From: clin@eng.umd.edu (Charles Lin)
Subject: Re: Any Humanities Grads out there?
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 21:54:43 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park
Originator: clin@coke.eng.umd.edu


In article <1992Apr15.155907.6683@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, callahan@biffvm.cs.jhu.edu (Paul Callahan) writes:
>ac05@sol.acs.unt.edu (Bhattacharya Sumangala) writes:
>
>>While I agree with you that much of scientific reasoning can be non-intuitive,
>>this does not necessarily make it more taxing for the intellect.  My point
>>was not to establish which is, in some sense, "superior"; rather, I hoped
>>that both can and should be regarded equally.  This, however, is not the case.
>>Since many of the posts agree that more and more humanities specialists are
>>using technology in their fields, I must ask again why scientists & engineers
>>feel that they must downplay the importance of humanities?
>
>I agree with this sentiment.  One might say that the type of reasoning
>needed for the humanities runs with the grain of how humans have naturally 
>evolved to think, whereas mathematics runs against the grain.  However, viewed
>from a purely objective level, it is clearly easier, for example, to integrate
>x e^x dx and rigorously define the significance of such an operation, than
>it is even to construct a mapping between the written symbols in a text
>of _Hamlet_ and the intuitive notion of a story about a Danish prince. 
>To evaluate its literary significance at any level is a whole order of
>complexity greater. 
>

   Yes, but it's easy to get some opinion quickly.  A good opinion
takes much longer.  As they say, "Othello - a minute to learn,
a lifetime to master".  The game, that is.  Not the Shakespearean play.
Could apply to both though.

>People also seem to be confusing the steepness of the initial learning curve
>with the overall difficulty of an area.  A person who has only learned 
>to read English is obviously better equipped to read Shakespeare than to read
>an English translation of Euclid's Elements.  However, once one has *acquired*
>the *language* of *mathematics*, it is clear that Euclid's intent is explicitly
>contained in the work, and subject to ready interpretation.  Once one has
>followed Euclid's proofs at the level of denotation, it would not be too
>outrageous to claim a complete understanding of the work. I have yet to
>hear anyone claim a complete understanding of Shakespeare.  On the other
>hand, I imagine there are more people who claim that Euclid's proofs make
>no sense to them at all than claim likewise for Shakespeare.
>

   In some ways that's true, in some ways that's not true.   Once you
learn what Euclid wrote, you might understand the reasoning of the
proofs and have a good understanding of it, but one might not be
aware of all the implications that Euclid's proofs imply.  One
could also say that one is aware of all the plot details of
Shakespeare, and yet not be able to say what this all means.

   I will agree to some extent that once you know Euclid's proofs
there may be no more from exactly those proofs, but the typical
mathematician will go to another problem, and another problem.
Once something is "solved", there's always something more, and one
again has to try to sit and be clever enough to figure it out.
This isn't done and isn't expected to be done with Shakespeare.

   People seem to be confusing the kinds of understanding math and
English require and saying that understanding some concept in math
is equivalent in difficulty to understanding some concept in English. 
Since literary meanings have no definitive answer, it is a moot point
to say that one should try to talk about understanding Shakespeare
in the same way one talks about understanding math.

    In a sentence, the kinds of learning in math and English are
different.  Let me put it this way.  There have been mathematical
geniuses in the past.  People whose math skills are so impressive
that it's difficult to deny.  Yet, it's hard to say the same thing
about Shakespearean scholars.  At what point do you say scholar X
knows a lot more than scholar Y in terms of understanding Shakespeare.
Just as it is difficult to make that comparison, it is also difficult
to compare learning in science and liberal arts.

--
   ______    __    __   ___  ____
  / ____ \  |  |  |__| |   \ |  |    Charles Lin
 | /    \_| |  |   __  |    \|  |    e-mail: clin@eng.umd.edu
 | |        |  |  |  | |  |\    |   
 | |     _  |  |  |__| |__| \___|    University of Maryland
 | \____/ | |  |____                 "I hate big sigs." -- Moo
  \______/  \_______|


Newsgroups: soc.college.grad