Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Whats the most important arts/humanities subject watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Same era as Einstein. But yeah irrelevant to "modern" science.

    He only died in 1970. Not *that* long ago... and inspired Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins who - checks - are still alive and "relevant".

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I agree, he is pretty irrelevant to science today. NB, what I actually said was that "science now is so complex that innovation is more likely to come from within the field than without". (Look up the words "now" and "likely" if you don't understand them.) SH and RD are both scientists by training btw (physics and zoology respectively), and RD is not particularly interesting anyway. I honestly don't understand what point you are trying to make. I do not think that the change, proliferation and diversification in science from 1950 to 2000 was brought about mainly by philosophers, nor will it be in the next 50 years. What a ridiculous notion, unless of course you subscribe to the idea that "every scientist is a philosopher".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Mathematics.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by llys)
    I agree, he is pretty irrelevant to science today. NB, what I actually said was that "science now is so complex that innovation is more likely to come from within the field than without". (Look up the words "now" and "likely" if you don't understand them.) SH and RD are both scientists by training btw (physics and zoology respectively), and RD is not particularly interesting anyway. I honestly don't understand what point you are trying to make. I do not think that the change, proliferation and diversification in science from 1950 to 2000 was brought about mainly by philosophers, nor will it be in the next 50 years. What a ridiculous notion, unless of course you subscribe to the idea that "every scientist is a philosopher".
    I'm not saying that a philosopher will (or will not) innovate in science "now", but that philosophy is part and parcel of current scientific endeavour. SH and RD both understand and communicate with a philosophical respect (and both were influenced by Russell). If you want another example (just because he's been on BBC4 this evening talking about nuclear power) Jim Al-Khalili has blog entry about determinism, philosophy and chaos theory. So, even if, for you, the role of philosophy is not overt, it's still very much relevant to science.

    BTW Russell was a mathematician, and philosopher.

    PS. You mentioned molecular biology...
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mo.../#MolBioGenSci
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    Rofl, good one.
    I don't really get the joke :s
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TianaEsther)
    I don't really get the joke :s
    That sucks.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Lol this is like asking whats the most important pokemon lol.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cremated_Spatula)
    That sucks.
    It really does. Have a good day.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    There certainly is a lot of ignorance amound scientists.

    What you describe is not desirable imo. It's what happens when we all get regimented into focused little drones only focusing on our little sphere of life. We are not encouraged to think.

    You also get this subject divide within physics... Theoretical and mathematical physicists will look down on experiential physicists, who look down on borderline engineers/scientists in industries and so on.

    Also people like me are only at university due to the industrial revolution and my only purpose is to be a technician/engineer in the cogs of industrial capitalism. Why teach machinery philosophy? As long as said machine can do the maths that's all that matters. I would argue that the political economy shapes university education for a loads of people. somethingbeautiful would probably agree with me




    I agree with you here.

    They should teach the philosophy behind science as part of people's science education imo.
    I'd like to think that people on vocational degrees or academic science degrees are learning more than just ''how to be a Chemist/Pharmacist/Physicist/Mathematician'' etc. University should have an element of learning for the sake of learning or enlightenment, not just learning as a means to an end. Otherwise, university just boils down to a cookie cutter system designed to churn out cardboard cut out graduates who function in their field and no where else beyond it.

    As, arguably, useless as a Philosophy degree is in terms of employment, the saving grace of it is that it gives you the tools and a sliver of light/enlightenment/clarity which allows you to actually think for yourself, question rules/authority/norms and see beyond the smoke and mirrors of society.

    The problem, though, is that you become very aware of things but due to the lack of economic leverage of such a degree, you also become a useless little cog in the big machine, so you're discarded onto the scrap heap. You can either be an enlightened useless cog or an unenlightened useful cog. There's a crossover in a rare few, but for the vast majority - that's the general rule.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    English Literature, Foreign Languages, or History.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by somethingbeautiful)
    I'd like to think that people on vocational degrees or academic science degrees are learning more than just ''how to be a Chemist/Pharmacist/Physicist/Mathematician'' etc. University should have an element of learning for the sake of learning or enlightenment, not just learning as a means to an end. Otherwise, university just boils down to a cookie cutter system designed to churn out cardboard cut out graduates who function in their field and no where else beyond it.

    As, arguably, useless as a Philosophy degree is in terms of employment, the saving grace of it is that it gives you the tools and a sliver of light/enlightenment/clarity which allows you to actually think for yourself, question rules/authority/norms and see beyond the smoke and mirrors of society.

    The problem, though, is that you become very aware of things but due to the lack of economic leverage of such a degree, you also become a useless little cog in the big machine, so you're discarded onto the scrap heap. You can either be an enlightened useless cog or an unenlightened useful cog. There's a crossover in a rare few, but for the vast majority - that's the general rule.
    So when we have an economic and social system in place that pushes a whole load of people from social economic backgrounds that make up the majority of society away from learning how to think....

    It makes it look like the changes being made are made by the sorts of people who can do philosophy degrees and know how to erect smoke and mirrors to keep the cogs from even realizing they are cogs, never mind doing anything about being cogs. Unenlightened cogs are more useful and easier to tell what to do.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So when we have an economic and social system in place that pushes a whole load of people from social economic backgrounds that make up the majority of society away from learning how to think....

    It makes it look like the changes being made are made by the sorts of people who can do philosophy degrees and know how to erect smoke and mirrors to keep the cogs from even realizing they are cogs, never mind doing anything about being cogs. Unenlightened cogs are more useful and easier to tell what to do.
    In the short term yes, but not in the long term for the sake of society. Unfortunately our political system is very over-concerned with short term goals though... because most governments are not going to be rewarded with more votes to stay in power for aiding folks 200 years down the line... I think it's a problem of democracy but alas I am not sure how to go about solving it.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.