<p>EngineerHead, that is a funny statement to make. My thoughts mirror yours exactly, but I can’t help but feel that you’re really not understanding what I’m saying and perhaps you’re just not reading my posts completely. Go ahead and nitpick, because at the moment you aren’t really replying to any of my arguments. You keep repeating the same thing and you expect people to go along with it and understand.</p>
<p>Of course, I feel like I understand my own point and that it’s correct, and so do a few others apparently. But if you’re not even going to try and go in depth and reply to my arguments with your own, then what hope do you have of enlightening me? Who knows, maybe I’m wrong, but if I am, I’d like to know why. Maybe restating your original claims will help.</p>
Actually, after just two sentences, you’ve shown that you are the clueless one. This thread was never explicitly limited to undergraduate studies and the context of this discussion definitely is not restrictive to it either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You failed to grasp my point earlier: the is a HUGE difference between learning a scientific concept to apply it to solve a problem and just reading texts in order to repeat that information on essays/multiple-choice/finals. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you don’t need this explained. </p>
<p>
To play your game, “many of these connections have already been made by historians, so nobody is re-inventing the wheel”. Furthermore, these connections are explained to students and are memorized. Furthermore, if students are left to find the connections on their own, well good for them, they did something else aside from memorization. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Too much subjectivity, and finding patterns and meaning is done in engineering as well, except much more rigorously.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a laughable statement. Keep believing that scientists are “highly trained automatons”. They are leading the world’s progress, solving the worlds problems and making the world a better place while others bloviate about Oedipus complexes.</p>
<p>and p.s don’t get me started on those business majors you referred to. Many produce nothing of value and take credit for the work of engineers and scientists. They derive their value from the use of a market economy and the complexity of currency exchange- but that’s another thread altogether. Sure many business people have vision and drive, but scientists produce the goods and results. Business people then say oooh I “managed” it, or I “funded” it.</p>
<p>Lol but seriously, architects, math majors, and physicists are really smart. These guys aren’t necessarily choosing a career for the money either.</p>
<p>Has anyone made a poll yet? I would but I’m not interested enough.</p>
<p>I respect people who feed the hens. Sweet :))))
I think art people are the one who don’t give a damn about money.
They can be as poor as they want, and with worn pants and sneakers (I saw one last week on my way to school). LOL</p>
<p>Undergrad is supposed to teach students HOW to think. The process itself, regardless of whatvit is they’re learning. English majors have a different thought process than engineers.</p>
<p>“Undergrad is supposed to teach students HOW to think.”</p>
<p>Then it fails in 90% of cases. It’s not important what the stated intention is, what matters is the result. And most people go through college without learning how to think. The ones who are the worst are the ones who go on and on about “critical thinking,” because they apply it the least.</p>
<p>^^ Ultimately I agree. Although I ranted a bit (above) against business/LA majors I still respect the subjects and believe they are necessary. As Enginox mentioned, there is an inter-relationship between all fields that is important to be aware of.</p>
<p>I don’t know, I’m only a sophomore and I think my math, economics, and english classes have really changed the way I think, perceive, and communicate for the better.</p>
<p>Again I will say that you are running on a straw man argument, largely because of your lack of thorough reading. I just got back from a 4th of July party (happy 4th of July to everyone) and I’m really tired, but I’ll be sure to sift back through my old posts and copy & paste excerpts from my posts to clear up your misconceptions when I wake up.</p>
<p>Before beginning, I want to say that any use of “you” applies to anyone who, in its context, “you” may be applied to - even if I quote someone and it seems I am directing the you towards only him.</p>
<p>
I completely comprehend what you are trying to say. I am reading your posts thoroughly, I won’t question whether you are as well, but there is a spill of misconceptions about what I’m saying. Here is a summary of what I’ve been saying:
To summarize: In the broadest sense, physics can be seen as the most fundamental of the natural science, but once again, this is not the whole truth. Chemistry, for example, focuses on the interaction of energy and matter in chemical systems – this is not the study of physics; does physics underlie it? Yes, because chemistry is a complex application of physics, but it is not physics and physics alone cannot describe things such as biochemical pathways (and it doesn’t). We also know that biology is, at its heart, an application of chemical properties in living things, which means that it is also ultimately ruled by physical laws, but is it the study of physics? No, for physics alone cannot explain biology, and to branch upwards in this increasing complexity, chemistry alone cannot explain biology either.</p>
<p>
That’s because I find it burdensome & hectic to have to correct misconceptions about what I have said - in fact I almost decided to ignore this thread altogether. Counter-posts against mine have run awry from what I have said and have skewed my words.
Again, you’re focusing on the how, not the why. How does thought occur, based on electrical impulses in the brain. Why did it occur and why did you think what you thought?
Of course, this would only make sense. However, all of what we will know will not derive only from physics. Advances in MANY fields do so without the work of physics. Again, physics studies the fundamental laws that govern physical interactions. This doesn’t mean it studies all of nature. Physics can explain the underlying interactions of other areas of study, but it alone does not facilitate progress in these fields (nor does it facilitate progress together, for many).
This is not the study of physics. 2) This is, yet, STILL the how.
I don’t see what your point is here. What takes place in the brain DOES occur at a physical level.
Inmotion12, I question your authority to join in based on your uncertainty. Sure, one can be uncertain yet still qualified to express opinions, but in your case, you are uncertain as to what you even believe.
This statement just makes me less inclined to want to hear your opinion. It’s pure philosophy? What in the world are you talking about.
Most certainly. Who the heck said this? - please point me to him so I can hammer him as well.
It is both? They go hand in hand. A theory is generally not accepted until it is supported mathematically.
If you lack confidence to continue, then why do you continue?</p>
<hr>
<p>
I will say first, just to start this off, to please not argue this just to argue unless you truly, rationally disagree. Anyone, I mean anyone, who has done physics, chemistry, and engineering problems KNOW that the approach towards tackling these problems are on a whole different realm of approach than that towards finance- or business-related problems - and they have a much distinguished emphasis towards original thought than other problems. They are no longer your 1, 2, even 3 step problems. They require an approach that truly does involve original thought – though this thought is more precisely defined as an application of given laws/equations. It’s noteworthy to mention that this “application” within problems in the physics/engineering world is far more complex than just algebra (insert other field here). Algebra, you learn a problem and every problem is exactly like it. Physics, you do not learn the problems because no two problems are the same, even from the same chapter. Rather, you learn the concepts and theories which you must apply very comprehensively & complexly, the application of which is different for different problems, and therefore your approach to every problem is fresh & original. Physics is very problem-solving-based, whereas in other fields, the application is more of a plug & chug. Therefore, in conclusion, the original thought occurs in the actual solving of problems (and we all know that in physics, problem solving is the key to learning, therefore original thought is required). Secondly, I say again that graduate degrees require you to maintain your own, self-proposed research project (well not always for MS, but you get the point – as well, for MS you still have to maintain a research project anyway; just because it’s not your own self-proposed project doesn’t mean you’re not taking part in original thought because in order to advance in this project you must perform original thinking).
Straw man. Well, either straw man or you have an addiction with cheating.</p>
<p>I respect all of you, and I really have no place to “take a side” in this debate lol since I am a sophomore, and I am in a low-name college (pretty big in the past, especially our physics department, which had produced three Nobel Prize Physicists, and they were in our undergraduate program).</p>
<p>There are two tracks of engineering:
do whatever you are suppose to do
make invention, make big bucks if you wish</p>
<p>Most people are #1, and they are people who get paid for whatever they do. As long as it makes sense, and they do well.
The giant companies that hire the giant engineers are people who process their thoughts and hey, they make big bucks for their companies. They can eventually have their business if they want.</p>
<p>I just think that undergraduates are suppose to let student to develop their interests, rather than making the big bucks. Only a few gifted minds are able to come up with great ideas. Very few. </p>
<p>For physics, I should say that all physics professors would have to agree that they care about the process rather than the answer. Very often, there are multiple approaches to solve one problem. Students who major in physics are suppose to have this ability. But more or less, we don’t care about “process” anymore. We just want to get the right answer. My professor said if your work were right, even if a small computation error, or you stuck at the end’s computation, you deserve to score 80% of that problem. </p>
<p>What is really important is to develop solid concepts, so that no matter how the problem is worded, and how the situation works, it is always possible to reach a good approximation.</p>
<p>are you claiming that systems studied in biology & chemistry will never be reducible to complicated physics problems? how do you know this? this was what i was wondering about in my previous post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i guess we disagree here in that i don’t call ‘applying a principle you learned in class or in a textbook in a slightly different way’ original thought.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>i dont cheat. i’m sorry that my experience isn’t consistent with your opinions : /</p>
<p>That’s why we call them starving artists jwxie.</p>
<p>Against my better judgement I will take part in the debate. I believe that everything in chemistry can be reduced to complex physics. However I don’t like how physicists these days are always talking about how their study is the most pure, and everything in the universe is based on their study as if there were no use for other studies. At current, it is significantly easier to describe how photosynthesis occurs using chemistry than with physics.</p>
<p>Jeesh… do you really not understand? We create these ‘fields’ for our own convenience. You even admitted that physics underlies all of the sciences. The why’s come from other sciences… as opposed to physics, which is the foundation of ALL the sciences? That is completely nonsensical. If this really is your argument, that not everything can be explained by physics but by other sciences as well, then I am sorry to even have entered this debate. I hope this isn’t the case, because I would have to say that you need to figure out how to convey your ideas better.</p>
<p>For the record, I was the one who said ‘some things aren’t part of nature’. I did provide an explanation for that in one of my posts, but seemingly you’ve just ignored all of my posts (knowing that, I’m not sure why I even care to argue with you anymore, since you can’t even take the time to read my argument before offering up a reply and that is probably why the things you are saying don’t make sense). I said that if you have certain philosophical views, then your ‘soul’ (consciousness, mind, whatever) is not part of the universe and thus not part of nature. I mentioned that I believe it was Descartes who introduced that idea.</p>
<p>I challenge you to find me a problem where I absolutely cannot figure some way in which I could solve it using physics. Every problem you’ve introduced, claiming it can’t be solved by physics, I’ve shown you how it can. At the moment, even though I asked you to reply to one of my posts, you didn’t (even though you said you would). If you can’t even do that… how can you tell someone else off for joining in the debate? You haven’t even explained why I’m wrong in my explanations for physics explaining these phenomena you claim can’t be solved by physics.</p>
<p>You’re saying that physics says how things happen in nature/universe in a technical sense… but what other ‘sense’ is there? The only alternatives to physics and mathematics is other sciences, and you already know my view towards that as it was in my first paragraph. So, find a problem unsolvable by physics, and find me an alternative to physics/mathematics. If you can do these two, then I will have no choice but to reconsider my thoughts (which is the greatest reward to winning a debate, right?).</p>
<p>We must be arguing different points. I hope this clears up everything well, regarding anything I have or haven’t answered in your other post (wasn’t sure what you were pointing at) as well as regarding any misconceptions. Hopefully this will sum it up.</p>
<p>Once again, once again, I will say that physics is the study of the **fundamental<a href=“fundamental,%20fundamental,%20fundamental”>/b</a> laws that govern the interaction of matter & energy. Our debate has been veered off course as such: we began with a comment saying that physics is the study of nature, which I countered saying that more specifically, physics is not so much the study of “nature” but rather the study of “natural phenomenon.” From the start, I already knew that because physics is the most fundamental, then therefore it must encompass all, and I was very careful in making sure I didn’t say the opposite (see below). As can be seen, the debate regards what physics is the study of, not what it can encompass if you want to go apes with it (physics). Here is the truth: the study of physics ONLY attempts to describe interactions with the most fundamental and general law or principle as possible, only - the field of physics does not attempt to study all of nature, and therefore “nature” is too broad & general a terminology. Something we all agree on and has been hammered in this thread: nature is exceedingly complex. Physics aims to understand only the underlying simplicity of physical laws. The scope of the debate is focused on exactly what physics is the study of, and this is what it is the study of – the fundamental laws & principles that rule our universe. </p>
<p>However, if I did want to say the opposite, I think I could as long as I could find one single exception. Reasoning, character, instinct, temperament, (specific) urges, morality, etc. are all a part of nature by definition. These are things that cannot be explained by physics. For the economic-heads out there: individual (marginal) utility, as well as its accompanying diminishment with increased consumption, cannot be explained by physics – though it is the principle of economics.</p>