Can one really think straight if one hasn't undergone rigorous training ....

[nomadd]

Maths certainly doesn't teach you how to debate or argue.

Well, that's debatable (no pun intended.) Many an argument can be put to bed by a mathematical proof (although admittedly not many of the arguments that take place in General! )

Mathematics can teach you to think, however, and that is the subject of this thread.

I honestly think it's fair to say that mathematical thinking has led to some of the most astonishing discoveries and concepts in human history. From Newton's Principia to Dirac's prediction of anti-matter (an idea so radical at the time that although Dirac described his math as "beautiful", he withheld publication due to "pure cowardice.") And there are countless other examples that could be added to this list (Higgs, CBMR, Cosmic Inflation, etc., etc.)

Whether a knowledge of mathematics strengthens all peoples ability to think and debate is, however, unlikely - as you quite rightly highlight.

[doodab]

I think you need a well rounded appreciation of the history of ideas as it pertains to reasoning. Some maths is certainly beneficial, both in terms of using maths to reason about things and understanding mathematical proof and it's limitations. The latter has an overlap with philosophy, which is also worth studying. A lot of computer science *is* maths IMO, that's certainly how it started out. It's a lovely melting pot of ideas with a lot more to it than that though isn't it.

You shouldn't be learning to think on your degree course though, it's something that's best instilled from an early age.

[doodab]

Maths certainly doesn't teach you how to debate or argue.

That's not quite the same thing as thinking though.

May I suggest Schopenhauer's "The Art of Always Being Right" if you haven't read it.

[sasguru]

Maths certainly doesn't teach you how to debate or argue. Which is probably why when someone puts up an argument, you have to resort to petty insult.

My degree was in a 'serious subject' as you put it. You spend X years learning stuff other people already know. As compared to History, where you have to come to your own conclusions and be able to defend them.

HTH.


cue an all-too-predictable jibe about how I have imaginary friends and am therefore an idiot, rather than an attempt to enter reasonable discorse

Discourse.
I feel sorry for you. Apart from not being very bright you also have the obvious disadvantage of a Labour Educashun. This is obvious because you don't understand what Maths is. Some scientists say maths is the language of God, although they're not being literal. Had you been more intelligent I would have thought this might interest you.
HTH, BIKIW.

[d000hg]

Well, that's debatable (no pun intended.) Many an argument can be put to bed by a mathematical proof (although admittedly not many of the arguments that take place in General! )

Mathematics can teach you to think, however, and that is the subject of this thread.

I honestly think it's fair to say that mathematical thinking has led to some of the most astonishing discoveries and concepts in human history. From Newton's Principia to Dirac's prediction of anti-matter (an idea so radical at the time that although Dirac described his math as "beautiful", he withheld publication due to "pure cowardice.") And there are countless other examples that could be added to this list (Higgs, CBMR, Cosmic Inflation, etc., etc.)

Whether a knowledge of mathematics strengthens all peoples ability to think and debate is, however, unlikely - as you quite rightly highlight.

I'm not saying studying Maths or similar won't teach you good rigorous practices but I AM saying it's not any better at it than many other areas of study.

SG's assertion that History is a weaker subject than Maths is clearly just plain idiotic; that is my main point. History requires you to formulate your own ideas and put them together in a cohesive argument.

[sasguru]

I'm not saying studying Maths or similar won't teach you good rigorous practices but I AM saying it's not any better at it than many other areas of study.

SG's assertion that History is a weaker subject than Maths is clearly just plain idiotic; that is my main point. History requires you to formulate your own ideas and put them together in a cohesive argument.

You haven't a fooking clue.
HTH, BIKIW.

[d000hg]

Discourse.
I feel sorry for you. Apart from not being very bright you also have the obvious disadvantage of a Labour Educashun. This is obvious because you don't understand what Maths is. Some scientists say maths is the language of God, although they're not being literal. Had you been more intelligent I would have thought this might interest you.
HTH, BIKIW.

Yawn. My school education was under the Tories until 6th form, my degree was in Maths/Physics.

And as predicted, you still refuse to counter my original argument because despite claiming to be trained at thinking, you take the intellectually weakest path of resorting to personal insult.

[sasguru]

Yawn. My school education was under the Tories until 6th form, my degree was in Maths/Physics.

.

Which ex-poly did you attend?
It's clear from the level of your posts that you didn't attend a top-drawer establishment.
That's not an insult just a statement of fact.

[d000hg]

You haven't a fooking clue.
HTH, BIKIW.

Are you sure you're some sort of manager, because you really come across like a stereotypical Linux code-monkey who confuses maths skills with being clever?

Your close-minded arrogance and inability to defend your own assertions utterly refutes your argument that maths is the best subject to learn how to think.

[sasguru]

Are you sure you're some sort of manager, because you really come across like a stereotypical Linux code-monkey who confuses maths skills with being clever?

Your close-minded arrogance and inability to defend your own assertions utterly refutes your argument that maths is the best subject to learn how to think.

So, which ex-poly?