Re: Peano's space-filling curve

From: Daniel Grubb (grubb_at_lola.math.niu.edu)
Date: 06/10/04 

Date: 10 Jun 2004 17:16:30 GMT

>> One big problem with this is that colloquial language is
>> not specific enough to get any handle on the Dirac
>> equation. You may be able to discuss some of its
>> consequences, but you certainly won't understand the
>> equation itself. In order to understand it, you will have
>> to learn new, technical terminology (aka jargon).
>> For example, you cannot expect someone to understand
>> nuclear physics without knowing the general concepts of
>> charge, protons, neutrons, and isospin. These may all be
>> considered to be 'jargon' to outsiders, but they are
>> crucial for the area. If a person doesn't know them, they
>> have to learn about them, thus gaining familiarity with
>> the jargon.

>These are very good points, all absolutely true, and all
>very regrettable. Why? Because we are entering a new dark
>age, where young people distrust and show disdain for
>boffins,mathies and their ilk, whom they call "nerds". And
>they do this because of exactly what you have observed. The
>technical language has subtle meanings that are hidden from
>them. They would see this in the same light as we see our
>forefathers being kept in the dark about what was going on
>by using e.g. Latin, for the liturgy. I keep banging on to
>you all about using plain language because I see our failure
>to do so as being a problem.

To some extent I agree with you. The proliferation of jargon is
one of the reasons that people start to distrust of the educated
part of society. The number of 'educated fools' is another large
reason. I truthfully don't see any alternative because I believe
that true advancement of knowledge *requires* specialized
terminology.

In my mind, the real problem is not that there is jargon, it's that
too many people are too *lazy* to learn about how to use the terms
correctly. Unlike in the Middle Ages, the knowledge is printed and
freely available to any who want to learn it. But it requires a time
investment and some hard work to really understand. It's much easier
to just watch watered down treatments on the boob tube.

>> BTW, did last few posts make any sense to you?

>Good news, Dan, though I think I transmitted it already. I
>believe I am sorting out the tangle in my mind and have
>begun back-tracking with the help of Google to see if I can
>now follow the early stuff.

Feel free to ask for clarifications if needed.

>Writing that has just shown me that I learned a whole lot
>more than maths! I said in another post I hoped you were a
>teacher. But it's not just you, but all of us. How else can
>we hope to avoid ending our lives choking on a dense cloud
>of wood smoke? That's assuming we don't die on the rack
>first.

Yes, I teach. I enjoy it and I think it's crucial to create/maintain
the type of siciety I want to live in.

--Dan Grubb

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Peanos space-filling curve
    ... >> to learn new, technical terminology (aka jargon). ... The number of 'educated fools' is another large ... >believe I am sorting out the tangle in my mind and have ... >we hope to avoid ending our lives choking on a dense cloud ...
    (sci.fractals)
  • Re: Okay, explanation time.
    ... escapes the vacuum of my mind at the moment. ... or patois. ... Yup, 'jargon' will do, but using it has exactly the same effect for those ...
    (uk.rec.models.rail)