22 Jul 15
Originally posted by SoothfastWell, Sweden has excelled in many fields, but only because we want to and willing to pay for it. Math is good for science and China is a rising star.
Sweden's total population is only around 9 million, so I think it would be unlikely for Sweden's "best" to ever match China's "best" in nearly anything except the Winter Olympics and speaking Swedish.
Why Sweden is (currently) not good in math is for political reasons (IMHO). But that is totally off-topic.
Remember who is the current world champion in chess. Not China - but xxx !
24 Jul 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasI disagree. If you can handle the basics, this will get you reasonably far in the sciences. Granted, most top level science does require at least calculus, but the concepts and theories can be grasped by anyone with a reasonably mediocre IQ.
The base of science is mathematics. If you cannot handle math, then you will never be good in science. You just don't have the means to be a good scientist. This is the fact today. Perhaps it was different in the times of Marie Curie, I don't know.
I am not god in math, and that means that the door is closed for me to a scientific career.
If, I say ...[text shortened]... enetically indisposed toward science.
Nobelprize in physics? Not for women!
Right or wrong?
I could never be an accountant, that's for sure. I took a statistics class to help with a couple of my fourth year psych classes, and it was absolutely THE most boring class I ever took.
24 Jul 15
Originally posted by SuzianneYes, I agree with reasonable far. But there is a cieling that you cannot go through without math.
I disagree. If you can handle the basics, this will get you reasonably far in the sciences. Granted, most top level science does require at least calculus, but the concepts and theories can be grasped by anyone with a reasonably mediocre IQ.
I could never be an accountant, that's for sure. I took a statistics class to help with a couple of my fourth year psych classes, and it was absolutely THE most boring class I ever took.
As statistics are important in every science branches, you cannot go far if you cannot handle the statistical theory. In natural science you have to understande deeper math. You can always understand the concept of the current science, but you cannot go further into the unknown. So math is important. Really important.
I myself have been a teacher of astronomy. I could answer virtually any question my students asked me. Because I know the concepts. But when I have to explain further the general concepts then I have to rely that the real scientists have done their jobs, I couldn't, not by a longshot, check their calculations. So I was a good popularizer, but I couldn't really call myself an astronomer, nor scientist. I was unable to produce any new info by research. The only thing I could do was to repeat what other scientists has produced and popularize that.
My point is that math is badly needed to have a good technological and scientific standard. Look at North Korea, what would they be now if they didn't produced so many skilled mathematicians? Stone age?
I respect that you disagree with me.
24 Jul 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasWomen are not "genetically indisposed toward math."
The base of science is mathematics. If you cannot handle math, then you will never be good in science. You just don't have the means to be a good scientist. This is the fact today. Perhaps it was different in the times of Marie Curie, I don't know.
I am not god in math, and that means that the door is closed for me to a scientific career.
If, I say ...[text shortened]... enetically indisposed toward science.
Nobelprize in physics? Not for women!
Right or wrong?
