Re: What is being taught now that Star Fleet would still have to teach?
- From: MajorOz <MajorOz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:57:08 -0700
On Jul 11, 1:50 pm, "A.G.McDowell" <mcdowe...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Imagine a student being prepared for a technical career in Star Fleet or
the Patrol c. 2100, perhaps little keener on getting down to work that I
was (or am, for that matter). How much of what they are neglecting is
already being neglected today? I can think of one bad guess; tensors
used to be almost a shorthand for "difficult future math" in Science
Fiction, but you can read a lot of mathematics, even applied
mathematics, without coming across them. Here is my guess at safe bets
for the core curriculum - I would be interested in other suggestions.
1) (Mathematical) Analysis - to provide calculus for applications and to
justify it.
2) Newtonian physics as an application of and motivation for Calculus.
3) Gambling - aka some descendant of statistics; good strategies for
science, considered as a game of chance played against nature.
4) Evolutionary biology, with applications in xenobiology, sociobiology,
public health, ecology, and artificial life.
5) Enough chemistry to support biology.
6) Astronomy only if spacefaring.
Comparisons and comments
1) Typical UK science A level stream is/was two years (approximately age
17 and 18) studying Maths, Physics, and Chemistry. I have favoured
Biology over Chemistry and introduced Statistics, which in my school was
encountered only in cookbook form, and then only by biology students.
2) Medieval Quadrivium (after Trivium of grammar, logic and rhetoric)
was arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. A large part of the
functions supported by their arithmetic and geometry would be covered
under Analysis and Gambling. Music (as taught in the Quadrivium) and
astronomy were applications of the mathematics of the time, so a non
space-faring civilisation might consider astronomy as replaced by
physics (even earth observation and communications might not be space
based in such a future, being replaced by many small monitoring devices
closer to the action than satellites, and short distance wireless hops
backed by optical fibre backhauls). I guess we'd still want to know e.g.
about Martian biology, if only to compare and contrast with our own.
3) Analysis in its present form seems reasonably stable; my copy of "A
course of modern analysis" is first printing 1902 reprinted 2003 -
although at University I only actually used Apostol. I'm less sure about
what pure maths will be offered - group theory, category theory, or back
to number theory or geometry? A basic grounding in sets and relations is
probably required for analysis.
4) Darwin dates as 1859, so I think it is safe to assume that evolution
will still be relevant. I make no prediction about whether it will be
universally acknowledged.
5) I've left out computer-related stuff, despite being a professional
programmer, because it's changing too fast. I think I can defend what
I've put down even in the presence of super-competent AI, so that the AI
has some hope of explaining to the humans some version of what is
actually going on. See alsohttp://www-helix.stanford.edu/people/altman/
bioinformatics.html#12.
6) The requirement for physics to support civil engineering and to
predict the impact of civilisation on the surrounding ecology is
surprisingly independent of spacefaring ability or not. Either we
produce loads of bold and aggressive civil engineers to terraform new
worlds, or we produce loads of cautious and paranoid (but still
extremely smart) engineers and ecologists to minimise our impact on the
only one we have available.
7) Most people probably expect the non-science subjects to remain pretty
much unchanged - ObSF Telzey Amberdon was a law student. ObSF, as far as
we can see, businesses in the world of the Lens - under civilisation -
are managed pretty much as ever. Barrayar went backwards to Feudalism,
thanks to the time of isolation, while Beta Colony doesn't seem that far
away from California, under some sort of social studies metric. However
I think the non-science curriculum might well change more than the
science curriculum, partly because e.g. experiments are now going on
with functional MRI that might tell us a lot more about ourselves, and
partly because I think we know much less for certain about people than
we do about calculus. I would rather bet that in 2100 students will be
doing integration by parts than bet that they will be competing in
debates that pay even lip service to Robert's rules of order.
--
A.G.McDowell
I agree pretty much down the line with your analysis, especially with
the Trivium and Quadrivium. However, it must be assumed that Star
Fleet Academy is training officers for command, which, in the SF
universe, involves a not insignificant amount of diplomacy with other
cultures and races.
Therefore, much history, philosophy, and culture / species interaction
(...have to dream up a new name for a new discipline, here...) will
have to be taught.
I hedge the bet, somewhat, in that it may be omitted from SF undergrad
coursework and be included in something along today's Command and
Staff school for officers on the threshold of field grade. But it
will be necessary somewhere along the line.
cheers
oz, who views math less as a tool and more as a mode of thought
.
- References:
- What is being taught now that Star Fleet would still have to teach?
- From: A.G.McDowell
- What is being taught now that Star Fleet would still have to teach?
- Prev by Date: Dole's HABITABLE PLANETS FOR MAN
- Next by Date: Re: Dole's HABITABLE PLANETS FOR MAN
- Previous by thread: Re: What is being taught now that Star Fleet would still have to teach?
- Next by thread: Re: Why Firefly Is Not Good Science Fiction, But Heavyweight Atheist Propaganda
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
