Quote:
Originally Posted by Argos
As you know, what Newton learned in his quadrivium correspond to our 8th grade, versing on humanities and incipient algebra.
|
And most of what he knew is now taught to undergraduates (at universities, by the way). The point is, you cannot tear a historical education out of context and plunk it down into the modern world. The real question is, could Newton have achieved what he did if he had never been allowed to attend a university? I don't know, but I see no evidence to support your contention that he could have. Same for Einstein, Galileo, Feynman, Heisenberg, etc. etc.
Quote:
|
By no means it was enough to launch him into the vortexes of calculus.
|
The issue is not if it was "enough", it is if it was "required"-- this is the difference between the logical concepts of
necessary and
sufficient, which you are mixing.
Quote:
|
Newton deplored the university of those times.
|
Newton deplored a lot of things, but you are talking about his curmudgeonly
personality not his educational needs.
Quote:
|
It it was a pain for him (according to "The Life Of Isaac Newton", by Richard Waterfall). He had to make the tools he needed, and his achievements stem from his merits alone. University was kind of an Academy of Notables, and to attend it was a question of social status (as it is today, to a certain extent).
|
I think this case is basically just a giant myth. The lonely genius who figures everything out on his own, with no inputs from anywhere. Einstein was a patent clerk, the Wright brothers were bicycle repairmen. It's just baloney. Einstein was a diligent student of the physics of his day, very strongly influenced by philosophers and mathematicians (Mach and Reimann, in particular). The Wright brothers scoured every book on flight known to man, practically. Maybe they didn't need to go to a university class, as there was none, but they needed some exposure to what was already known-- and when universities do have a relevant curriculum, there's no better way.
I am not an expert on Newton, but I suspect this is what he had in mind when he said he "stood on the shoulders of giants" (along with the dig against Hooke). And even as much as he hated Hooke, is it still just possible that something he got from Hooke influenced him in a very fundamental way that might have derailed him without it? If nothing else, the motivation to one-up Hooke! Also, Newton hated to publish, and it was like pulling teeth to get him to explain his ideas to others. Why didn't he just take his own ideas with him to his grave? Because of the university culture in which he was immersed, very likely.
Quote:
|
Einstein was an outsider and, again, the fruits of his intellect are not owed to his academic status, or to the curriculum itself. He was intelligence in raw state, and had all the mind stuff he needed by 16.
|
Again, what if he had never heard of Mach or Riemann? Perhaps there's no general relativity. You are still arguing from the position of the lack of
sufficiency, but logically your position has to stem from an absence of
necessity.
Quote:
|
Definitely, he hadnīt to go through all the (proverbial) mental violence and humilliation he suffered at school.
|
That is not logically relevant, as those negative experiences obviously
did not prevent him from his accomplishments. Perhaps they could have potentially, or actually did for others, but it's not relevant in the argument you are presenting.
Quote:
|
Bill Gates was just an example of how boring school can be to a creative guy. He quit it while still a freshman, as you know.
|
And did he meet anyone at school that was important to him later on? Where did he go when he was recruiting the crucial new talent to keep him competitive? Still the question remains, not was school
sufficient for these people, but was it
necessary.