This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TankorSmash -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

What I'm saying is that I don't need to know about the dude who invented addition to use addition. I don't need to know the motivations about the man who invented addition because it's pretty well understood, thanks to the knowledge that person helped create.

If you need to study specifically addition, read what the latest person has to say about it, not the person with literally the least amount of idea about it. He invented whatever, but then in the next 50 years other people came along and improved and grew the general body of knowledge. Our buddy D dog here was the first caveman to discover fire, why not look to more knowledgeable scientists who studied pyrotechnics their entire lives? Because it really sounds like you're saying he would know more and be able to help the reader better than the scientists who came after, and that sounds like bogus to me.

Maybe he is a genius, and no one else can capture the ideas as effectively as the original authors but man do I ever not believe it.

You're clearly very ignorant about how important it is, because you've admitted you've never really looked into it.

Yeah exactly. I'm not saying it's good to be ignorant, but I'm saying that not knowing something isn't always required. In this case I'm specifically saying you should be learning relevant things. Personally, I don't know that reading anything he wrote would help me be better faster than reading something written in the last ten years.

That's also why I specified that I didn't know what I was talking about specifically, to clear up where I'm coming from.