The original papers that introduced quantum mechanics might well be unreadable and mired in jargon. However, the community has come together, digested these ideas, and written textbooks that are accessible to anyone with a minimum of preparation. Furthermore, what preparation one is expected to know (some linear algebra, some calculus, some classical mechanics) is clearly laid out, and has textbooks one can use to study.
No such path of learning is ever presented for any of postmodernism. The twin obsessions of (a) treating only primary sources as authoritative , coupled with (b) the dense jargon of the primary sources that makes it unreadable to anyone but the experts is what makes postmodern philosophy unapproachable.
This forces people to discredit much if postmodernism. It seems to be a community that refuses to expand and make approachable their work, while claiming that their work has important ramifications. That reeks of snake oil salesmanship to me.
A model is proposed for the evolution of the profile of a growing interface. The deterministic growth is solved exactly, and exhibits nontrivial relaxation patterns. The stochastic version is studied by dynamic renormalization-group techniques and by mappings to Burgers's equation and to a random directed-polymer problem. The exact dynamic scaling form obtained for a one-dimensional interface is in excellent agreement with previous numerical simulations. Predictions are made for more dimensions.
This is who they gave the nobel prize to last year. I don't know how anyone can take these people seriously when this is supposed to be the definitive text on the Kardar–Parisi–Zhang equation.
Comments
The original papers that introduced quantum mechanics might well be unreadable and mired in jargon. However, the community has come together, digested these ideas, and written textbooks that are accessible to anyone with a minimum of preparation. Furthermore, what preparation one is expected to know (some linear algebra, some calculus, some classical mechanics) is clearly laid out, and has textbooks one can use to study.
No such path of learning is ever presented for any of postmodernism. The twin obsessions of (a) treating only primary sources as authoritative , coupled with (b) the dense jargon of the primary sources that makes it unreadable to anyone but the experts is what makes postmodern philosophy unapproachable.
This forces people to discredit much if postmodernism. It seems to be a community that refuses to expand and make approachable their work, while claiming that their work has important ramifications. That reeks of snake oil salesmanship to me.
This is who they gave the nobel prize to last year. I don't know how anyone can take these people seriously when this is supposed to be the definitive text on the Kardar–Parisi–Zhang equation.