It's a pretty simple equation, and you feel the business end of it when you question a medical doctor regarding something as simple as an antibiotics prescription.
Fields are designed to protect the degreed professional. The words are crafted as weapons forged in the defense of each thesis.
Everything you confront is the product of some long-dead intellectual chess match conducted in an ivory tower, and from that moment forward concepts are, by turns, weaponized.
This principle extends to all fields, economics, sociology, psychology, biology, chemistry, physics, math. Don't believe me? Try on the "divide by zero" argument for size.
It's just notation, to communicate expressions, that relay ideas.
If you were to have nothing, and hypothetically cut nothing into a number of parts, you'd still have nothing. If you have something, and divide it into zero parts, then that too, is nothing.
But people have a professional stake in fighting such compromises. Having won an argument in the past means their reputation rests on defending that stance until they finally die and get out of the way.
It's pretty easy to let an expression that communicates division with zero exist. But because we have an academic norm standing in the way, the conversation of whether or not we should serves better to reveal the brainwashed drones, parroting their instructors until death.
Fields are designed to protect the degreed professional. The words are crafted as weapons forged in the defense of each thesis.
Everything you confront is the product of some long-dead intellectual chess match conducted in an ivory tower, and from that moment forward concepts are, by turns, weaponized.
This principle extends to all fields, economics, sociology, psychology, biology, chemistry, physics, math. Don't believe me? Try on the "divide by zero" argument for size.
It's just notation, to communicate expressions, that relay ideas.
If you were to have nothing, and hypothetically cut nothing into a number of parts, you'd still have nothing. If you have something, and divide it into zero parts, then that too, is nothing.
But people have a professional stake in fighting such compromises. Having won an argument in the past means their reputation rests on defending that stance until they finally die and get out of the way.
It's pretty easy to let an expression that communicates division with zero exist. But because we have an academic norm standing in the way, the conversation of whether or not we should serves better to reveal the brainwashed drones, parroting their instructors until death.