How did one panel of a stick figure comic made by a guy with no graduate degree who went to an unranked liberal arts...

if you are in america, engineers have to take an ethics course. its part of the ABET thing.

Trolling Veeky Forums doesn't exactly require a degree, or even a triple digit IQ.

>how dare you teach yourself like the great scientists of the past
>you have to go to a university so that you can get a piece of paper saying you've successfully conformed
>yes, of course it was worth tens-of-thousands of dollars

butthurt neet kek

kek
the great scientists of the past were all writing to each other constantly and knew each other
scientists don't exist in a vacuum, even if that vacuum is mom's basement

I have minimal interest of going to a university. It's not like I've ever tried and got rejected; what would I be butthurt about?
And I doubt the browsers and posters of Veeky Forums consider themselves scientists doing research; simply people who have an interest in science and learn about it at their own pace and interest level. Unless they want to be one there's zero reason to go to a university.

>Unless they want to be one there's zero reason to go to a university.

>the people who keep civilization running shouldn't be credentialed

yeah man, you should totally be able to learn how to do surgery or design buildings from self study.

>Unless they want to be one (a scientist) there's zero reason to go to a university.

>And I doubt the browsers and posters of Veeky Forums consider themselves scientists doing research
no, not everyone is a dropout like you
yes, successful students and scientists can still like online discussion
shocker

This whole "oh you're on here you must be a loser" line reeks of insecurity.

>no, not everyone is a dropout like you
Never dropped out. Simply have an interest in science and that's why I sometimes come here.
>yes, successful students and scientists can still like online discussion
Yes, but I seriously doubt the majority of people on a board on Veeky Forums are those people.
>This whole "oh you're on here you must be a loser" line reeks of insecurity.
I never said that. I said the people who come here likely have an interest in it but not enough of one to devote their life to it.

You seem to be very passive aggressive and hostile. Is something wrong, user?

You don't browse Veeky Forums much. There are regular threads of PhD candidates and researchers discussing mundane issues regarding their defence of publications.
You probably shunt it all off because that would hurt your view of this place as your hugbox.

I didn't say they never come here; it's a big website after all. But those people are a very small minority in real life and especially one on a website like Veeky Forums.
>You probably shunt it all off because that would hurt your view of this place as your hugbox.
I don't even come here that often, I definitely don't think of it as my hugbox. You keep assuming a lot of things about me and they all turn out to be wrong.

doesn't this work out to be just under .0002?

shit, i meant "to be .0002?"

>i don't see how anyone could disagree with that pic
Only half of the things listed are sciences. The two on the left are just opinion-having couched as science, while the one on the right is non-empirical.

Of the three actual sciences shown, the proposed relationship only plausibly applies between chemistry and physics, which have no clear line between them. Chemistry is the physics of interatomic bonds. Even so, most the laws of chemistry are only derivable in principle, not in practice, from the laws of particle physics.

Biology, however, is not a study of the fundamental workings of the universe, of its rules, but only a study of a category of systems which have occured in the universe. It is not a study of what life is possible, but only a study of the life that has actually occurred. It is not derivable even in principle from chemistry or physics, though both are very useful in the study of biology.

you know, physics is really a lot more than applied math, more so than any of the others

He'll learn. Usually all it takes is a materials science class to beat the epistemological reductionism out of a student's brain.

...

Because none of them have read P. W. Anderson's famous article "More is Different" regarding the hierarchy of sciences.

No, it equals 1/500.

The doctrine of opposite moments of thought or of progression by antagonism, further assists us in framing a scheme or system of the sciences. The negation of one gives birth to another of them. The double notions are the joints which hold them together. The simple is developed into the complex, the complex returns again into the simple. Beginning with the highest notion of mind or thought, we may descend by a series of negations to the first generalizations of sense. Or again we may begin with the simplest elements of sense and proceed upwards to the highest being or thought. Metaphysic is the negation or absorption of physiology--physiology of chemistry--chemistry of mechanical philosophy. Similarly in mechanics, when we can no further go we arrive at chemistry--when chemistry becomes organic we arrive at physiology: when we pass from the outward and animal to the inward nature of man we arrive at moral and metaphysical philosophy. These sciences have each of them their own methods and are pursued independently of one another. But to the mind of the thinker they are all one--latent in one another--developed out of one another.

We admit that there is no perfect or ideal Psychology. It is not a whole in the same sense in which Chemistry, Physiology, or Mathematics are wholes: that is to say, it is not a connected unity of knowledge. Compared with the wealth of other sciences, it rests upon a small number of facts; and when we go beyond these, we fall into conjectures and verbal discussions. The facts themselves are disjointed; the causes of them run up into other sciences, and we have no means of tracing them from one to the other. Yet it may be true of this, as of other beginnings of knowledge, that the attempt to put them together has tested the truth of them, and given a stimulus to the enquiry into them.

Psychology should be natural, not technical. It should take the form which is the most intelligible to the common understanding, because it has to do with common things, which are familiar to us all. It should aim at no more than every reflecting man knows or can easily verify for himself. When simple and unpretentious, it is least obscured by words, least liable to fall under the influence of Physiology or Metaphysic. It should argue, not from exceptional, but from ordinary phenomena. It should be careful to distinguish the higher and the lower elements of human nature, and not allow one to be veiled in the disguise of the other, lest through the slippery nature of language we should pass imperceptibly from good to evil, from nature in the higher to nature in the neutral or lower sense. It should assert consistently the unity of the human faculties, the unity of knowledge, the unity of God and law. The difference between the will and the affections and between the reason and the passions should also be recognized by it.

Its sphere is supposed to be narrowed to the individual soul; but it cannot be thus separated in fact. It goes back to the beginnings of things, to the first growth of language and philosophy, and to the whole science of man. There can be no truth or completeness in any study of the mind which is confined to the individual. The nature of language, though not the whole, is perhaps at present the most important element in our knowledge of it.

It is not impossible that some numerical laws may be found to have a place in the relations of mind and matter, as in the rest of nature. The old Pythagorean fancy that the soul 'is or has in it harmony' may in some degree be realized. But the indications of such numerical harmonies are faint; either the secret of them lies deeper than we can discover, or nature may have rebelled against the use of them in the composition of men and animals.

It is with qualitative rather than with quantitative differences that we are concerned in Psychology. The facts relating to the mind which we obtain from Physiology are negative rather than positive. They show us, not the processes of mental action, but the conditions of which when deprived the mind ceases to act.

It would seem as if the time had not yet arrived when we can hope to add anything of much importance to our knowledge of the mind from the investigations of the microscope. The elements of Psychology can still only be learnt from reflections on ourselves, which interpret and are also interpreted by our experience of others. The history of language, of philosophy, and religion, the great thoughts or inventions or discoveries which move mankind, furnish the larger moulds or outlines in which the human mind has been cast. From these the individual derives so much as he is able to comprehend or has the opportunity of learning.

There seem to be two great aims in the philosophy of Plato,--first, to realize abstractions; secondly, to connect them. According to him, the true education is that which draws men from becoming to being, and to a comprehensive survey of all being. He desires to develop in the human mind the faculty of seeing the universal in all things; until at last the particulars of sense drop away and the universal alone remains. He then seeks to combine the universals which he has disengaged from sense, not perceiving that the correlation of them has no other basis but the common use of language.

He never understands that abstractions, as Hegel says, are 'mere abstractions'--of use when employed in the arrangement of facts, but adding nothing to the sum of knowledge when pursued apart from them, or with reference to an imaginary idea of good. Still the exercise of the faculty of abstraction apart from facts has enlarged the mind, and played a great part in the education of the human race. Plato appreciated the value of this faculty, and saw that it might be quickened by the study of number and relation. All things in which there is opposition or proportion are suggestive of reflection. The mere impression of sense evokes no power of thought or of mind, but when sensible objects ask to be compared and distinguished, then philosophy begins. The science of arithmetic first suggests such distinctions. The follow in order the other sciences of plain and solid geometry, and of solids in motion, one branch of which is astronomy or the harmony of the spheres,--to this is appended the sister science of the harmony of sounds. Plato seems also to hint at the possibility of other applications of arithmetical or mathematical proportions, such as we employ in chemistry and natural philosophy, such as the Pythagoreans and even Aristotle make use of in Ethics and Politics, e.g. his distinction between arithmetical and geometrical proportion in the Ethics (Book V), or between numerical and proportional equality in the Politics.

The modern mathematician will readily sympathise with Plato's delight in the properties of pure mathematics. He will not be disinclined to say with him:--Let alone the heavens, and study the beauties of number and figure in themselves. He too will be apt to depreciate their application to the arts. He will observe that Plato has a conception of geometry, in which figures are to be dispensed with; thus in a distant and shadowy way seeming to anticipate the possibility of working geometrical problems by a more general mode of analysis.

He will remark with interest on the backward state of solid geometry, which, alas! was not encouraged by the aid of the State in the age of Plato; and he will recognize the grasp of Plato's mind in his ability to conceive of one science of solids in motion including the earth as well as the heavens,--not forgetting to notice the intimation to which allusion has been already made, that besides astronomy and harmonics the science of solids in motion may have other applications. Still more will he be struck with the comprehensiveness of view which led Plato, at a time when these sciences hardly existed, to say that they must be studied in relation to one another, and to the idea of good, or common principle of truth and being.

But he will also see (and perhaps without surprise) that in that stage of physical and mathematical knowledge, Plato has fallen into the error of supposing that he can construct the heavens a priori by mathematical problems, and determine the principles of harmony irrespective of the adaptation of sounds to the human ear. The illusion was a natural one in that age and country. The simplicity and certainty of astronomy and harmonics seemed to contrast with the variation and complexity of the world of sense; hence the circumstance that there was some elementary basis of fact, some measurement of distance or time or vibrations on which they must ultimately rest, was overlooked by him.

The modern predecessors of Newton fell into errors equally great; and Plato can hardly be said to have been very far wrong, or may even claim a sort of prophetic insight into the subject, when we consider that the greater part of astronomy at the present day consists of abstract dynamics, by the help of which most astronomical discoveries have been made.

perhaps great scientists of the future will come from the internet :^)

>of the gods
>pervasive and fundamental

From Republic 527a:

"This at least," said I, "will not be disputed by those who have even a slight acquaintance with geometry, that this science is in direct contradiction with the language employed in it by its adepts." "How so?" he said. "Their language is most ludicrous, though they cannot help it, for they speak as if they were doing something and as if all their words were directed towards action. For all their talk is of squaring and applying and adding and the like, whereas in fact the real object of the entire study is pure knowledge." "That is absolutely true," he said. "And must we not agree on a further point?" "What?" "That it is the knowledge of that which always is, and not of a something which at some time comes into being and passes away." "That is readily admitted," he said, "for geometry is the knowledge of the eternally existent." "Then, my good friend, it would tend to draw the soul to truth, and would be productive of a philosophic attitude of mind, directing upward the faculties that now wrongly are turned earthward." "Nothing is surer," he said.

What is 'purity' anyway?

Is this encouraging everyone to become mathematicians at the expense of all other subjects?
Is he suggesting that only mathematics has value in studying?
Or is he suggesting only mathematics comes close to 'truth'?

So, I'm a geology major. In my major are problems which cannot be answered by mathematics. Some examples.

Where can I go to find oil?
Can I pump chemicals into this aquifer without it affecting the neighboring town's water supply?
What is the origin of human life on Earth?
Is there a danger in a nearby volcano erupting?

Mathematics alone cannot answer these questions. If someone only studied mathematics we would have no answers. The comic is meaningless wanking.

I guess he refers to fields which require other fields to be understood. You need Maths to explain Physics, you need Physics to explain Chemistry etc.

>Tuition Farm Advocate: example post

he literally has a physics degree and worked for nasa

...

Geology major again. So here's the grand secret. We don't need math. Trial and error gets us closer to the truth than mathematic equations.

Years ago a company needed a new nozzle for the manufacturing, so they hired an engineer. He drew up plans on the perfect nozzle ... and it sucked. It ended up that the company had to work through nozzle designs by trial and error until they found one that worked perfectly.

Almost our entire civilization is built, not on mathematics, but on trial and error.

The Egyptians got so goddamned good at pyramid building because they kept trying until they succeeded. Anyone that thinks mathematics is the language of everything is a fool.

>He drew up plans on the perfect nozzle
>... and it sucked
I'm not going to ignore how perfect a pun that was.

Top kek

>Geology major here
>I can't do math and I think it's dumb
What a surprise, have you considered your opinion might be different if you worked in a field that doesn't consist of banging rocks together?

>so they hired an engineer. He drew up plans on the perfect nozzle
And he probably designed it, "oh so perfectly", to draw up dust, air, and maybe even water, but not soft soil, sand, or sediment and the like. So it would be utterly useless at fulfilling whatever purpose it was intended for. (I say, discussing things I know nothing about.) I would suspect that the nozzle is some kind of steel rather than anything fancy for the ease of replacement and the aforementioned trial-and-error approach of clanking out a proper fitting design. Kudos to you for that.

The best stories of these kind involve recent engineering graduates drawing up huge plans for machines that don't work, and then calling up to hire their former lecturers as consultants to find that single thing that went wrong. As our Taiwanese electronics professor used to say: "Seven parts good!" (The water may be seven parts heated, but it is the eighth part that brings it to boil. Otherwise you have no tea!)

You do of course get PhD engineers performing research and fulfilling the role of scientists, making publication, attending symposiums, working on things like developing procedures and methods for geophysical soundings image construction in machine-vision departments, and so on. The infamy of intellectual arrogance and speaking outside of their field is predominantly a sorely American-centric phenomena. Most douche nozzles flunk out of college in the first year, unable to meet the high demands of learning math and the demanding hands-on skills at machining things like nozzles. They thought it'd be smooth sailing to an easy paying desk job.

The secret of course is that everyone is a scientist and an engineer. I mean, you'd have to be to invent that rock-to-head projectile, and the handheld stick-in-hand attacker deterrent. Okay, maybe not everyone is a Chartered Accountant. But virtually all nation's laws, as far as I know, have some bylaw that states that all citizens are "students of the law", to cover the whole "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law". Which in some cases is arguable, depending on the severity of the law being broken, and of course, the jurisdiction.

But the most valuable thing I found in college is the people. The study groups, the professors and lecturers, and the opportunities those had presented me, especially in terms of advancing my academic career and employment prospects. Never underestimate the power of nepotism: The next thing you know, you'll be landing a job at the lucrative firm of an affable lecturer's relative, and never have been all the happier for it. The system works.

>not calling it scub.png

I think you have to read between the lines a bit more and see that he is complaining about the romanticism of science.

In summary, I take his response to mean: "A guy don't work by pure conjecture and inference to come by some conclusion infallibly in each and every instance. There is the habitually unmentioned wastepaper basket of failed attempts and calendar pages an arm's span from the desk. [..] The pyramids were as much a strained exercise in construction management logistics. The reality did not match up with the architects ideal precisely. "

The Geology majour is pointing out that human pretensions are mocked by the cosmos, but that our faculties enable us to handle hitherto intractable and complex problems. Undoubtedly this ability cannot solve problems that require precision -- problems such as shooting precision laser beams over tens of kilometers in space; milling machine components to accuracies of parts per billion; or focusing a microscopic electron beam on a specimen the size of a nanometer. But he is absolutely right in a way that reflects a reality that most easily scoff, a really that is only seen by those at the forefront of the sciences and stifles the dreams of engineers.

The thing is, not many "human problems" require such precision -- problems such as parking a car, backing up a trailer, navigating a car among others on a freeway, washing clothes, controlling traffic at intersections, judging beauty contestants, and a preliminary understanding of a complex system.

Requiring precision in engineering models and products translates to requiring high cost and long lead times in production and development. For other than simple systems, expense is proportional to precision: more precision entails higher cost.

GeoAnon understands the importants of brevity.

Keep pretending. It's cute.

Chemistry is derived from physics, maybe not every chemical reaction can be reduced back to Boltzmann and Schrodinger but most of it can I believe.

Cartoon is false and dumb.

Pure math is very rare these days. It's almost impossible to find something that can't be used in physics. For a long time math had a lead in things like topology, but anything has applications now.

Also, being interdisciplinary is a huge advantage these days. Why only study math when you could study math, data science, plus a specialty field and be a powerhouse in that field.

Like how Ash Williams in Army of Darkness, finding himself stranded in A.D. 1300, he uses a chemistry textbook to take advantage of a 14th century alchemical laboratory to make explosives, and also uses the equipment in a blacksmith's workshop to deck out his 1973 Oldsmobile Delta 88 into a beast, and makes a new prosthetic arm for himself. He didn't exactly have high precision measuring equipment or any device to perform arithmetic and complex mathematical operations at his behest. He had to "bang rocks together" under the guidance of that skull box of his to come up with the results he needed.

Ahh, I found what I was looking for
youtube.com/watch?v=K5wCfYujRdE

Not entirely true though.

Sociology uses quite a lot of the same methods pscology uses. "Qualitative" studys for example, like expert interviews and focus groups etc. are used in both disciplines. Also survey methodology is a interdisciplinary thing, containing lots of stuff about math, software engineering, statistics, psychology and sociology, and is used frequently by both disciplines.

I get your point though, just wanted to point it out no hate.

how can we know that what we believe we know is actually true?

"Let's consider your age, to begin with -- how old are you?"

"I'm seven and a half, exactly."

"You needn't say 'exactually,'" the Queen remarked; "I can believe it without that. Now I'll give you something to believe. I'm just one hundred and one, five months, and a day." "I can't believe that!" said Alice.

"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again; draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things."
--Lewis Carroll Through the Looking Glass, 1871

If I were an experienced anthropologist, then chiefly from my discipline, from merely observing another culture for a few weeks--or works from accurate records concerning an extinct culture--I should be able to make reasonable predicts concerning that culture's ways and morals, even though the evidence is incomplete. The results of which would be continually refined by way of the latest publications in the fields of neuroscience and evolutionary biology. Knowledge of anatomy, dentistry, nutrition, and so forth will only serve to shed further light on the topic.

>how can we know that what we believe we know is actually true?
Galileo was advised by his inquisitors that he must not say that his mathematical models were describing the realities of nature, but rather that they simply were adequate models of the observations he made with his telescope; hence, that they were solely deductive. In this regard, models that only attempt to replicate some phenomenological behavior are considered shallow models, or models of the deductive kind, and they lack the knowledge needed for true understanding of a physical process.

Apparently we understand far less than we flatter ourselves as knowing. Is imperfection in what we believe or in how we have come to believe it? Perhaps there is a poverty in our souls or our mathematical equations that forestalls ultimate knowledge and revelation. The cosmos mocks human pretensions.

>so instead of fucking building a bajillion nozzles, we simulate random families of nozzles in a FUCKING SIMULATION SOFTWARE (which is pure math), therefore math is dumb and useless
wew
lad

The whole point of using math in science is to understand that our intuition is limited, so instead we rely on this system of symbols manipulation, which doesn't stand on the user's personal intelligence but simply on its own internal consistencies and produces excellent results.
It's quite literally the opposite of a "God complex"

God goy, spend those shekels you've borrowed so you can get a good job to pay back those shekels you owe over the next 20+ years. And since you have such a good job don't forget you need to take out another multi decade loan for a home. But what good it a home without a wife? Remember that the bigger this artificially priced diamond is the more you love her. Spend a few months salary to prove it. But what good is a wife without a family? Owe more shekels on the safest car you can buy or you don't live your family. You're not that kind of goy, right?
Good goy.

It's shit. What does "purity" mean? amount of math, or abstractness?

Personally my view is that physics is an outgrowth of chemistry and biology is separate save for a few tenuous connections to both. Math is a useful tool but your average highschooler believes math is some perfect sourcecode that exactly explains the universe.

>math is real
please end the memes

>Can I pump chemicals into this aquifer without it affecting the neighboring town's water supply?

Kek, that doesn't later. Or that lead pipes shouldn't be used for drinking water.
t. Butthurt geology major.
Trial and error is an important part but you can't conjure up the foundations.

How about this: math is a skill that is required in some degree for almost every occupation, but you can't do very much if you know nothing but math.

>that doesn't consist of banging rocks together?

Kek
>American-centric
Aaand there it is. The telltale sign of jealousy.
What?

>this is your brain on math
Do you unironically believe that math is the true answer to all problems?

Alright, user. Will you be the guy to define the fitness according to the function to be optimized for the nozzle's design parameters? -- Will you encode possible solutions as individual genetic codes to evolve those better nozzle solutions through simulated evolution? -- No? Then I'll just be back here banging some nozzles with a rock until I gets some passable results. (Not even GeoAnon. Rocks on Nozzles seems as good a method as any other.)

The problem: Solution optimization and classification. You have to deal with the feedback for reinforcement learning. It is more cost efficient to bang up a nozzle for this one particular job with a rock than to pour billions into building a god-like machine intelligent and employ genetic programming procedures or, more likely, employ a software engineer and other engineers at great cost; those same people will balk at the idea and caution you against it, asking, "Why are you wasting all this money on a nozzle design for job 'x'?"

So much money would be wasted over that evaluation function alone.

Look, I agree, it's a powerful optimization technique:
>Parallel search of the space
>Can learn novel solutions
>No examples required to learn
>5 overarching paradigms for it
This thing can bust out antennae designs as easily as changing inherited character traits in simulated populations. Sometimes some god-awful or highly idiosyncratic antennae that only work when exposed to certain ambient acoustics or RF frequencies before they even work, but working designs nonetheless.

But evolution takes lots of processing. It's just not very feasible for this kind of job currently, and most of all, it can't guarantee an optimal solution (while it may find uninteresting but high fitness solutions).

At the end of the day, banging the nozzle with a rock is just the most affordable option for that specific job.

>Aaand there it is. The telltale sign of jealousy.
Aaand someone's being facetious today. Here's your (you).

Americanisation is only a small part of the overall cultural decay of our modern society. Exactly how beneficial are the likes of McDonalds and Coke a Cola on society? Star Bucks and posters promoting the latest Miley Cyrus album cropping up everywhere is a symptom of the anathema, the globalist agenda that has bred in the bosom of the once great former American states; the former USA of the likes of venerable Washington and JFK. Decadent American pop culture replaces the genuine identity of the people with rootless cosmopolitanism.

Let's not even start on the loose morals and sexual decadence promoted by Hollywood, and the effect that has on the young struggling to find a greater meaning in life while confined to a superficial and materialistic world.

>how can we know that what we believe we know is actually true?

That's a very good question. For example, in the game of tic-tac-toe there are only a few moves for the entire game; we can deduce our next move from the previous move, and our knowledge of the game. It is this kind of reasoning that we also called shallow reasoning, since our knowledge, as expressed linguistically, is of a shallow and meagre kind. In contrast to this is the kind of reasoning that is inductive, where we infer the general from the particular; this method of inference is called deep, because our knowledge is of a deep and substantial kind -- a game of chess would be closer to an inductive kind of model.

We should understand the distinction between using mathematical models to account for observed data, and using mathematical models to describe the underlying process by which the observed data are generated or produced by nature. Models of systems where the behaviour can be observed, and whose predictions can only account for these observed data, are said to be shallow, as they do not account for the underlying realities. Deep models, those of the inductive kind, are alleged to capture the physical process by which nature has produced the results we have observed.

(cont.)

In his Republic (360 BC), Plato suggests the idea that things that are perceived are only imperfect copies of the true reality that can only be comprehended by pure thought. Plato was fond of mathematics, and he saw in its very precise structure of logic idealized abstraction and separation from the material world. He thought of these things being so important, that above the doorway to his Academy was placed the inscription "Let no one ignorant of mathematics enter here." In Plato's doctrine of forms, he argued that the phenomenal world was a mere shadowy image of the eternal, immutable real world, and that matter was docile and disorderly, governed by a Mind that was the source of coherence, harmony, and orderliness. He argued that if man was occupied with the things of the senses, then he could never gain true knowledge. In his work the Phaedo he declares that as mere mortals we cannot expect to attain absolute truth about the universe, but instead must be content with developing a descriptive picture -- a model.

>Do you unironically believe that math is the true answer to all problems?
Models are our best available answer to problems. Whether they're true or not is dubious at best, we have only their results to lead us anywhere.

Nobody claimed that. Parking your car isn't a scientific problem.

It's still a math problem. Your brain is intuitively juggling between judging distances, momentum, etc. And while social, economic, or political systems, where the vast arrays of inputs and outputs could not all possibly be captured analytically or controlled in any conventional sense, they're all still mathematical systems. A human's very degree of belief concerning facts about the world could be subjected to an objective, coherent, and measurable mathematical framework within subjective probability theory.

Moreover, while the relationship between the causes and effects of these systems is generally not understood, they often can be observed. And this is what has allowed models to develop and pave way for new disciplines. Neuroeconomics is a thing that exists as an effort to explain human decision making. You only read up on the information and behaviour sciences that relate to that interdisciplinary field, but still.

You said driving a car isn't a problem. Well, it certainly would be... for an engineer. And this very contented topic is exactly what they need. For example, suppose they need a controller to bring an aircraft out of a vertical dive. Conventional controllers cannot handle this scenario as they are restricted to linear ranges of variables; a dive situation is highly nonlinear.

So there for an engineer there is much utility in this as it allows them the means of assessing some of our more conventional, less complex systems. For example, for some problems exact solutions are not always necessary. An approximate, but fast, solution can be useful in making preliminary design decisions, or as an initial estimate in a more accurate numerical technique to save computational costs, or in the myriad of situations where the inputs to a problem are vague, ambiguous, or not known at all. Like say: Parking a car.

>Well they somehow managed to engineer cars with that feature to be able to park themselves.

>that fucking word salad
listen man, someone listed a series of everyday or non scientific problems claiming they don't require math. That's cool but they are not scientific problems.

Engineering a parking system is an engineering problem yes, and no it's not the same as parking your car.

I'm not saying that you need a yard stick to park a car, but there is this thing that seems to be happening in your head in concurrence with your hands on the wheel and your feet on the pedals, often with the aid of your eyes, all while you're reverse parking the car. And alcohol seems to diminish the results.

But then I'm the same kind of idiot who'd call a guy an artillerist for having a good throwing arm? You get where I'm coming from? But now I see that I'm having an issue with the aspects of meaning that are expressed in language. I wasn't entirely clear what was meant by what the poster said.

this