Numerical Methods or the Virtue of Being Wrong

Disclaimer:
We sit down in numerical methods. Professor Butler spews some ancient Greek on
the blackboard. Perhaps a volunteer to solve the mystical non-linear set of
equations?
I get up. I go to the board. I write down some Babylonian hieroglyphics. Equations
fill up the board in my attempt to solve via brute force, the method to this madness.
In post-partum haste and depression of my love-child, the cesspool splattered
across the board, I look back at Butler, begging him to save me from damnation and
validate my devilish incarnate.
What are you looking at me for? Im not holding a pot of gold. Look at the board;
if youre satisfied, sit back down. So I look at the board. I mean, it all looks good
to me.
Of course, as some of you may remember, my answer was wrong. Dead-wrong. A
monstrosity. The worst thing to ever come out of UFs chemical engineering
department, but so what? Butler had a point. Why did I look at him after I was
done? My work wasnt on his face. It was right in front of me, and really, thats all I
shouldve needed to validate my own work and assess my own work. But I didnt
know what my work meant, or what a good answer looked like (conceptually and
not just aesthetically; I think even I, an aesthetically unrefined philistine, would
agree I had a better chance at communicating had I written in triangles and circles
instead of English and Math)
So why didnt I? Well, for one thing, Ive been taught being wrong is a sin.
Especially in a class like numerical methods, there are so many techniques and so
many mathematical methods (Newton-Raphson, Gaussian, (I forget the rest), etc.)
that we never get a chance to stop and think about what were doing, why were
doing it, how were doing itdo we even want to do it (I dont but thats just me).
So the problem of always teaching the technique manifests itself as sort of a low
self-esteem, validation-seeking mechanism. What I mean is that: do we really think
Newton looked at his mentor when he thought of his glorious numerical technique
to determine roots of a non-linear equation? No, he probably guessed the technique
from experience, tested it with the ultimate test of physicsnatureconfirmed the
result, and gave birth to the sordid pain-in-the-proverbial-ass we know as Newtons
method. He didnt seek validation in others, only in his equations and his results.
Newton too sprawled hieroglyphics across his page, and figured out a way to make
it work.
On a related note, we arent so different than Newton, and to uphold a relatively
simple, but painful technique as godlike because of its name is to do a disservice to
the spirit of science. The name doesnt matterthe technique does. With that said,
Butler does encourage a heavy amount of experimenting with programming, just
not so much the techniques, but that I believe he does for efficiency rather than for
lack of instructional abilities.
TL;DR: Being wrong isnt a sin. Having been conditioned this way leads to
constantly seeking validation from teachers, friends, textbooks. In life and in actual
chemical engineering work, there are no solutions manualsjust precedence and
experience. Chemical engineering education is too instruction heavy. The spirit of
the work is as important as the technical information.
More will come in regards to problems within the chemical engineering (and all
STEM fields for that matter) education. In short, I think we should teach more like
how the art and music colleges teach.

Amir out.