There is not much different cognitive process in understanding Shakespeare’s work and Newton’s laws.
Both of them have to do with the cognitive running of the brain in trying to make connections and trying to internalize the ideas that both of those greats put forward for people. The real difference why people consider those two departments different from each other lies in the way people make connections when they’re trying to comprehend, otherwise both only involve comprehension to qualify the levels of epistemology.
All of this debate is only to prove that even science subjects require reading comprehension, to understand and good writing skills to communicate. Speaking is also becoming more popular as students are required to communicate their ideas through a formal presentation, which is a tough test of comprehension and memorization of science material.
If students do not possess necessary literary skills then what is the point of absorbing information passively? While sitting in the classroom, nothing will make sense (at least an idea which is alien to students) until and unless there is an effective productive debate about it. There needs to be sufficient questioning on a math problem to ‘rotate’ it enough so that everyone in the class understands what is being taught.
As the time progresses, studies are becoming more compact, there is so much to teach and consume. Students are truly speaking on their own, if they need to make it. And with vital communication skills (literary skills) they don’t stand a chance. They need to discover things on their own. Studies are not as simple as they used to be. The education system expects so much from students, literary skills are the necessary weapons that every student, be it from arts department or the head of calculus club, need to possess in order to excel.
Thinking about something is one thing; probably all of us are geniuses in our own heads. But when the same idea is put ...Show more