Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
752
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 65:
Line 65: +
Talk:Majoring in Mathematics (view source)
Revision as of 17:00, March 4, 2012
, 17:00, March 4, 2012→Carbon Dating
::::But hammers are not courses of study or an ideology. Math is. And all courses of study and ideologies are susceptible to liberal bias. Engineering, with its grounding in what works, is probably the most immune to [[liberal bias]]. Women's studies and English literature are probably the most susceptible to liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:37, 26 February 2012 (EST)
::::But hammers are not courses of study or an ideology. Math is. And all courses of study and ideologies are susceptible to liberal bias. Engineering, with its grounding in what works, is probably the most immune to [[liberal bias]]. Women's studies and English literature are probably the most susceptible to liberal bias.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:37, 26 February 2012 (EST)
::::: However, I think the point Ken is trying to make is that engineering can be used by both conservatives and liberals to accomplish their goals. (I.e. Engineering is equally useful whether you are building a church or a gay strip club). Similarly, you can use mathematical concepts for either liberal or conservative purposes, depending on what you want to do. Perhaps it's more directly obvious with mathematics, but I don't think it's nearly as bad as women's studies or English lit. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 12:00, 4 March 2012 (EST)
== atheist and liberal idiocy extends to math: 2+2=5? (Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig) ==
== atheist and liberal idiocy extends to math: 2+2=5? (Lawrence Krauss vs William Lane Craig) ==