The purpose (or lack thereof) of Algebra

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

You're using it right now. You're posting on an internet site.

True enough, yet it really does not bother me at all that I cannot explain exactly how it works. Certainly there are people like programmers, physicists, and chemists who need to learn such things. I'm just saying that if I were planning to be a concert pianist, there would be no logiical reason for me to learn calc or trig unless I just want to learn for the hell of it.

Music relies on mathematics. Sure, you don't need to delve deep into calculus, or algebra, but it's not farfetched to at least have basic notions of these.

[Forsher]

Musicians aren't part of the humanities. In some sense, though, we need artists as much as scientists etc. otherwise I think we'd go mad (looking for some rational reason for art's being).

Why would searching for the reason something exists make us mad?

Not what I meant to say, must fix grammar. Although, also, searching for stuff and not finding it is an excellent way to go mad. Spoiler for Agents of Shield:

Just look at all the alien blood people/Sky excluded who never found the design's meaning versus the one dude who did, albeit subconsciously.

What I meant was this: we are interested in art/created it to avoid becoming mad or, maybe, it's something we have to avoid madness. I mean, sometimes, I just really have to draw.

But philosophy was the mother of science.

We started wondering about why shit happens and we did shit to experiment shit and voila, we have explanation for shit.

In that case philosophy has more in common with science than art, and should probably be either grouped with science or at the very least not grouped under "the humanities".

Scientist - We. Must. Understand. The. Physical. World.

Scholar of the Humanities - We. Must. Understand. The. Human. World.

Merchant - We. Must.Make. Money. Understand. The. Material. World.

Ultimately, I think, it's very hard to be a scientist without some people understanding the other two. The same, essentially, works with respect to the others.

[Utceforp]

Why would searching for the reason something exists make us mad?

Not what I meant to say, must fix grammar. Although, also, searching for stuff and not finding it is an excellent way to go mad. Spoiler for Agents of Shield:

Just look at all the alien blood people/Sky excluded who never found the design's meaning versus the one dude who did, albeit subconsciously.

What I meant was this: we are interested in art/created it to avoid becoming mad or, maybe, it's something we have to avoid madness. I mean, sometimes, I just really have to draw.

In that case philosophy has more in common with science than art, and should probably be either grouped with science or at the very least not grouped under "the humanities".

Scientist - We. Must. Understand. The. Physical. World.

Scholar of the Humanities - We. Must. Understand. The. Human. World.

Merchant - We. Must.Make. Money. Understand. The. Material. World.

Ultimately, I think, it's very hard to be a scientist without some people understanding the other two. The same, essentially, works with respect to the others.

Psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists are all examples of scientists who try to understand "the human world", while economists are scientists who try to understand "the material world". A better version would be:

Scientist - We. Must. Understand.

[Immoren]

Not what I meant to say, must fix grammar. Although, also, searching for stuff and not finding it is an excellent way to go mad. Spoiler for Agents of Shield:

Just look at all the alien blood people/Sky excluded who never found the design's meaning versus the one dude who did, albeit subconsciously.

What I meant was this: we are interested in art/created it to avoid becoming mad or, maybe, it's something we have to avoid madness. I mean, sometimes, I just really have to draw.



Scientist - We. Must. Understand. The. Physical. World.

Scholar of the Humanities - We. Must. Understand. The. Human. World.

Merchant - We. Must.Make. Money. Understand. The. Material. World.

Ultimately, I think, it's very hard to be a scientist without some people understanding the other two. The same, essentially, works with respect to the others.

Psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists are all examples of scientists who try to understand "the human world", while economists are scientists who try to understand "the material world". A better version would be:

Scientist - We. Must. Understand.

Why not just say "philosopher" then?

[Utceforp]

Psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists are all examples of scientists who try to understand "the human world", while economists are scientists who try to understand "the material world". A better version would be:

Scientist - We. Must. Understand.

Why not just say "philosopher" then?

What do you mean?

[Chandelier]

Algebra is easy as fuck. And this is coming from someone who almost failed calculus.

Just wait until you have to study more difficult subjects later in high school.

What's easy for you is not easy for everyone. Algebra and Calculus were the only subjects that prevented me from having a 4.0 GPA in high school.

I agree that what's easy for one isn't easy for everyone- but that doesn't say anything about how valuable a subject is. My calculus courses were somehow easy A's for me, but in differential equations, I got 100% on the first test and got everything but then did poorly enough to get a C in the class because the rest of the material, I just couldn't get to click no matter how much I drilled it. That doesn't mean differential equations aren't valuable though- I've needed it since in physical chemistry and in grad level quantum chem.

More broadly- I do think there should be flexibility in high school math, but that seems to be the case already in some places. At my high school, certainly not everyone had to take calculus. Not everyone had to take pre-calculus or trig. The only requirements were to finish algebra 1 and 2 and geometry. There were options to split algebra 1 out over two years if you thought you would struggle with the material.

Programming wasn't an option at my high school and I wish it had been. Statistics was though, and I think that's more likely to be useful to a wider range of people than calculus, so if it isn't widespread it should be made so. I took both calculus and statistics my senior year, and it was great to have both options there.

[Forsher]

Not what I meant to say, must fix grammar. Although, also, searching for stuff and not finding it is an excellent way to go mad. Spoiler for Agents of Shield:

Just look at all the alien blood people/Sky excluded who never found the design's meaning versus the one dude who did, albeit subconsciously.

What I meant was this: we are interested in art/created it to avoid becoming mad or, maybe, it's something we have to avoid madness. I mean, sometimes, I just really have to draw.



Scientist - We. Must. Understand. The. Physical. World.

Scholar of the Humanities - We. Must. Understand. The. Human. World.

Merchant - We. Must.Make. Money. Understand. The. Material. World.

Ultimately, I think, it's very hard to be a scientist without some people understanding the other two. The same, essentially, works with respect to the others.

Psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists are all examples of scientists who try to understand "the human world", while economists are scientists who try to understand "the material world". A better version would be:

Scientist - We. Must. Understand.

No, economists are social scientists. That you are seeing overlap, should resolve your issues. Just not in ways that you find satisfactory.

That said, in its strictest sense, a psychologist tries to understand the physical human rather than the human. The anthropologist, how we get humans from a physical perspective. I'm not actually sure what sociologists do and I can't be bothered looking.

The thing with "we must understand" is that it encompasses the vast majority of human academic endeavour. An not necessarily academic endeavour either. Does a detective not seek to understand? Does an artist not seek meaning? Perhaps this is too limited in sense and maybe a scientist seeks to understand everything, but a scientist is, typically, not interested in, say, the meaning of Brave New World whereas they are interested in why people might be interested in it.

[Utceforp]

Psychologists, sociologists and anthropologists are all examples of scientists who try to understand "the human world", while economists are scientists who try to understand "the material world". A better version would be:

Scientist - We. Must. Understand.

1. No, economists are social scientists. That you are seeing overlap, should resolve your issues. Just not in ways that you find satisfactory.

2. That said, in its strictest sense, a psychologist tries to understand the physical human rather than the human. The anthropologist, how we get humans from a physical perspective. I'm not actually sure what sociologists do and I can't be bothered looking.

3. The thing with "we must understand" is that it encompasses the vast majority of human academic endeavour.

1. Yes, social scientists. Scientists. That's my point.

2. What? Psychologists study the human mind, and if that doesn't fit your definition of "non-physical human", I'm not sure what will. Anthropologists study cultures, languages and humanity's development, sociologists study how humans act in groups. All of them are focused on the mind.

3. And the best way to understand anything is through the scientific method.

[Atomic Utopia]

I think debate this is getting a bit off topic.

[Shiie]

Only STEM subjects should be taught in schools. Any other subjects create hipsters that cling to welfare. You have to work to eat.

[Utceforp]

Only STEM subjects should be taught in schools. Any other subjects create hipsters that cling to welfare. You have to work to eat.

What a hilariously awful idea.

[Shiie]

Only STEM subjects should be taught in schools. Any other subjects create hipsters that cling to welfare. You have to work to eat.

What a hilariously awful idea.

Ask the next humanities major you know how to measure a volt and you will see something really hilariously awful.

[Keyboard Warriors]

I think debate this is getting a bit off topic.

"Off-topic" is being too kind. This "debate", if you could call it that, is like two ten year olds on the playground arguing which band is the best.

[Idzequitch]

True enough, yet it really does not bother me at all that I cannot explain exactly how it works. Certainly there are people like programmers, physicists, and chemists who need to learn such things. I'm just saying that if I were planning to be a concert pianist, there would be no logiical reason for me to learn calc or trig unless I just want to learn for the hell of it.

Music relies on mathematics. Sure, you don't need to delve deep into calculus, or algebra, but it's not farfetched to at least have basic notions of these.

Which is why I said that high schoolers should learn algebra regardless of interests or future career. Algebra is basically the foundation on which other advanced mathematics are based, so it's an excellent idea to have a good understanding of it. I do not think it a bad idea for students to learn Calculus, I just do not support forcing it upon them. I was forced to take it, and do you know how much of it I remember? Absolutely none. The entire class was a waste of my time, and the teacher had to take the time to teach me things I would never remember. If you want to extend your understanding of math beyond algebra, good for you and I support your decision. Personally, I have no need for it, and I wish I could have opted out of it for something more useful to me personally.

[Idzequitch]

What a hilariously awful idea.

Ask the next humanities major you know how to measure a volt and you will see something really hilariously awful.

Not everyone needs to know how to measure voltage. People have different interests, and not all are gifted in the STEM subjects. What do you propose happens to those people, if STEM subjects and careers involving STEM subjects are the only option?

[Chandelier]

Music relies on mathematics. Sure, you don't need to delve deep into calculus, or algebra, but it's not farfetched to at least have basic notions of these.

Which is why I said that high schoolers should learn algebra regardless of interests or future career. Algebra is basically the foundation on which other advanced mathematics are based, so it's an excellent idea to have a good understanding of it. I do not think it a bad idea for students to learn Calculus, I just do not support forcing it upon them. I was forced to take it, and do you know how much of it I remember? Absolutely none. The entire class was a waste of my time, and the teacher had to take the time to teach me things I would never remember. If you want to extend your understanding of math beyond algebra, good for you and I support your decision. Personally, I have no need for it, and I wish I could have opted out of it for something more useful to me personally.

It's so weird to me that calculus was required at high school for you. It wouldn't have even been an option for most people at my school, just for those dubbed "gifted" in middle school and allowed to take algebra 1 in 8th grade. Do they typically start algebra in middle school for everyone where you are such that everyone can make it to calculus? (I'm from Florida, I suspect our school system may be behind that of other places...)

[Trevor Phillip Enterprises]

Only STEM subjects should be taught in schools. Any other subjects create hipsters that cling to welfare. You have to work to eat.

Its things like this that makes us STEM students/researchers/teachers/whatever seem like a bunch of elitist assholes who are jealous of not getting any...

[Shiie]

Ask the next humanities major you know how to measure a volt and you will see something really hilariously awful.

Not everyone needs to know how to measure voltage. People have different interests, and not all are gifted in the STEM subjects. What do you propose happens to those people, if STEM subjects and careers involving STEM subjects are the only option?

These people will do agricultural jobs and learn useful trades like plumbing and welding.

[Utceforp]

Not everyone needs to know how to measure voltage. People have different interests, and not all are gifted in the STEM subjects. What do you propose happens to those people, if STEM subjects and careers involving STEM subjects are the only option?

These people will do agricultural jobs and learn useful trades like plumbing and welding.

This is sounding suspiciously like anti-intellectualism.

[Senyosu]

These people will do agricultural jobs and learn useful trades like plumbing and welding.

This is sounding suspiciously like anti-intellectualism.

Maybe because it is.

[Idzequitch]

Not everyone needs to know how to measure voltage. People have different interests, and not all are gifted in the STEM subjects. What do you propose happens to those people, if STEM subjects and careers involving STEM subjects are the only option?

These people will do agricultural jobs and learn useful trades like plumbing and welding.

In other words, you don't fit my definition of intelligent, therefore, you are condemned to work low salary jobs for your entire life. Sounds very discriminatory.
Anyway, Back to algebra, as that's the true topic of the thread.

[Shiie]

These people will do agricultural jobs and learn useful trades like plumbing and welding.

In other words, you don't fit my definition of intelligent, therefore, you are condemned to work low salary jobs for your entire life. Sounds very discriminatory.
Anyway, Back to algebra, as that's the true topic of the thread.

Trades don't pay low and letting people be uneducated is more discriminatory than giving someone a job. People have to learn algebra.

[Neutraligon]

I've done a very low level of job taking apart someone's brain. It was interesting.

What was it for?

Functional Anatomy class

[Risottia]

Let's discuss Algebra and other complicated branches of mathematics. No need for a lengthy OP.

Should Algebra be taught in schools? Trigonometry? Calculus? Should those classes be optional only for those with an interest in such complex subjects? Should there be alternatives - i.e., like they have at my school - such as Computer Programming classes counting as mathematical credits?

My thoughts: Algebra is mostly pointless. I can't think of any 'useful' part of Algebra that can't be solved much quicker and easier by use of simple arithmetic. Why not let the kids decide concerning what they take in high school. If they ever have to have Algebra for a job or something, they can have it in college. But I hypothesize that most - 99% - will never use Algebra. My business teacher at school says this as well.

Excellent idea. Finally we will have a nice segregation in schools. The future unskilled masses on one side, who cannot learn to manage money, to build a house, to program a computer, to fly an airplane, and must do only what they're told by a small ruling class of mathematically able.
It will be a brave, new world.

[Disgruntled Mathematicians]

Music relies on mathematics. Sure, you don't need to delve deep into calculus, or algebra, but it's not farfetched to at least have basic notions of these.

If you want to do any sort of audio tech/processing (which a lot of musicians do on their own now), you damn well better understand calculus, especially Fourier analysis.