[Double_Cast]

A few months ago, a redditor introduced me to the notion of "the trivium". It was mentioned in the context of reforming the U.S. education system. I think it was a neat idea, and it was the lens through which I interpreted this comment.

The trivium consists of grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric [1]. Grammar signifies knowing the language/jargon. E.g. knowing the parts of a car. Dialectic signifies logic and critical thinking. E.g. realizing that adding more oil won't fix the alternator. Rhetoric signifies application and expression. E.g. designing a safe, high-performance, cost-effective, and aesthetically-appealing vehicle.

Regarding your anecdote about not understanding abstraction of shapes. It sounds to me like your friend is comfortable with grammar, but not dialectic.

According to this redditor, a major flaw in the education system is that it teaches "subjects" (grammar) while critical thinking (dialectic) is shafted (mostly limited to math class) [2]. But I repeatedly read stories about people who can program without anything more than a basic understanding. I find this surprising because computer science is mostly math, which falls under dialectic. Why is this? Disclaimer: I'm new to programming.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trivium

[2] http://www.scribd.com/doc/36325362/The-Lost-Tools-of-Learnin...

[nathas]

Computer science is mostly "math" only at the lower levels - things like language design, how the bits work in the actual circuits, etc. Exceptions are things like 3d graphics and crypto, but most "normal" programmers don't need to understand the underlying math there.

Most CS comes down to logical operations and the scientific method.

Problem -> Research -> Hypothesis -> Experiment -> Analyze -> Results -> Reapeat until problem is solved.

You can program if you can reason well enough.

[scott_s]

My own essay on the relationship of computer science and math: http://www.scott-a-s.com/cs-is-not-math

[Double_Cast]

Thanks. I liked the physicist reference.