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

[nomadd]

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.

Partially agree.

As Santayana put it (and has been paraphrased ever since): Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

It always annoyed me at school that history was never rigorously questioned and debated - it was always taken as a sequence of events/dates that simply 'occurred' for no apparent reason. The 'lesson' was simply to remember those events and dates. The modern research/debate approach to teaching history - at least at Uni. level and beyond - is to be much admired.

But...

I think it would be difficult to argue (although I'm sure some would!) that humankind has formulated any alternative method of analytical thinking which has matched the rigor of the mathematical approach. No other language devised has the precision and clarity of mathematics. The very modern world we live in today is one, fundamentally, of mathematical underpinnings. Remove mathematics from human history, and we'd still be living at the level of the savage (a bit like a day in General, then. )

[d000hg]

My point is that the skills needed for mathematics are too insular to teach you how to think in a general sense, rather than how to analyse.

edit:
I mean exhibit #1 look at Sas. He claims to be some highly-educated maths bod but the only thing his education seems to have taught him is arrogant false belief that he's an intellectual heavyweight outside of maths.
Or if you follow Sas, exhibit #2 is me... I also have a decent degree in a 'proper' subject but Sas would say I don't have any thinking skills, countering his own crappy argument.

[nomadd]

My point is that the skills needed for mathematics are too insular to teach you how to think in a general sense, rather than how to analyse.

Well, I think we are in agreement that no one form of study will yield a balanced mind capable of rigorous rational debate.

EDIT: And I'm typing this whilst fending off an agent who for the tenth time has asked "But what would be your lowest rate..?" He doesn't seem to like the rational response of "Well, it all depends on the role and location..."

[d000hg]

Well, I think we are in agreement that no one form of study will yield a balanced mind capable of rigorous rational debate.

We are!

[BlasterBates]

One shouldn't overestimate maths, it's simply a way of quantifying. Almost all noteworthy inventions didn't require mathematics, it was mainly all done through trial and error, whether that was the induction motor, light bulb, steam engine or even jet the engine, good Frank Whittle did use some, but it was still pretty much trial and error. One of the key problems of the jet engine was getting the fuel to disperse uniformally, took a hell of a lot of failed attempts to figure it out, and the solution was very simple, use perforations.

There's a saying that an Engineer makes something for 5 pounds that anyone can make for 500, that's where the maths comes in but relies on a heck of a lot of experimentation on knowing the properties of materials, viscosity strength ..etc.

You see you can only mathematically model something when you know how it works, but if you only have a vague idea you just build something and see what happens. James Stevenson didn't have tables of figures for the strength of the iron he was using he just had to guess. Build blows up, try again...etc etc

I used to work on Control Systems, and that included doing a mathematical analysis to figure out all the values of the resistors capacitors etc, but when we got on site we were ripping them out and replacing, do another run, rip em out replace again. It was still trial and error.

[sasguru]

My point is that the skills needed for mathematics are too insular to teach you how to think in a general sense, rather than how to analyse.

edit:
I mean exhibit #1 look at Sas. He claims to be some highly-educated maths bod but the only thing his education seems to have taught him is arrogant false belief that he's an intellectual heavyweight outside of maths.
Or if you follow Sas, exhibit #2 is me... I also have a decent degree in a 'proper' subject but Sas would say I don't have any thinking skills, countering his own crappy argument.

Thanks for proving my point for me about your lack of thinking ability.

Exhibit 1: You've used some emotive words but haven't countered the argument that I'm far more intelligent than you, even "outside maths".

Exhibit 2: You have a decent (Desmond I guess) from a poly and you're thick as pigtulip. Thus proving my argument, not countering it.

Steel trap mind, you don't have. Woolly and mushy is more like it. Thus proving my point.
Jeez it's like talking to a child.

[sasguru]

One shouldn't overestimate maths, it's simply a way of quantifying. .

Incorrect. It's the language of nature in a very deep sense. You can do things by trial and error but you will have to use maths to explain all natural phenomena.

[Fishface]

How many languages can you fluently speak? fully conversant nothing less.

[sasguru]

How many languages can you fluently speak? fully conversant nothing less.

If you mean me, none other than English.
However my child's nanny speaks 4 languages fluently and she's thick as pigtulip.

[d000hg]

Exhibit 1: You've used some emotive words but haven't countered the argument that I'm far more intelligent than you, even "outside maths".

It's not about if you're more or less intelligent than me, or anyone else. Where did intelligence come into it, we were discussing thinking? (fail 1) It's that you've stated maths trains for rigorous thinking and yet nowhere on CUK is there evidence of your own talent... you make some assertion and then resort to insults the moment anyone challenges you. (fail 2)

Exhibit 2: You have a decent (Desmond I guess) from a poly and you're thick as pigtulip. Thus proving my argument, not countering it.

Even if that were true, one example of someone without a good degree not being good at thinking isn't proof. (fail 3)
But you've stated as fact something you have no knowledge about. What kind of great thinker would base an entire argument on an axiom that is a guess? (fail 4)

The only thing you've proved is that you're an arrogant idiot. However smart you may be, it's nowhere near as smart as you think and that leaves you fatally flawed.