The Coincidence of Ya's and Goths - In The Arts Together?

[Prophet Tenebrae]

SPIG looks like Bruce Campbell!

[kensson]

Oceana:

I'm kind of intrigued that you think maths is not a science subject because you can do it as an arts degree. For a couple of millennia, there we were thinking it was a science when bang! the faculty of arts decides an MA in maths is possible after all and rescinds its science status.

By the same token, does that mean that French is not an arts subject? My (faculty of science) degree is in Maths with French.

Personally, I've no objection to being compared to a confused labrador, but I've known pretty much since GCSEs that maths was my way forward.

As far as I'm aware, maths doesn't have any serial killers. It does have oddballs, yes, but we're pretty affable.


k.

[Anon]

Firstly, biology is NOT an arts subject!!! And as for having no chance in a job at the end that is a load of rubbish! In case you arty people aren't aware, all of the people who design and make all the drugs and medicines that you take when you aren't well are biologists and chemists. This is one of the biggest areas of employment at the moment, as more research is needed to develop new drugs. I'd like to see you all get a job relating to a history of art degree (academic work not included 'cause you can do that with any degree)!

Secondly, I'd just like to point out that science people are not stupid twits! I'd just like to say that it's obvious that science students have a larger brain capacity as they cope with a much more hectic schedule than arts students.

[medea]

You clearly have toooo much time on your hands. For the love of all thats good please do some revision.

And you should know well better than to get me into a discussion on the purpose of studying the Odyssey (*the* original novel), the Aeneid (a prime example of Augustan propoganda, conveying to the modern reader the influence the 'princeps' had on his clients) and the Iliad (easily the best piece of warfare literature ever written portraying the mentality of a 7th cen BC oral poet(s)..possibly....)

Not that I'm trying to make a hard and fast point or anything Zap. Darling Oceana - DON'T pick on Classics, which in conjunction with Ancient History, is THE greatest arts subject. And i'm not prepared to listen to any other argument on this fact (which being a monkey/scientist you could easily memorise.)

[medea]

ps - I can smell your bloody feet from here. Its true folks - they reek.

[Oceana]

but I'll get to that later.

First of all, maths bods are for the most part a good bunch of affable characters secure in the knowledge that they will forever recieve confused and disgusted looks whenever they reveal thier degree subject - indeed they mainly rise above this childish, petty behaviour and joke about it themselves. (See above - clearly a well balanced individual who can take a joke and be self effacing)
On the other hand those people who get defensive or even worse, go quiet, are affected by what people say - and given time it will turn them into a nutbar (Oh I'm just sooo PC) - desperate for some meaning to their University career they will turn to their imagination and end up thinking that they have to break codes for the pentagon inadvertantly almost drowning their babies (it really does make sense, trust me) - and that's the best case scenario.

They may be odd but they are usually nice enough - unless they *are* bitter and twisted and *do* want to kill anyone who seems to think themself better. Mainly Yahs I imagine.

The real question is, would anyone mind?

As to French being an Arts subject, it depends very much on what you mean by French (and no I'm not thinking of the coke advert). If you mean French literature then it is most definately an arts subject. If you mean the French language (the language of Lurve) then it is not an Arts subject nor is it a science subject.

Most people appreciate that these Faculty titles are artificially limiting in the description of a degree. There are, broadly speaking, three sciences (plus computing which is really a branch of engineering) of which Physics is, as strange as it may seem, the most Art like. This is because there is a tendancy to focus on the theoretical (and I hesitantly say inconsequential though it is sure to bring trouble) in much the same way as an English course may focus on what an author or poet was feeling or trying to say. There is no way of checking these in the real world (unless worldwide English departments take a radical departure from the established norms of using authors long since dead) without relying on subjective and circumstancial evidence.

I would say that learning languages should come under it's own heading of simply Languages.

Not Latin or Greek (ancient variety of course) though as they are purely for academic interest these days - no-one actually speaks them as a first language anymore. It would be quicker and easier to learn Spanish and Portugese which dominate more than an entire continent and are therfore actually usefull.

Medicine, Law, Architecture, x Engineering are all vocational subjects and should be left at that.

Maths is not a science.
Let me just say that again.
Maths is not a science.
Why? I'll tell you why. It is exact. No sciences are exact - the only thing that can be exact are abstract consepts like numbers or colours. It is not a study of what is in the Universe as Chemistry, Biology and Physics are - not anymore anyway.
It was when bods like Pythagoras were around as they discovered fundamental characteristics of nature but these days it tends to be less about that and more about interesting abstract problems. This doesn't apply to those doing cryptography or things to do with algorithms as these are Engineering bods.

Infact Maths is not a single unit at all but a myriad of subdivisions of other disciplines who just happen to use numbers. And letters. Mainly greek ones.

History is not an Arts subject either unless you fail to be objective and sully your analytical approach to what happened with what people must have felt like. Only arts students presume to know what other people are/were thinking as part of their degree - the arrogance of the lecturers (etc) to presume to know if this is correct or not is the cherry on top of the conceit cake. (hmmm caaaake!)

Economists really do have to presume to know what other people are thinking - that is their role - however they tend to only be asked what other economists are thinking with the occasional interpretation of a consumer survey to boot - much like choc chips. It's more educated guess work based on a lot of stats & maths and perhaps a little psychology thrown in for added flavour - they have more in common with a palm reader than with either bods maths or sciences. Which is no bad thing - everyone loves a good self perpetuating industry.

As medea has just kneecaped me I must now depart with this parting message:

Bruce Campbell is the closest thing to a deity we will ever see (bar the real thing of course)

Groovy

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Another Bruce Campbell fan - I'm relieved. It seems like he doesn't have that many fans in St. Andrews.

[Comp Sci Student]

Oceana

What you say you did again? Biology? You seem more like an arts student with your essay like posts. Surely if you do a science subject you would know how to do a nice concise answer to a question!

And what you mean computing is not a science? It's science and engineering all in one!!!

You also seem to miss the point of science, the whole point is that it is exact , repeatable they by making it provable and fact!!!

IMHO you just have a chip on your shoulder about REAL science!!!

(Yes I know I have used a lot of !, but I like them sometimes!!!)

[Oceana]

I maintain that the true definition of a science is a study of something that exists in nature. Physics is the study of the Physical world, Chemistry is the study of, well, chemicals and the interactions between them while Biology is the study of life. Computer 'Science' is a study of a man made system and is therfore a self perpetuating and introverted (the subject not the people)subject - much like an Arts subject or economics.

As to my postings being long - they are - they are as long as they need to be to make the points I wish to make without resorting to bullet points or equations (can there be an equation for comminicating in writen format? Discuss 10 marks)

I think it's a complex subject and this nessecitates long answers.

Plus I just like the sound of my internal voice (well, one of them - I have lots of voices in my head).

There was no need to resort to calling me an Arts student. That was just mean.

Science is not exact. That is not it's point. It's point is to discover - not to create - things around us and how they work. Hissenbergs (sic?) uncertainty principle shows that nothing can ever be exact and (I'm saying this not him) so nothing can be proven irrefutably.

Oh well - I said there was always someone who claimed to represent you but who got it wrong. Maybe it's me maybe it's not. Who knows?

[EviLTwiN]

"Maths is not a science.
Why? I'll tell you why. It is exact. No sciences are exact - the only thing that can be exact are abstract consepts like numbers or colours. It is not a study of what is in the Universe as Chemistry, Biology and Physics are - not anymore anyway."

Well since almost everything in physics is done with maths does that mean it's not a science? Parts of Physics ARE exact. Does that make those parts of physics non-scientific?

Physics could almost be considered a branch of maths dedicated to the physical world and universe.

Maths and Physics both rely on numbers which are exact. Maths has things like quantum physics because all the work is done with maths. It's just the maths that physicists stick to, as well as doing other things related to physics.

So the mathematics behind quantum physics can be classed as mathematics. And a main point of quantum physics is that it is not certain... it is based on probabilities. So therefore this is an 'uncertain' (as you put it) part of maths, so is this bit of maths a science??


The line is blurred. It doesn't seem to make sense that many parts of maths are uncertain.
After all it's only numbers.

Well you use numbers in physics and in maths. Maths isn't the numbers... it's using the numbers... just as part of physics is, and many parts of maths are based on probabilities.

So by your definition maths is a science.

But to define a science the way you did (saying how numbers are exact) doesn't make sense anyway. That isn't the definition for a science. I was just shoing that even by your definition maths is still just as much of a science as physics.

Maths is no more exact than physics, only the numbers we use are exact (and tho 2*2=4, that's only true if the symbols 2 and 4 represent the numbers you are thinking they do right now :P)

Now I'll go sit my maths exam in 2 hours time :) arrrrrrrrggggggghhhh!!!!!

BC and the army of darkness was the best :)

[The_Farwall]

Ok, so perhaps my last post was a bit of a rant, but I was making at least 2 main points that I still stand by. First of all I was pissed off at the anonymous post I mentioned because it was somebody having a go at genre groups for what he assumed they where thinking. The poster had no actual evidence that the people he was attacking actually thought those things, yet he was attacking them for it anyway.
My other point was that EVERYBODY is different. The post that I was going after seem to imply that either he or the groups he was attacking think that people who aren't members of these groups are all normal and the same. That's either a demonstration of massive stupidity on the part of the guy who wrote the message or it's another instance of him assuming what other people are thinking and then attacking them for it.

And as for picking holes in my arguments because I brought up musical tastes when no one else had mentioned them. Well, ok not all social groups are based around common musical tastes but in the case of Goths and especially Skate Punks, the two groups in question, music IS a very major, unifying factor that these people have in common. But then if people where just picking on them for the way they dress then I appologise, and hope I never have to meet any of those people in real life.

[Comp Sci Student - same one as before]

"I maintain that the true definition of a science is a study of something that exists in nature." Yea this new definition of science I would agree with, which is different from the one above.

To be honest in many ways computer science isn't a science (I was taking the piss above). It's really a sort of mix of science, engineering and black magic. For example you could do a degree in computer architecture (though not at this uni) and this in many ways is a science, think electronics and physics. However other parts like programming are a combination of engineering principles and black magic.

What I was trying to get at with saying your posting were long was that this is a message board, and I feel that on a message boards posts should be short to medium in length, or they are really longer at least broken up well. I don't about you but I don't like reading large chunks off text of a computer screen and prefer it to be broken up with returns and such like.

"can there be an equation for comminicating in writen format? Discuss 10 marks" - Probably but I am not going to think about it as my exams are over and it's the summer!!!

"There was no need to resort to calling me an Arts student. That was just mean." - Sorry if you thought so

As for the rest of that post other people have answered it. Anyway way can't science create? Surely you can discover something then realise that you can use it for something else.

Anyway the main reason I was posting was to avoid work rather than anything else, but I will leave it there as this post is now getting longish.

[Chris Satterley]

'Chemistry is the home of the lab scientist, shy but nice'

What about me? (i.e. I am neither shy nor nice)

In my opinion Chemistry is no longer one subject, it is a collection. Chemistry ranges from the application of theoretical physics to the study of enzymes. It is impossible to state that chemists are lab scientists when theoretical chemistry and chemical physics are both large areas of research (especially here at St Andrews).

Personally, I think students in this burgh spend too much time drawing personal divisions based on subject studied. I think people should spend more time making friends in first year rather than judging people.

[Science is Fun]

I really like this thread ... I accidentally came across it on Google when looking for a definition of Red and Green Biology (didn't do a very good job of explaining it)
As much as I’d like to I don’t have the balls to voice my opinion on this because it makes me really depressed to be chewed out on forms (sad but true)
The title is a terrible description of the thread though … its more of a defining whether or not certain subjects should be categorized as an art or a science and assigning stereotypes to people in different subjects thread

[Irish Frank]

I can't understand this drive in the first point of the thread to define goths and yahs and then classify them according to their field of study. Its this kind of garbage that had science legitimising eugenics 60 years ago. It was called the "search for fact" then too. Well played.

Taking a more broad view, this tribalism is absolutely ridiculous. I respect the science faculty and arts faculty equally for making progress toward higher knowledge in their seperate fields. Yes, they both require a different analytical mindset, but that doesn't make one subject or mind better than the other.

Another argument frequently advanced by science students I know is that arts students have a lot "less" work, looking at respective deadlines, what to hand in, etc. We simply don't have the luxury of being spoon-fed our teaching, we need to find it out for ourselves. Neither approach is worse than the other. I personally prefer finding out things for myself than being taught it in lectures, other people may think differently.

The Arts-Science clash is as silly as always, as this thread has demonstrated.

[novium]

also alarming is the idea that everything in university must have a direct, useful application. it practically implies that learning how to think critically, do research, develop a deeper understanding of the world is useless.

Plus, all the bashing of the classics is ridiculous. No one who has tangled with Latin or Greek can claim that they are easy, and hell, at the very least, they increase your vocabulary exponentially. Not to mention that every other romance language plus a few random just indo-european ones will be so easy to learn after.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[Senethro]

I only recognised one name on this thread

[Humphrey]

Quoting ScienceStudent from 00:00, 0th Jan 0000
Yahs dominate the Arts faculty for several reasons:
1) No need for a proper qualification to get a proper job. Normal people doubt Arts degrees unless they want to gon into academic or a particular proffession like journalism.
2) They did it at school. How many state schools have the resources to teach Latin, philosophy and other such shit? And why the fuck would they WANT to - how many plumbers do you know who need to speak a dead language? (Yes, that's right, state schools are there to teach you how to READ. In ENGLISH.)
3) They think it's a skive. Which it is.

This is actually a very astute analysis and effectively covers all the reasons I did Arts. I'd dispute the fact that its shit though, I mean why choose to work if you could just do an arts subject!. I can also confim that the entire business world is based on bullshit so learning a bullshit degree (in my case modern history) is actually a massive advantage.

So yes I would heartily reccomend arts, I would also suggest doing as little work as possible. Never did me any harm.

[hr]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[Gealle]

You'll also be surprised at how often businesses prefer to recruit graduates with Arts degrees rather than Business degrees... Probably something to do with the fact that those of us who did classics etc etc developed analytical, critical, and conversing mindsets that didn't rely on set rules and procedures...

...wonder why I don't see many scientists in business... (Note that I said MANY, there are always exceptions).

Quoting novium from 00:52, 21st Oct 2006
also alarming is the idea that everything in university must have a direct, useful application. it practically implies that learning how to think critically, do research, develop a deeper understanding of the world is useless.

Plus, all the bashing of the classics is ridiculous. No one who has tangled with Latin or Greek can claim that they are easy, and hell, at the very least, they increase your vocabulary exponentially. Not to mention that every other romance language plus a few random just indo-european ones will be so easy to learn after.

[hr]

tamen ira procul absit, cum qua nihil recte fieri, nihil considerate potest.

[hr]

Funky flunky munky...

[Senethro]

Quoting Senethro from 01:59, 21st Oct 2006
I only recognised one name on this thread

Wait a minute, I went to bed at half twelve last night...