I was thinking on whether to start playing "mind games" from a textbook to learn group theory or to start with the historical approach of studying the same. Even though this was the primary reason which gave rise to this analysis, it went on that, it became generalised to get applied for all the concepts (mainly for math theories).
The battle was going on in the battle field of my brain between this "historical" approach of studying and the "raw source" approach of studying since two days with an end coming now at night. Finally who won the battle? That is the mystery, without saying the victor now itself, I will say you how the battle went on and how the battle ended.
This is how the battle began with me and another me (each underlined word indicates the talk-start of another me!): "...Now my question is, should I start playing mind game in group theory or not? You require material only to analyse the world right? Then why do you want to study how the theory came and etc? In the sense I to know the reason for the creation of each theory. Why do you want to know the reason for the creation of the theory? After all what you need is the material to analyse the world (my brain has repeated this sentence again), then it is better to just study material right?...."
Let me tailor it in short; understanding the reason for the creation of theory helps us understand the way in which the theory can be used to analyse the world. Or otherwise we can try to see for our self (without knowing the history) on applying the theory, by learning only raw material. We know that almost all the math theories are used to understand the world, so we can learn without any worries for they will for sure have helping hands to help us understand the world. After learning the raw theory completely and finding the applications for our self, we can see the actual reason for the creation of the theory and then can analyse the differences, it will be wonder-full! And and ... we should not forget to apply all this to understand the world; later on, we can create new theories if they don't exist.
The raw sources (consider a textbook which gives only the material of the theory) are powerful in the matter, where as the historical intellectual development sources (consider a textbook which explains the theory with historical development) are classic in the matter. For sure, the learning through raw sources is going to be shortest route to acquire the skill of the matter being studied; the learning through historical sources goes on longer and longer as long as the history is not blurred.
I think the problem with "powerful" raw sources is that it lacks motivation most of the time, except some them don't need it, and those some of them are mostly those who find ecstasy in solving problems (in math mainly), even that ecstasy may not take them long for them to hold on with the use of raw sources. So, now to use raw sources, we need to search for (if there is any) the motivation. If we are able to find a reason to use short way raw sources against long way historical sources, we will be legally satisfied in our self to do what we do.
We can see that long historical way of learning can also be made (if necessary) after studying the short raw way, so we will not be deleting that option. On the raw source way, we can "imagine" on how the concepts are built, which later on can be seen in "reality" along the historical way.
Studying the history of intellectual development helps us to understand the context in which the theory was built, and thus may help to understand the language of the theory used, which may sometimes be outdated and still be in use (most of the time in physics, chemistry, biology, etc). Another advantage of historical approach is that, it helps us to understand the intellectual ability of a personality, which no other way can give, it is this history approach which combines humanities and sciences. And it helps us to see on how the concepts came to stage one by one.
Both historical and raw source way have advantages, why not not leave both? Let us first use the powerful raw source way and then after completing it we can have a look at the historic way. So, who won the battle? Both of them! Hurray!
Most of the time, every person has reason behind what he/she does, so this is what I have for what I am going to do; if you find any fault in reasoning, please do comment below, we can find a better view as always!
The battle was going on in the battle field of my brain between this "historical" approach of studying and the "raw source" approach of studying since two days with an end coming now at night. Finally who won the battle? That is the mystery, without saying the victor now itself, I will say you how the battle went on and how the battle ended.
This is how the battle began with me and another me (each underlined word indicates the talk-start of another me!): "...Now my question is, should I start playing mind game in group theory or not? You require material only to analyse the world right? Then why do you want to study how the theory came and etc? In the sense I to know the reason for the creation of each theory. Why do you want to know the reason for the creation of the theory? After all what you need is the material to analyse the world (my brain has repeated this sentence again), then it is better to just study material right?...."
Let me tailor it in short; understanding the reason for the creation of theory helps us understand the way in which the theory can be used to analyse the world. Or otherwise we can try to see for our self (without knowing the history) on applying the theory, by learning only raw material. We know that almost all the math theories are used to understand the world, so we can learn without any worries for they will for sure have helping hands to help us understand the world. After learning the raw theory completely and finding the applications for our self, we can see the actual reason for the creation of the theory and then can analyse the differences, it will be wonder-full! And and ... we should not forget to apply all this to understand the world; later on, we can create new theories if they don't exist.
The raw sources (consider a textbook which gives only the material of the theory) are powerful in the matter, where as the historical intellectual development sources (consider a textbook which explains the theory with historical development) are classic in the matter. For sure, the learning through raw sources is going to be shortest route to acquire the skill of the matter being studied; the learning through historical sources goes on longer and longer as long as the history is not blurred.
I think the problem with "powerful" raw sources is that it lacks motivation most of the time, except some them don't need it, and those some of them are mostly those who find ecstasy in solving problems (in math mainly), even that ecstasy may not take them long for them to hold on with the use of raw sources. So, now to use raw sources, we need to search for (if there is any) the motivation. If we are able to find a reason to use short way raw sources against long way historical sources, we will be legally satisfied in our self to do what we do.
We can see that long historical way of learning can also be made (if necessary) after studying the short raw way, so we will not be deleting that option. On the raw source way, we can "imagine" on how the concepts are built, which later on can be seen in "reality" along the historical way.
Studying the history of intellectual development helps us to understand the context in which the theory was built, and thus may help to understand the language of the theory used, which may sometimes be outdated and still be in use (most of the time in physics, chemistry, biology, etc). Another advantage of historical approach is that, it helps us to understand the intellectual ability of a personality, which no other way can give, it is this history approach which combines humanities and sciences. And it helps us to see on how the concepts came to stage one by one.
Both historical and raw source way have advantages, why not not leave both? Let us first use the powerful raw source way and then after completing it we can have a look at the historic way. So, who won the battle? Both of them! Hurray!
Most of the time, every person has reason behind what he/she does, so this is what I have for what I am going to do; if you find any fault in reasoning, please do comment below, we can find a better view as always!
Comments
Post a Comment