So Sirnoobalot and I had this conversation(more like an ongoing debate, actually) about whether or not history/archaeology/paleontology is useful. I'm posting this here because it's a more fitting forum than posting it alongside RPG replies. In addition, I would like to see what some other people think of it. I'll just post our prior communications on here as well, so you can sort of see what kind of stuff I'm talking about.
I mean...I get that knowing about the past is nice and all, "if you don't learn from the past you'll repeat it" yada yada yada but if we've already got assault rifles who cares if our ancestors used stone spears and we found a bunch of them(just an example)? I just feel like history is such a waste! What could we accomplish if intelligent, dedicated people like Gertrude Bell, Sir Arthur Evans, Hiram Bingham, etc. had set their minds to the field of math or of science instead of history!?
Let me clarify my previous statement: I respect their intelligence, but not their accomplishments. It's like this:
Say nobody knew who first discovered penicillin, and there are two medical students. One of them decides he's gonna go into the HISTORY of medicine, and the other one decides she's gonna go into actual medicine. So the first student discovers that, hey, Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin! Meanwhile, the second student discovers a new antibiotic that can take out bacteria that's developed a resistance to penicillin. As long as we have the inventions, the ideas, history is not important. Giving credit to a person who's been dead hundreds of years(and thus could care less about recognition) is less important than continuing their work.
Oh my, please tell me 1 thing Math has directly done to improve the overall quality of life for humans.
Math is the foundation for chemistry, architecture, engineering, physics, biology, technology, and more things than I could shake a proverbial stick at!
The computer you're typing on right now...it wouldn't be there if not for math.
That famous scientific equation, e = mc^2? Gee, why does that look so much like algebra?
Ever wondered why your house doesn't fall down every time the wind blows? Geometry!
You say that science is more important, and I agree in principle. But without math, there would be no science. You laugh, but I guarantee you, you're going to have a hard ****ing time finding a chemist, engineer, architect, technician, etc. who's bad at math.
Putting a universal law into mathematical terms.
I was deploring what a mathematician does himself to improve society, not what the other fields use math for.
And you keep on using how mathematics has indirectly helped humans, while I happened to say directly
You're splitting hairs of bull****. But I'll indulge you.
The ability to count(very simple math indeed!) was a major factor in the creation of modern society. The barter system(i.e. I give you 1 chicken for 2 gallons of milk) was unreliable and impossible to implement on a large scale since people all valued different items differently. It only worked on a case-to-case basis. But the ability to count gave us the ability to use currency. Now we can have a set amount of $$ which is worth a set price. This was incredibly important to the foundation of society since people could trade with other people who had a common currency.
And computers are a direct contribution of math. So is mass production and economics.
And nearly all electronic technology, especially computers, is a direct contribution of math, thank you. The ALU(Arithmetic Logic Unit) is the heart of CPUs, GPUs, microprocessors, and more. Computers, when grossly simplified for the sake of argument, are just machines that take a bunch of signals, translate them into numbers, and use those numbers to perform a function. Bitwise logic operations, integer arithmetic operations, and bit-shifting operations are what allow computers to run, and in case you didn't notice, that's math.
Also, if you deplore something that means you hate it, are repulsed/disgusted by it, etc.
Every single one of those is a mathematician figuring out how something works and then someone else applying it to improve society which I believe is indirect contribution. The only exception to that would be a computer, which I will agree on.
The majority of math, when applied to the real world and especially science, is simply putting known aspects of the universe( example: constant of gravity or the weight of an atom) into mathematical terms so the human mind may more easily comprehend and use it. An example of this is engineering: It's not like mathematics independently created engineering, it made the engineer's job easier by making him more easily understand pre-established constants of the universe and apply it into, say, building a house.
So you're saying that a computer isn't a good enough contribution? If the entirety of math had built up to the internet, to the computer, to the cell phone, etc. then I would say that's good enough. Now tell me one way that an archae/paleontologist has helped humanity in their studies. And please don't say that they have made "cultural" contributions or "they discovered a bunch of gold and treasure".
Also, EVERY single contribution EVER to ANY field of ANYTHING is someone figuring something out, then someone else building on it. I swear. Take the work of Anton van Leeuwenhoek for example, he discovered bacteria. Did he do anything with this knowledge? No, not really. BUT he wrote it down and then other people like Joseph Lister, Robert Koch, and Louis Pasteur took Leeuwenhoek's discovery of bacteria, and built upon it by saying that "Hey, those little microscopic creatures cause disease!" and then finding ways to combat said creatures and said disease. I would say that, yes, Anton van Leeuwenhoek indirectly contributed to the creation of antibiotics and antiseptics. But just because his involvement was indirect doesn't mean he deserves none of the credit. If not for his work, none of the other scientists/doctors would have been able to do what they did. Just because something is an indirect contribution does not mean in any way that you can disregard it.
So should we throw away the history of Earth and the evolution of the homo sapien because it isn't helping humanly studies?
And if you really wanted to be technical, human fossils disprove creation and support evolution..... Is evolution a legitimate study topic?
Touche, except mathematics as a field of study IS simplifying the universe into human ideas LIKE numbers and equations, in other words 'figuring something out'.
I never said we should throw it away. It's too late for that. All I said was that it would have been much better if great minds like Darwin had chosen to go into the field of medicine, science, mathematics, etc. than history. It would have been better for humanity. I would rather have a cure for malaria, or a solution to the energy crisis, or whatever, than the skeleton of a brand-new undiscovered species of dinosaur.
As far as I can tell, the theory of evolution has not benefited humanity in any way. So no. It has not improved the quality of life, and thus is inferior to other fields of study.
And before you mention religious extremism, religious extremists ignore the evidence. It wouldn't matter if we proved evolution, the big bang, abiogenesis, etc. beyond any shadow of a doubt, there would still be pigheaded creationists who ignored the proof. Hell, for that matter, it wouldn't make a difference if God himself appeared on Earth in all his paradisiacal glory, there would still be pigheaded atheists who ignored the proof too! Trying to disprove creationism is a battle that cannot be won, and in fact it's one of the sorer points for me. Think of what Richard Dawkins, or Christopher Hitchens, or hell, any of those "Four Horsemen" with amazing scientific minds or even the creationists, could have done if they'd applied that intelligence to trying to improve quality of life for humanity instead of trying to convert people to a belief(or lack thereof) that will do nothing for them.
Oh, so darwin should've been a doctor? Would revolution of the human mindset count as an achievement? In proposing natural selection, Darwin started the trickle that would become the flood of people moving away from creationism and to more logical theories; wwhat would happen if we still believed that maggots spontaneously spawned inside garbage and women got pregnant with the afternoon breeze? (the latter part just an example than a true belief)
Creationism does not mean ignorance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bible doesn't mention anything about any of that(maggots, breeze, etc.). And many, many of the greatest scientists were religious: Copernicus, Kepler, Descartes, Newton, Mendel(who was actually a monk!), Pasteur, Planck....
So, yeah. What's your take on any of this? Also, a thread for Noob and I to continue our debate somewhere that it's actually welcome xD
