Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!unc!fsks
From: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Intelligence
Message-ID: <536@unc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 17:41:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: unc.536
Posted: Wed Jul  3 17:41:31 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 06:37:23 EDT
References: <1111@peora.UUCP> <199@rruxo.UUCP> <511@ttidcc.UUCP> <8657@ucbvax.ARPA> 
Reply-To: fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann)
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 22
Summary: 


>>Granted, I'll never do partial differential eqns again in my life,
>>but you have to answer those questions using a structured logic. The
>>payoff isn't visible (superficially), but it's there.

In article  hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) writes:
>Sorry, I can't buy this one.  This is the same type of  argument  that  was
>once  used  to justify the requirements for studying Latin and Greek (i.e.:
>"It trains the mind and develops the thought  processes.").  Unfortunately,
>the  human  mind  doesn't work this way.  It's been demonstrated many times
>over that studying Latin and Greek trains the mind for Latin and Greek  and
>nothing  else.

I disagree.  Back when all scholars had some knowlege of Latin and Greek,
researchers coined new terms by putting together relevant Greek and
Latin words.  Anyone who know a little of these languages had a good
chance of figuring out what the term referred to.

Now that few people have studied the classics, we get inundated with
undecipherable acronyms.  Bring back Latin!

	Frank Silbermann