What insight have you gained from you profession/education that the layman doesn't understand?

@Brandon9000,

I'm struggling here with the concept of "a layman" being interested in "equations" at all ! Smile

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I'm struggling here with the concept of "a layman" being interested in "equations" at all !

I'm not saying they are. I'm saying that they don't know how to approach scientific questions.

0 Replies

@dlowan,

Quote:

God I wish we had been able to get an A2k Book Club off the ground...because those discussions that Soz references are ones I miss enormously in real life.

Of course, an online book cluh that was working would have people in it with no interest in that kind of analysis...but they can just scroll past.

I thought of starting one of those once. That would be something I'd be really up for, but again, come september it's pretty unlikely i'll have any time to read anything apart from course books.

0 Replies

@talk72000,

Quote:

knew a fellow whose dad was a Professor of Physics at a university and he mentioned that his dad consistently converted many equations to simple multiplication by conversion factors thus creating dimensionless constants.

Explain this to the layman! What do you mean?

4 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

I'm an engineer. I studied Aerospace Engineering, but I currently work as a Systems Engineer.

I am fairly fresh out of college, so I can speak to the nature of what college gave me and what it did not give me. It is difficult for me to calibrate my language on what I "know" vice the layman's knowledge on the topics I studied.

To be blunt, there is nothing that I'm the best at, and when compared to other individuals who have much more experience than myself, I feel the gap between me and them is equivalent or greater than me and the layman.

It may be premature for me to answer this question. The things I feel I'm best at, are not things I learned in school or in my profession. I'm talented in public speaking, mediation, and problem solving. I don't fully understand or clearly vision what the layman's understanding of those topics are, so it's hard for me to distinguish what others might not know.

I think my math and science proficiency is higher than the layman's if that counts...

T
K
O

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

When I first learned computer programming I learned Fortran. But that didn't help me understand how computers worked, and I had a hard time learning new languages. Then in the early 80's someone finally showed me assembly language and suddenly everything became clear. I understood how the registers interacted with the CPU and memory, and how electrical connections translated into logical comparisons which resulted in alternate paths in the algorithm. The true mechanistic nature of computers was laid bare and undeniable. All programming languages become easy for me after that because they are all just variations on a theme.

Most Laymen don't understand computers. Even many high level programmers don't really understand what is happening below the compilers. The high level languages and GUI level interface are sufficiently removed from the raw mechanics that many many people have invalid perceptions of the true (deeply) mechanistic nature of the technology. People anthropomorphise things at such an instinctive level that it's almost impossible to not lose sight of the machine behind the interface.

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

If Kipling had been a jurist, he would have titled his most famous poem "In The Event That".

I will be using that line in the future, and I will not give you any credit for it.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

That's fine, I picked it up somewhere else, too. Don't remember where.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I'd not heard that poem before.
I like it, but its a shame about the last line.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

Most Laymen don't understand computers. Even many high level programmers don't really understand what is happening below the compilers. The high level languages and GUI level interface are sufficiently removed from the raw mechanics that many many people have invalid perceptions of the true (deeply) mechanistic nature of the technology.

Out of curiosity: Do you consider C a low-enough level language for purposes of exposing the mechanistic nature of the technology? I always thought its abstractions of the bare metal layer are quite apt. And I don't really want to bother with every arcane command in my processor's instruction set.

2 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

I'm sure you'll be enough of a man to forgive him, my son. Smile

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Out of curiosity: Do you consider C a low-enough level language for purposes of exposing the mechanistic nature of the technology? I always thought its abstractions of the bare metal layer are quite apt. And I don't really want to bother with every arcane command in my processor's instruction set.

"C" is close, and some people may "get it" in a different way that I did. But for me, nothing was as illuminating as the assembly language.

0 Replies

Another thing I learned from watching my wife go through graduate school: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." I never really understood that quote until I understood statistics better.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

That's fine, I picked it up somewhere else, too. Don't remember where.

Shocking.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

If "People anthropomorphize things at such an instinctive level that it's almost impossible to not lose sight of the machine behind the interface" then the same could be said for my dog, my wife or myself.

Organic machines all!

1 Reply

@Chumly,

Chumly wrote:

Organic machines all!

Speak for yourself, meatpuppet.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Haha, I sure will.

Thomas i found it very interesting what you said about the way the arts and sciences synthesise at a certain level.
I do always feel like my degree is a bit superfluous in comparison to someone doing science and that.

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

At present I haven't my technical books with me. But I will give a simple example. F = G(m1 x m2)/g where F=lbf , m1=lbm, m2=lbm, g=ft/sec squared

lbf=pound force
lbm=pound mass
ft=feet length
sec=second time
G in units is (lbf x ft/sec squared)/(lbm squared)
G = (lbf x ft)/(lbm squared x sec squared) is a constant composed of those units.
The value of G has an empirical value that has been measured by experiment.

Many formulas are proportionals i.e. if chart them onto a graph it is a straight line at an angle. That angle is the constant. This is all algebra.

Maybe you get one of your university buddies go over dimensional analysis step by step with you.

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

Univ. of Guelph:
http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/dimanaly/

Math Skills:
http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/fyp/mathrev/mr-da.html

0 Replies

What insight have you gained from you profession/education that the layman doesn't understand?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know