To learn to read/write at a journalist level you have to study many authors and literature. To code you need to at least get through algebra, maybe calc, or learn those through ode. To play 1 instrument you have to learn music history too. That covers a huge set of classics.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @zedshaw
I feel its still kinda poor because it leaves you with no physics or chemistry, or biology (other than anatomy, for painting) - or even economics and history - you'd cover a bit for journalism, but not enough. And you kind of need those for a basic grasp of reality.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @MadAlice10_6_2
Sure, there's not a lot of direct science, but you're forgetting that painting includes chemistry (make your own paint, pigments) and physics (optics could be an entire semester through replicating old masters like vermeer's optics tricks). Not to mention astronomy.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @zedshaw
Theoretically so, sure, but I've painted thousands of portraits and never used astronomy. And landscapes. Starry night skies. Know nothing about it. And I feel the theory of evolution, climate science and probability are extremely important - so we survive ourselves.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MadAlice10_6_2
Have you seen Tim's Vermeer? https://sonyclassics.com/timsvermeer/ Just because *you* learned to paint portraits one way doesn't mean that you can't teach it in a way that doesn't involve optics, and the physics of light passing through glass covers a huge amount of physics and astronomy.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zedshaw
Oh, I have, and I dont dispute you can, and will, learn a lot, about stuff you never dreamed you might. I still think its inadequate as the *sole* education, if our species is to survive.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MadAlice10_6_2
"if our species is to survive." Yeahhhhhh, I think kids have quite enough pressure and wouldn't want to then add on that them learning biology is somehow going to save the human race. That's just cruel. But, to your point...add one science to the list. Which?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zedshaw
Hm. Evolutionary biology, I guess. It covers a lot of psychology, biology, endocrinology, sociology, history, some scientific concepts, and gives a grasp of research analysis.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MadAlice10_6_2
It's also where racists go to claim white people are superior so....nope that's not a good one at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zedshaw
Oh. Yes, I see. I might have gotten a good one -that recognized the biases of almost every "intelligence" or "race" or "sex" metric he mentioned -and rejected them as not useful. If we can reform our evo biology through corrective social lenses, would u be up for it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Not really because it's also based on shitty science with little replication.
-
-
-
Replying to @MadAlice10_6_2
I don't know, probably chemistry. I think that covers everything from making computers to anything you need in med school.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 10 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.