Being interested in science versus being able to read science

[stormforge]

Hi,

I am interested in knowing something that has had my mind on the verge of blowing recently. I understand that some of you on this forum study something in science or engineering, but I would like to know if there are any individuals interested in math and science that have trouble reading it. That is, if you were given the ability to read math and science, you would do it out of interest, but you're not because you find it too complicated/lose concentration when reading it.

Thanks for your input!

[StringJunky]

The main reason for that is reading material that is too advanced for ones current ability. One should find starting material on a level that matches; you can't run before you can walk. It's easy not to realise this though. As time passes and one becomes familiar with the terminology, it starts falling into place and you can then start handling more intense, terminology-laden articles.

 

Maths is no different. It's a language, just with different symbols, and you have to learn that language before you can understand it to use it. You can't write a letter until you know your alphabet, words and how they string together; it's the same with maths and science.

Edited December 9, 2016 by StringJunky

[studiot]

Yes, String Junky offers wisdom, getting the right; getting the right books is important.

 

Further the right books for one person may be wrong books for someone else.

 

Perhaps that is why there are so many books.

 

 

If you would like to expand on your question and tell us about the level and area of your interest we can usually produce suitable recommendations to look at.

[stormforge]

I studied Biology in University so my studies allowed me to build a good scientific foundation.

There is a lot of new vocabulary in anything science, though, and someone who has a hard time learning all the new vocabulary may not be able to reach their full potential as a scientist. All I'm saying is there could be someone out there with the creative potential to propose something as big as the theory of relativity, but doesn't learn science that well because of comprehension and memorization issues. Would such an individual even exist?

[StringJunky]

I studied Biology in University so my studies allowed me to build a good scientific foundation.

 

There is a lot of new vocabulary in anything science, though, and someone who has a hard time learning all the new vocabulary may not be able to reach their full potential as a scientist. All I'm saying is there could be someone out there with the creative potential to propose something as big as the theory of relativity, but doesn't learn science that well because of comprehension and memorization issues. Would such an individual even exist?

But acquiring subject-specific vocabulary is an essential part of any technical subject. Creative ability is not much use without intimately understanding the language of interest, especially in science.

Edited December 9, 2016 by StringJunky

[Mordred]

A good portion of the terminology describes the math relationships. Understanding the terminology and adhering to it is critical to understanding the math. This is particularly true in physics for example.

[Phi for All]

All I'm saying is there could be someone out there with the creative potential to propose something as big as the theory of relativity, but doesn't learn science that well because of comprehension and memorization issues. Would such an individual even exist?

 

A common wish. You consider yourself creative instead of scientific, and now want to shortcut the science part. Are you saying you don't have to work hard to be creative? That you don't have to learn things?

[Delta1212]

I studied Biology in University so my studies allowed me to build a good scientific foundation.

 

There is a lot of new vocabulary in anything science, though, and someone who has a hard time learning all the new vocabulary may not be able to reach their full potential as a scientist. All I'm saying is there could be someone out there with the creative potential to propose something as big as the theory of relativity, but doesn't learn science that well because of comprehension and memorization issues. Would such an individual even exist?

I'm sure such individuals exist in the same way that there are probably plenty of people who could have been great pianists if someone had ever sat them down at a piano and taught them to play.

 

Great achievement in any area of human endeavor requires some combination of creative and technical skill. The greater the technical skill that is required, the more impressive are the achievements of those who master the skills.

 

If you went to the NBA and said "I have the natural talent to play basketball like Michael Jordan, but all of the rules and skills required are getting in the way. Is there any way you could simplify things so I would be able to play on a professional level without having to train or practice at all?" you would get laughed at.

 

Just because the skills required by science are more mental and information oriented than physical doesn't make them any less essentially critical to doing the work, and capacity is no replacement for actual accomplishment.

[Sriman Dutta]

It's best to start understanding math and science not from the advanced level but from the base.

For example, if you want to understand how circuits work, you must not directly jump to read Kirchoff's Circuit Laws, but first you need to clear your concepts of current, potential difference, parallel and series circuits and so on.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Sriman Dutta