听你们摆科学龙门阵,我坐小板凳听得出了神,都忘了发言了,诸位请继续给我上课,我脑袋笨,请尽量用幽默诙谐生动的语言来讲,否则我老ADD。
特别佩服dude的耐心,真服了U,更服了您老伴儿,能天天陪您练嘴:)
- posted on 09/03/2007
谢谢你对我的co-sufferer的同情. 不过, 记住我的话: Marriage lets you annoy one special peson the rest of your life.. 我记住老板娘的兴趣. 一有机会, 我会尽量借题发挥或怂恿他人, 引进有意思的科学话题.
在那条线当你坐在小板凳听时, 有一种声音不知道你听得顺耳不顺耳? 不只一个人流露出这样的说法: 诗人或学"文科"的经受不住太重的逻辑. 也可能不是主题的缘故, 没有人提出异议, 更没有人提出抗议,但是我想在café从事人文,社会,经济和哲学的人或者有此背景的人大有人在, 不知道他们如何对此反应.多年来这几乎是人们的一种社会共识. 深受这种观念的影响, 我的意识中本来也有这种看法. 可是,多年的实际经历总是告诉我不是这样.总的来说, 在我经历的印象里, 不分理工农医文的背景, 总有一部分人逻辑性强一些, 一部分人弱一些. 但是, 我愿意特别指出一部分人, 就是相当多搞工程的人, 所谓工科的, 特别不讲逻辑. 当这些人和所谓逻辑性不强的文科背景的人讨论或辩论时, 简直就不堪一击. 最后他们还抱怨你们学文的耍嘴皮的, 我们事实求是, 看实际结果. 他们的话其实也没有全错. 对他们自己的那部分很对, 精度达到标准就完事了, 项目满足实验结果就收工, 其他的不用考虑. 逻辑算个P, 我们是提供solution的, 干实事的. 我知道我说这话可能冒犯很多人, 我已戴好钢盔铁甲.
其实, 如果你观察中国近些年来的领导人, 由于大部分都是理工出身的, 也具有这种倾向. 我不是在攻击他们, 事实我认可他们的很多成绩. 也许中国目前需要这样背景的领导人, 也许中国的文科教育太意识形态化, 造成文科人才太脱离实际,缺乏common sense, 不具备领袖素质. 总之, 这些政治问题我们不谈, 我之所以稍微引伸一下, 主要还是想把我的正题更进一步地说清楚. 不知道你是否理解?
回到什么人讲逻辑上来. 我们再深入地看一下. 非形式逻辑, 纯粹关于自然语言论证的东西, 文科的人,由于和这方面打交道最多, 所受到的教育和训练也最多, 绝对强于其他背景的人, 我们不比多说.
形式逻辑, 当形式逻辑的内容不是抽象的东西的时候, 我没有看出文科的人的逻辑有什么地方比其他人弱. 大小前提,结论, 原因, 结果等等文科的人可以说得头头是道. 事实上我的感觉是文科的人往往对前提和原因更加重视, 理工的人(特别是死板的工科的人)往往更注重结论, 而把接受前提当作自然而然的事.
当形式逻辑的内容是抽象的东西的时候, 我承认文科的人表现的比较弱. 也就是,
中国的领土 和 中国的领海 组成地理上的中国, 文科的人在此没有任何逻辑困难. 但是, 当抽象成:
X + Y = Z时, 很多文科的人开始失去阵脚. 可见, 真正原因不在逻辑, 而在能不能抽象的思维. 文科和理工科的区别不在逻辑能力上, 而在抽象能力上. 比如你我讨论一个很抽象的问题, 我的逻辑本不差, 但是我的抽象空间建立不起来, 我的逻辑思维无法展开和使用. 结果, 被你耻笑为没有逻辑.而事实上这是我的抽象能力问题. 这好比我童年的时候, 我的一个伙伴. 我们互相较真多年. 每次跑步, 他都输给我, 从小学的60米到初中的100米. (但我们的差距很小, 有时候几乎同时冲刺到终点, 这是他总不服我的原因). 可是, 每年夏天的游泳, 我从来都游不过他, 每次较量必输无疑. 可见在水里, 他如鱼得水, 他的运动能力得到发挥; 在陆地上, 我旱地拔葱, 我有我的运动能力. 同样, 有的人能抽象地思维, 有的人不能, 但这是抽象能力问题, 不是根本的逻辑能力问题.
所以, 我反对并且抗议笼统地说文科的人的逻辑弱. 如果你觉得这个问题值得讨论, 就把此线的题目改成” Cafe来客纵谈天下事系列之四: 搞文科的人的逻辑真的不如理工科的人吗? 或者, 更强烈一些: 为从事文科的人正名.
玛雅 wrote:
听你们摆科学龙门阵,我坐小板凳听得出了神,都忘了发言了,诸位请继续给我上课,我脑袋笨,请尽量用幽默诙谐生动的语言来讲,否则我老ADD。
特别佩服dude的耐心,真服了U,更服了您老伴儿,能天天陪您练嘴:) - posted on 09/04/2007
老圣分析得很精辟,有些话简直说到我心坎上去了.
1."但是, 我愿意特别指出一部分人, 就是相当多搞工程的人, 所谓工科的, 特别不讲逻辑. ...... 精度达到标准就完事了, 项目满足实验结果就收工, 其他的不用考虑. 逻辑算个P, 我们是提供solution的, 干实事的"
我abc就是学工的,核反应堆工程. 应该说至今我的思维还深受上面观点的影响.
不过这种思维在实践中还是很需要的. 比如造原子弹,如果等一切逻辑,理论都搞清楚了再造,估计中国早被其它国家扔了N枚原子弹了.
包括上次我对美国总统概率论问题的回答也反映了这种思维,决定论还是概率论并不重要,重要的是你对这事能把握多少. 我直觉(没什么精密的逻辑基础)认为小布什是安全的,故有那样的回答.
又比如炒股票,赚钱是目标. 我对股票理论的探索,实际也就是寻找一个赚钱的solution.
2."理工的人(特别是死板的工科的人)往往更注重结论, 而把接受前提当作自然而然的事." -----如果结论没什么问题,事情就会这样过去.
3. "但是, 当抽象成:X + Y = Z时, 很多文科的人开始失去阵脚. 可见, 真正原因不在逻辑, 而在能不能抽象的思维. 文科和理工科的区别不在逻辑能力上, 而在抽象能力上."
特别是当把一个量抽象成图谱式的连续变量时,许多文科的人基本就没法跟上.
比如当我把人的所有需求抽象成图谱式的连续变量"利益"时,很多人就是不能理解,他们固执地认为"利益"就是简单变量的经济利益.
把人的所有需求抽象成利益,通过时间这一定量指标,对分析人的行为分析往往会有神奇的效果.
目前主要有自然科学与社会科学. 所有社会科学基本都是研究人性的. 研究人性就要研究人的需求. 因此如何抽象人的需求无疑有特别重要的意义. - Re: Dude, 请继续你的“谈天下事系列”posted on 09/04/2007
st dude wrote:
所以, 我反对并且抗议笼统地说文科的人的逻辑弱. 如果你觉得这个问题值得讨论, 就把此线的题目改成” Cafe来客纵谈天下事系列之四: 搞文科的人的逻辑真的不如理工科的人吗? 或者, 更强烈一些: 为从事文科的人正名.
就我个人的感觉,为了得到一个好的solution,一个人的抽象能力特别重要.
比如,很多人都感叹在中国单位里人事关系复杂. 其实当把这些关系抽象成博弈论的各方时,复杂的关系就变得特别简单了.
- Re: 玩笑 women = problemsposted on 09/04/2007
老A, 我这几天在你母校的图书馆档案中搜索资料,无意中发现你当年的一份数学作业. 严谨的逻辑, 完美的推导,其结果甚至远远超出数学意义. 理工科的逻辑就是厉害. 特此献上, 一起回忆.
abc wrote:
我abc就是学工的,核反应堆工程. 应该说至今我的思维还深受上面观点的影响. - Re: 玩笑posted on 09/04/2007
老圣,你太会玩笑了. - Re: 玩笑posted on 09/04/2007
哈哈,真逗。
同意老圣的观点。工科人思维死板,我们家就有一个;文科人抽象思维能力差,我也承认。:) - posted on 09/05/2007
That's a great joke. But I thought women are the root of all problems or used to be and wars are fought for women. So, according to your logic, women=time*money and time=money, therefore women equal either time squared or money squared, and therefore, both time squared and money squared are the root of problem. So time to the 4th and money to the 4th are both problems. That means too much time or too much money is the problem. Or you can simply say that too much money or time is the root of problem.
- posted on 09/05/2007
朱老师是学文科的吧,所以抽象逻辑 这麽好。我是学理工的,一踏糊涂。
:-)
zxd wrote:
That's a great joke. But I thought women are the root of all problems or used to be and wars are fought for women. So, according to your logic, women=time*money and time=money, therefore women equal either time squared or money squared, and therefore, both time squared and money squared are the root of problem. So time to the 4th and money to the 4th are both problems. That means too much time or too much money is the problem. Or you can simply say that too much money or time is the root of problem. - posted on 09/05/2007
Did I expose my weakness or stupidity?
July wrote:
朱老师是学文科的吧,所以抽象逻辑 这麽好。我是学理工的,一踏糊涂。
:-)
zxd wrote:
That's a great joke. But I thought women are the root of all problems or used to be and wars are fought for women. So, according to your logic, women=time*money and time=money, therefore women equal either time squared or money squared, and therefore, both time squared and money squared are the root of problem. So time to the 4th and money to the 4th are both problems. That means too much time or too much money is the problem. Or you can simply say that too much money or time is the root of problem. - posted on 09/05/2007
No, I just want to use you as the example to support Dude's 观点。
zxd wrote:
Did I expose my weakness or stupidity?
July wrote:
朱老师是学文科的吧,所以抽象逻辑 这麽好。我是学理工的,一踏糊涂。
:-)
zxd wrote:
That's a great joke. But I thought women are the root of all problems or used to be and wars are fought for women. So, according to your logic, women=time*money and time=money, therefore women equal either time squared or money squared, and therefore, both time squared and money squared are the root of problem. So time to the 4th and money to the 4th are both problems. That means too much time or too much money is the problem. Or you can simply say that too much money or time is the root of problem. - posted on 09/05/2007
Thanks. I'm flattered then.
July wrote:
No, I just want to use you as the example to support Dude's 观点。
zxd wrote:
Did I expose my weakness or stupidity?
July wrote:
朱老师是学文科的吧,所以抽象逻辑 这麽好。我是学理工的,一踏糊涂。
:-)
zxd wrote:
That's a great joke. But I thought women are the root of all problems or used to be and wars are fought for women. So, according to your logic, women=time*money and time=money, therefore women equal either time squared or money squared, and therefore, both time squared and money squared are the root of problem. So time to the 4th and money to the 4th are both problems. That means too much time or too much money is the problem. Or you can simply say that too much money or time is the root of problem. - Re: Dude, 请继续你的“谈天下事系列”posted on 09/06/2007
十分有意思的分析和见解啊!不过到了政治上面,无论是理科和文科的,都会形成相同的见识,是否就是所谓的"殊途同归"... - posted on 09/07/2007
st dude wrote:受圣先生的启发,想起这个逻辑推理来了(containing sexual materials, reader's discretion advised):
老A, 我这几天在你母校的图书馆档案中搜索资料,无意中发现你当年的一份数学作业. 严谨的逻辑, 完美的推导,其结果甚至远远超出数学意义. 理工科的逻辑就是厉害. 特此献上, 一起回忆.
(a) Masterbation is better than nothing (M > N)
(b) Nothing is better than sex (N > S)
(c) Therefore masterbation is better than sex (M > S)
- Re: 玩笑 women = problemsposted on 09/07/2007
First, should be Masturbation :-)
Second, S>>>>>>>>>>> everything :-)
So, S > M
guanzhong wrote:
受圣先生的启发,想起这个逻辑推理来了(containing sexual materials, reader's discretion advised):
(a) Masterbation is better than nothing (M > N)
(b) Nothing is better than sex (N > S)
(c) Therefore masterbation is better than sex (M > S)
- posted on 09/07/2007
看来七月精于此道哈?:-)
(开个玩笑,可不许生气啊!)
July wrote:
First, should be Masturbation :-)
Second, S>>>>>>>>>>> everything :-)
So, S > M
Now I come to think about it, does everyting include nothing?
"everything' is a set containing all "things", but "nothing" is "not a thing" and is therefore not included in "everythings". Q.E.D.
SO, yours does not work. :-)
And, I have a reason for M > S, "women = problems" :-D - posted on 09/07/2007
我不过是逻辑清晰,写程序的 :-)
yes, only when women=problems, sure, M > S :-)
guanzhong wrote:
看来七月精于此道哈?:-)
(开个玩笑,可不许生气啊!)
July wrote:Now I come to think about it, does everyting include nothing?
First, should be Masturbation :-)
Second, S>>>>>>>>>>> everything :-)
So, S > M
"everything' is a set containing all "things", but "nothing" is "not a thing" and is therefore not included in "everythings". Q.E.D.
SO, yours does not work. :-)
And, I have a reason for M > S, "women = problems" :-D - RE: 玩笑 women = problemsposted on 07/23/2013
Reply #4 st dudeti
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation