Re: Art History Debates

• From: plujan <no_reply_at_yahoogroups.com>
• Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 01:31:46 -0000
• Message-ID: <b3eh22+a8cr_at_...>

--- In quizbowl_at_yahoogroups.com, shamsoftabriz <no_reply_at_y...> wrote: 
> And as to who makes/made up the 'hard science lobby,' 
> I can name a few...I played with with some of them.  Joon Pahk and 
> Paul Lujan, while they were at Harvard, would IMO fit into that 
> category. Oh, how their eyes would roll every time the Frasch 
> Process  came up...;-)  Any question that you didn't have to DO the 
> experiment or the equation to get was taboo.

*wave*

Actually, the reason I hated (and still hate!) questions on the 
Frasch process is because they always, always begin with the mention 
of the three damn concentric pipes. Always!

But I think you miss the point of my objection to "Colvin science". 
It's because 99% of these questions have no sense of what's actually -
important- scientifically. Is it important to know that Robert Boyle 
was born January 25, 1627 in County Waterford, was sent to study at 
Eton in 1635, and so forth? Hell no. In fact, from a scientific 
standpoint, it's not all that important to know, say, the 20 amino 
acids or the baryon octet (and I say this as someone who memorized 
both out of boredom in high school); it's much more important to know 
*why* the amino acids are useful, what they do, etc.

> Yes!  That's precisely my point.  So while science questions have 
> grown inaccessible to to the non-scientist playing against the 
> scientist, art history questions are almost always easily gettable 
> by scientists playing again humanities people.  I'm not saying 
> that's necessarily a BAD thing -- I just wish the art history canon 
> could expand to the point of not having to sit there and get beat 
> out time and time again on innumerable Claes Oldenburg questions 
> after "Sweedish" and/or "Soft" appear in the first line.  It's just 
> as annoying as a physicist hearing nothing but biography questions.

See, I don't actually disagree with you here. Like I said initially, 
I'm all in favor of canon expansion in -all- fields. I just don't 
think a 15-point bonus part is the best place to do it. :)

--Paul