this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2025
7 points (55.6% liked)
Asklemmy
48880 readers
324 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, we live in it. It comes up in practice fairly often.
Let me guess, you're the kind of person who thinks we need to understand gravity to make use of it.
I really wish people like you could just have their mouths taped shut and their fingers glued together.
That's pretty mean, bro/brah/other.
Even in the days of catapults, rough formulas for the effects of gravity made them work a lot better. Knowing "it goes down" can do a bit, but not everything. If you somehow didn't even know that it would be useless.
Your misunderstanding comes from the type and amount of people that needed to have that knowledge.
For example, we don't need to know about ballistics to use a gun.
Do you have a source for this? I'm genuinely curious, considering Newton didn't show up until the 17th century.
I would go seriously digging for the source for you, since a cursory search is full of modern stuff and I can't remember where I saw it exactly, but that would require non-glued fingers.
If you look at old (siege) engineering manuscripts, they're full of "take the square root of the armslengths and rewrite as dactyls"-type rules for everything. They didn't know much about mechanics, and often had funny ideas like momentum being self-dissipating if not sustained. but enough experimentation and basic calculating tools allows you to make rules of thumb anyway.
And, it's not like nobody could see how things moved through the air when launched or dropped. Basic principles about falling things go back to the 14th century at least, and the ancient Greeks thought so much about parabolas one must have at least noticed that's the trajectory of a thrown javelin, albeit without even algebra to start to explain why.
Sure, but you need to know about the trigger and where the bullet comes out of. And, if you don't know about the recoil, how to load it and where the casing is ejected you might not use it well.
Thinking about places like Europe and China, there's probably over a billion people that have never seen a gun operated in real life, so I suppose that's actually not really necessary, either. On the other hand, I have trouble imagining a modern person who's never needed to convey "perpendicular".
You can define knowledge as enablement to do things.
We use plenty of simple geometry everyday, sure, but you don't need to be able to even understand what OP's example says to engage with the world. Like you don't need to provide a mathematical proof to put a shelf up properly.
Besides understanding what a projection is, I'm actually going to say that's all pretty important stuff to know. A point, forming a line between points, how to describe a plane and what perpendicular means.
If you want to do graphics projections suddenly become very important, but sure, you can explain carpentry without it. Although if you want to draft the solution first the concept will be at least relevant.
Kind of a separate issue yet. Even with OP's example, you can explain the solution in natural language pretty easily, but the obvious way to formally prove it would be with linear algebra.
How many people do you think are working in computer graphics? It's specialised knowledge, exactly the kind of thing that should be taught at university to the people it's relevent to.
It's not about how you phrase the solution, it's about needing the solution at all.
Yeah, agreed, but like I said most of this is not advanced or specialised.