Going back to the ‘classics’ is frequently is a disaster in science and math.
Post 1900 or so you often find a seminal paper (e.g. Einstein) explains something better than newer papers because the seminal paper has to explain the concept well because it is new and unfamiliar and faces opposition. (Once people start reviewing it and the idea is established the reader is likely to blame themselves instead of the concept or a poorly written review if they struggle.)
You read old books that talk about Euclid or Newton and Liebnitz on the calculus but people have a hard enough time learning and teaching calculus that going back to the old texts is just downright cruel.
Contrast that to Ars Amatorus, Nicomanchean Ethics, or The symposium which on a good day are a breeze to read and come across as completely fresh.
1 comment
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 11.8 ms ] threadPost 1900 or so you often find a seminal paper (e.g. Einstein) explains something better than newer papers because the seminal paper has to explain the concept well because it is new and unfamiliar and faces opposition. (Once people start reviewing it and the idea is established the reader is likely to blame themselves instead of the concept or a poorly written review if they struggle.)
You read old books that talk about Euclid or Newton and Liebnitz on the calculus but people have a hard enough time learning and teaching calculus that going back to the old texts is just downright cruel.
Contrast that to Ars Amatorus, Nicomanchean Ethics, or The symposium which on a good day are a breeze to read and come across as completely fresh.