones.
>Only other person in the class she liked was also a 3rd worlder who could barely speak the language.

No racism here. English courses are seriously bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3658683]

>>3658231
So? You've consented to the course work by making it your major. If math and science are so much easier in your eyes, why have you not considered assigning them as your major?

[Anonymous No.3658687]

>Learn History in my own free time Instead of spending thousands to study it
>Alfalfa as fuck

[Anonymous No.3658744]

>Write philosophy paper
>Get instructions entirely right
>Been thinking about this specific theme for years
>Take weeks carefully writing the most brilliant work i've ever done
>Tutor gives me a B+
>Take it to lecturer, discuss it with him for 2 hours, thoroughly refute any issue he had with the paper and argue my position flawlessly.
>Make him think new ideas, cause him to accept my view
>Says if i want a remark i have to ask the tutor
>Cant be fucked, i don't care about arbitrary grades anyway
>alpha as fuck

[Anonymous No.3659256]

>>3658322

Somebody didn't read enough norse mythology.

Does the name Vidar mean anything to you?
He's is one of the survivors of Ragnarok

Can't remember the other ones off of the top of my head, but there are survivors.

[Anonymous No.3659284]

>>3659256
Somebody missed the point entirely.

[Anonymous No.3659292]

>>3659284

And what point would that be?

[Anonymous No.3659298]

>>3659292
That the outcome is predetermined.

[tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc No.3659302]

>get rejected from music college
>go on to create the first viral work of music in history

[Anonymous No.3659882]

I have a BA in ancient hist and an MA in mechanical engineering. I can confidently say that your analysis is fail.