I'll just have to disagree with you there. Your definition of algebra (beyond the naming of symbols, or variables in programming parlance) is not useful to most people. Where are they going to apply log or sqrt in everday life or even equations as you outlined (in my viewpoint, machine learning will automagically figure out equations or they will be apps on your smartphone).
I think people would be much better served implicitly dropping out than explicitly. People's identity has more to do with performance than innate ability.
Many people are mistakenly led to believe science is about symbolic equation rearrangement on paper (high school maths) + rote memorization and so choose arts instead. For many people, but not all, this is the reason why they don't pursue science careers. If they understood it was much more about teamwork and physical setting up and running equipment/software and thinking creatively, I'm certain we'd see different choices made.
But you aren't disagreeing, you're trying to redefine algebra based on personal preferences, in other words, you're arguing for the ascendancy of postmodernism (the idea that there are no shared truths, that everything is a matter of opinion and outlook). The problem with arguing from a postmodern perspective is that the argument instantly self-destructs (it applies first to itself, which means if you're right, then I have the right to ignore you).
The essential foundation of dialogue is consensus, shared ideas, and shared word definitions. Without those, there's no possibility for dialogue.
> Your definition of algebra (beyond the naming of symbols, or variables in programming parlance) is not useful to most people.
Utility is not the basis on which words are defined. Words mean what they mean, how we feel about those meanings is irrelevant.
> I think people would be much better served implicitly dropping out than explicitly.
So those who are qualified to be in school can be surrounded by those who aren't?
> If they understood it [science] was much more about teamwork and physical setting up and running equipment/software and thinking creatively ...
That's not what science is about, unless plumbing is about wrenches. You're confusing the practice of science with the idea of science.
I'm not doing some post-modernism or whatever sneaky jab you're throwing in.
You're implying that you have some definition of algebra that is truer than mine. But that is all meaningless arguments over words anyway.
The real issue is that I'm arguing that the vast, vast majority of people only need to know that concepts can be "quantified" - "variabilized" or "symbolized". This is mostly so that they can interact with computers for the purposes of computer programming, or for creating tables of data to be fed into machine learning black boxes.
You've also think you know a truer definition of science than me. I think science today is about collecting data and having computers make predictions, increasingly use black box machine learning. I'm inferring that you think it's about theorizing from data and writing out simple equations. I have disagree with you on that (though you'll probably turn around with your post-modernist jabs).
> I'm not doing some post-modernism or whatever sneaky jab you're throwing in.
Corespondent insists that there are definitions on which different people can agree.
> You're implying that you have some definition of algebra that is truer than mine. But that is all meaningless arguments over words anyway.
Correspondent insists that there aren't definitions on which different people can agree.
When you sort out which position you're taking, post again. :)
> You've also think you know a truer definition of science than me.
There is only one definition of science. Postmodernists, of course, disagree. For a postmodernist, there are as many definitions as there are people to have them.
> I think science today is about collecting data and having computers make predictions, increasingly use black box machine learning.
That is not how science is defined. You've just described how people collect data for the purposes of science, but science is defined by the uses to which data are put, not the data itself.
> I'm inferring that you think it's about theorizing from data and writing out simple equations. I have disagree with you on that ...
Feel free. But you need to realize that there are ideas on which people agree,and science is one of them. Indeed, without agreement about what science means, there can be no science -- science requires consensus about its own meaning, even while inviting disagreement about specific scientific theories.
reply to lutusp below because reply link takes too long:
You're just saying my definitions of things are wrong etc. etc. You just want to disagree with anything I say. My views are laid out clearly on the comments in this thread. I don't see what your views are (except to disagree with anything I say).
edit: replying to lutusp
You keep arguing that I'm just personal opinionating and that I'm wrong. I can't figure out what your views are - maybe I'm really dumb and you're really smart. You win.
> You're just saying my definitions of things are wrong ...
Locate where I said that.
> You just want to disagree with anything I say.
No, I want you to grasp some sense of reality -- not virtual reality, the other reality.
> My views are laid out clearly on the comments in this thread.
Yes, but your views are not compelling on what science is, as just one example. You expressed the belief that science's definition depends on personal opinion, which is false.
> I don't see what your views are ...
Then read. I explained what's wrong with defining science any way we please. All you need to do is read the words.
I think people would be much better served implicitly dropping out than explicitly. People's identity has more to do with performance than innate ability.
Many people are mistakenly led to believe science is about symbolic equation rearrangement on paper (high school maths) + rote memorization and so choose arts instead. For many people, but not all, this is the reason why they don't pursue science careers. If they understood it was much more about teamwork and physical setting up and running equipment/software and thinking creatively, I'm certain we'd see different choices made.