At least Einstein knew how to have some funYou would think that self-proclaimed academics would have some understanding of academia outside of their own discipline. A few days ago in one of my English classes (the name of the class isn't important... they're all pretty much the same shit), the professor made the following declaration:
"I think that being a Presbyterian minister and a physicist are exactly the same thing."
This is a woman that would classify as "very intelligent," and yet I can't believe she said this with a straight face. Note that she said "exactly" the same thing. At first I thought, Maybe she's being metaphorical. English people do that. Physicists and ministers both seek the truth or something like that. But no, she meant it literally. She went on to say that ministers accept their studies on faith, and physicists must accept their untested theories on faith.
Bullshit.
Physicists accept their theories based on measurable evidence. If a scientist throws a rock a force of 1N that travels 5 feet, then throws a rock with a force of 2N that travels 10 feet, then throws a rock with a force of 3N that goes 15 feet, said scientist can logically conclude that throwing the rock with a force of 4N would result in it going 20 feet even without throwing the rock. It's a theory, but it's based in fact. The minister would probably say that the rock would travel according to God's will. (The Devil's will logically making it go 666 feet)
Same thing goes for the complicated stuff. The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics postulates that all paradoxes can be resolved if all possible outcomes that can happen, will happen in another universe. A scientist wasn't watching too much Star Trek or Sliders one day and decided, "Fuck it! I'm putting this shit in a textbook! Bearded Spock could be out there somewhere!" These theories are based on logical extrapolations of existing data.
Such is not the case with religion. Say what you want about it, but religion is not scientific. Scientists WANT to be able to prove or disprove their theories. Religion does not do this. If religion could be proven, it wouldn't be called "faith."
This kind of faulty science gets thrown around in English classes a lot. In the same class, the professor argued that the existence of a massive particle accellerator in England (a device she tried to describe but could not name) demonstrated that physics was just as hard to prove as religion. I'm thinking that if some rabbis and priests had a theory that could prove God's existence with a particle accelerator, they probably could have gotten some funding for that by now.
Another fun one for English folk is math. A woman (who shall remain nameless but may share the first name of the First Lady and the last name of a New England Patriots quarterback) tried to tell us at a meeting that all students could love writing if we give them a chance. Yet if you ask any English student or professor what they think about math, you'll invariably hear, "Oh I hate math. I'm so glad I don't have to do it anymore. I can't even calculate a tip." And they're not kidding. English people don't have a clue when it comes to numbers. I told a faculty member once that I took Calculus II, and she looked at me like I was the reincarnation of Pythagoras. Ever see some English majors try to calculate a tip? They have an easier time deconstructing the Marxist and Nietzchean philosophies behind the tipping tradition.
THE UNDESIRABLE PROCLAMATION: If English students and professors don't give a shit about math, we shouldn't care if math and science students don't care about English.
Scientists and Engineers: laughing all the way to the bank since before time began (which they can probably calculate)
"I think that being a Presbyterian minister and a physicist are exactly the same thing."
This is a woman that would classify as "very intelligent," and yet I can't believe she said this with a straight face. Note that she said "exactly" the same thing. At first I thought, Maybe she's being metaphorical. English people do that. Physicists and ministers both seek the truth or something like that. But no, she meant it literally. She went on to say that ministers accept their studies on faith, and physicists must accept their untested theories on faith.
Bullshit.
Physicists accept their theories based on measurable evidence. If a scientist throws a rock a force of 1N that travels 5 feet, then throws a rock with a force of 2N that travels 10 feet, then throws a rock with a force of 3N that goes 15 feet, said scientist can logically conclude that throwing the rock with a force of 4N would result in it going 20 feet even without throwing the rock. It's a theory, but it's based in fact. The minister would probably say that the rock would travel according to God's will. (The Devil's will logically making it go 666 feet)
Same thing goes for the complicated stuff. The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics postulates that all paradoxes can be resolved if all possible outcomes that can happen, will happen in another universe. A scientist wasn't watching too much Star Trek or Sliders one day and decided, "Fuck it! I'm putting this shit in a textbook! Bearded Spock could be out there somewhere!" These theories are based on logical extrapolations of existing data.
Such is not the case with religion. Say what you want about it, but religion is not scientific. Scientists WANT to be able to prove or disprove their theories. Religion does not do this. If religion could be proven, it wouldn't be called "faith."
This kind of faulty science gets thrown around in English classes a lot. In the same class, the professor argued that the existence of a massive particle accellerator in England (a device she tried to describe but could not name) demonstrated that physics was just as hard to prove as religion. I'm thinking that if some rabbis and priests had a theory that could prove God's existence with a particle accelerator, they probably could have gotten some funding for that by now.
Another fun one for English folk is math. A woman (who shall remain nameless but may share the first name of the First Lady and the last name of a New England Patriots quarterback) tried to tell us at a meeting that all students could love writing if we give them a chance. Yet if you ask any English student or professor what they think about math, you'll invariably hear, "Oh I hate math. I'm so glad I don't have to do it anymore. I can't even calculate a tip." And they're not kidding. English people don't have a clue when it comes to numbers. I told a faculty member once that I took Calculus II, and she looked at me like I was the reincarnation of Pythagoras. Ever see some English majors try to calculate a tip? They have an easier time deconstructing the Marxist and Nietzchean philosophies behind the tipping tradition.
THE UNDESIRABLE PROCLAMATION: If English students and professors don't give a shit about math, we shouldn't care if math and science students don't care about English.
Scientists and Engineers: laughing all the way to the bank since before time began (which they can probably calculate)
6 comments:
Fucking Hilarious.
When I was coming out of undergrad, my advisor told me in a voice that can only be described as that cartoon cat Snagglepuss, "Tell 'em you have an Economics degree. Draw 'em a chart. They'll be blown away, even!"
:D
Too bad it doesn't work in reverse. Engineers and other math-oriented people are unimpressed with a class in advanced literary theory.
And with good reason.
"If English students and professors don't give a shit about math, we shouldn't care if math and science students don't care about English."
I whole-heartedly agree with this statement.
By the way...
***Warning Scientific Content That Most Will Never Use Ahead***
Scientists have calculated the age of the universe to be around 13.7 billion years. (Starting from the Big Bang, and assuming the Big Band is correct)
End of scientific content
"assuming the big band is correct"
-- maybe you do need a few English classes. I don't think Benny Goodman knows much about theoretical physics.
Other than that, you have once again proven that you will be making more money than me.
I like stuff
OK, the first installment of "anti-poetry" is up. I toss the ball to you...
Post a Comment