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

[sasguru]

Couldn't resist one more then? Your wife will be home soon expecting the hoovering done, better get to it.

We have a cleaner.
I think you should ponder on the fact that I've worked out you're a poly boy solely by the quality of your posts.

HTH.

[d000hg]

It certainly does demonstrate your analytic thinking skills.

[Cenobite]

Anyone who could think clearly would be able to see the answer to this question.

Find someone who has completed both a History and a maths degree, and ask THEM which helps to think more rigorously, and was it the training that helped.

I started a history degree but eventually dropped out: all through school I felt like I was doing a clever trick in that I would just take one sentence from one book, one from another and make it look like I'd come up with it myself by changing a few words here and there. Even when I did create something original I ended up trying to sound like one of my favourite textbooks. This probably isn't the best approach to historical study but I'm sure all of my peers were doing the same. I dropped out pretty early (before any assignments were due) because I simply felt like a fake.

Normally I recount this story when people say it must have been rubbish going from a creative subject (history) to a non-creative subject (computing). However, this was simply not the case and I put much more of myself in my computer code. These days when I hear 'Creative', I think 'Plagiarist'.

After that I did a bachelors and masters in computer science and it beat the history degree hands down. Also my peers were much brighter.

[nomadd]

After that I did a bachelors and masters in computer science and it beat the history degree hands down. Also my peers were much brighter.

...until I joined CUK.

[doodab]

Another potentially interesting thread disintegrates.

Sas, you seem to be saying that studying a mathematical subject is necessary in order to be able to think straight, while simultaneously seeking to demonstrate that it's not sufficient. Why don't you demonstrate your marvelous powers of reason by fleshing out your argument rather than showing yourself up?

[TestMangler]

Another potentially interesting thread disintegrates.

Sas, you seem to be saying that studying a mathematical subject is necessary in order to be able to think straight, while simultaneously seeking to demonstrate that it's not sufficient. Why don't you demonstrate your marvelous powers of reason by fleshing out your argument rather than showing yourself up?

I'm willing to bet that any SAS retort to that post will contain 'Cretin' and 'HTH' and if he really doesn't have even a weak counter, he'll throw in 'BIDI' for good measure. HTH.

[sasguru]

Another potentially interesting thread disintegrates.

Sas, you seem to be saying that studying a mathematical subject is necessary in order to be able to think straight, while simultaneously seeking to demonstrate that it's not sufficient.

If you read my original post I said a rigorous degree from a good university. Maths is just one rigorous subject. As it is I have a BSc in Engineering and an MSc in Statistics.
I'm studying Maths now for fun. Of course having gone through the rigour successfully means you probably have above average logico-analytical skills, but that's not sufficient for true intelligence.
I would say my true metier is knowing people - that's why I was quite senior and why I can tell the fools on this forum straightaway. HTH

[doodab]

If you read my original post I said a rigorous degree from a good university. Maths is just one rigorous subject. As it is I have a BSc in Engineering and an MSc in Statistics.

But physics and computer science both make extensive use of mathematics.

I think it's more likely that one needs to be able to think straight to study a rigorous subject at a good university.

[stek]

If you read my original post I said a rigorous degree from a good university. Maths is just one rigorous subject. As it is I have a BSc in Engineering and an MSc in Statistics.
I'm studying Maths now for fun. Of course having gone through the rigour successfully means you probably have above average logico-analytical skills, but that's not sufficient for true intelligence.
I would say my true metier is knowing people - that's why I was quite senior and why I can tell the fools on this forum straightaway. HTH

Is that why you never answered my question?

[fckvwls]

If you read my original post I said a rigorous degree from a good university. Maths is just one rigorous subject. As it is I have a BSc in Engineering and an MSc in Statistics.
I'm studying Maths now for fun. Of course having gone through the rigour successfully means you probably have above average logico-analytical skills, but that's not sufficient for true intelligence.
I would say my true metier is knowing people - that's why I was quite senior and why I can tell the fools on this forum straightaway. HTH

HTH