"Christopher M. Kelty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > fair enough. so too parts of engineering are totally insular and > unable to explain their ideas to outsiders. To say nothing of > physics, chemistry, mathematics or biology... and so on.
Unfortunately, it often takes years of hard work to really understand some parts of the sciences. As just one example, you cannot even hope to get a real grasp of quantum mechanics without first spending a lot of time learning calculus and differential equations as well as classical mechanics and electrodynamics. This is not a question of insularity -- this is a question of real complexity. However, in spite of this, an enormous amount of effort is expended in attempting to explain the content of these fields to those not currently familiar with them. There is a giant industry that pumps out books on calculus, on differential equations, and even on quantum mechanics. These books are often sold directly to consumers and make their money only if they do a good job of trying to help people learn the needed skills. (There is actually a pretty good book out there called "Quantum Mechanics for Dummies", though it does require that you know calculus to read it.) There are plenty of people out there who will work hard explaining these ideas to you if only you are willing to take the time to learn. This is not "insularity". Perhaps one might complain that unnecessary jargon is used, but it is very difficult to discuss the fields in question without having some sort of shorthand available. Words like "momentum" or "commutator" make it possible to speak about the topics at all. The barriers to understanding are actually remarkably low -- I've never taken a formal class in molecular biology, but I regularly read papers on the topic in "Science" and "Nature" just by virtue of having read a single straightforward textbook on the subject. I think the right measure for insularity is this: do those who are revered in a field write in short, lucid sentences? Do they try to explain what they mean in such a way as to be understood by those trying to learn? If look at the work of, say, Richard Feynman, I see a man who strove with all his heart to try to make the complicated as clear as possible. "The Feynman Lectures on Physics" are quite remarkable in this regard, and I'll point out that his "QED" more or less succeeds in explaining quantum field theory to a non-technical audience. Most of the gods of the modern humanities are not people who seem to strive to make the complicated clear. Indeed, in some cases, it seems pretty obvious that the opposite is being attempted. Perry -- Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
