Comments

• Sascha

  October 23

  @ZettelDistraction will be your main address.

  In my experience, Math and Physics are the most resistant to the Zettelkasten Method.

  I am a Zettler
• tomp

  October 23

  @Sage said:
  Wondering how the Zettelkasten would work in the context of subjects like Mathematics and Physics, where the things that are learned are more theoretical and empirical facts that kind of build on each other but are also somewhat distinct as opposed to bits and pieces of information in other fields like philosophy that are more debatable.

  Any input would be appreciated.

  I think that detailed proofs, mathematical arguments, and presentation of detailed lab measurements or other evidence are hard to do in a zettelkasten, at least in a way that is helpful. Linking to parts of a scientific notebook might be better. Zettelkasten notes that summarize work, such as Maxwell's equations, OTOH, could be very useful. I would also think about making notes for your own conclusions (or even interim understanding), and for connections between different fields: e.g., the relation between information theory and entropy.

  An example of something I might write a note about is the difference between the changes in dimensions of a rapidly moving object (that is, the Lorentz effect) and how that object would look to the eye if it could be seen (it would look rotated, not squashed as I understand it). The note could explain the nature of the difference and sketch how to derive the difference.

  On a more mundane level, one can capture simple basic facts or relationships that come up often and that one wants to be able to have a convenient way to look them up. I have one on the uncertainty principle: "Expression Δf * Δt >= 1". Its only purpose is to remind me of the right hand side (in Fourier analysis, unity, in quantum mechanics, ħ/2), and to give me a reference to an online source with more details.

  Of course, you would need to have a way to handle mathematical notation. One way is to embed mathjax in the note and use a viewer to render the equations (this can be done in e.g., Markdown). Another would be to create an image of the equations (maybe a scan of a sheet of hand written ones) and include a link to the image in the note.
• andang76

  October 23

  I'm not a mathematician; I work in software development. But I think that, just as in the fairly technical field I work in, there is plenty of room for ideas, reflections, doubts, questions, investigations, curiosities to develop, and reasoning.

  There are different perspectives to compare, assumptions to question, opinions to examine and substantiate, and conflicting views that may require us to work towards a synthesis or determine what is correct, and under which circumstances. There are also insights to develop through practical work, connections to other fields, and metareflections on the subject itself.

  I think (or at least hope!) that studying and applying mathematics involves more than just proofs and calculations. It also involves exercising one's thinking: exploring why something works, questioning assumptions, understanding the scope and limitations of a result, and figuring out how different concepts relate to one another.

  And as for physics, which I see as intersecting with history and social issues and applications as well, I'd say there is even more room for this kind of exploration.

  So, while the nature of the material may differ from that in fields such as philosophy, I don't see why a Zettelkasten couldn't be useful. The question, to me, is not so much whether the subject consists of debatable ideas or established facts, but what you want to understand, investigate, connect, or develop beyond simply learning the material.

  ---

  For example, when studying atomic physics, you could start by learning about the different atomic models, from Dalton to Thomson, Rutherford, Bohr, and eventually the quantum model.

  But instead of simply memorizing their characteristics, you could ask yourself: Why did we need to change our model of the atom? What couldn't the previous models explain? What did new experiments reveal, and what questions remained unanswered?

  These questions could lead you to explore the relationship between scientific models and experimental evidence, the history of physics, and the nature and limitations of scientific theories.

  You could then connect these ideas to a more general reflection: scientific models can be useful without being definitive descriptions of reality; their value also depends on what they can explain and predict, and on the limitations they have.

  These connections could also extend beyond physics itself, for example to the ethical questions surrounding nuclear technology: the development and use of atomic weapons, the responsibilities of scientists, the consequences of scientific discoveries for society, and the ethical dilemmas arising from the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

  In this way, a topic that initially seems purely scientific can lead to connections with history, politics, philosophy, and ethics.

  This is just one example of how a Zettelkasten can help you go beyond memorizing established knowledge and develop a deeper understanding through questions, investigations, and connections.

  Another example could be the War of the Currents, the historical conflict between AC and DC electrical systems. Starting with the underlying physics, you could explore the technical advantages and limitations of each system, how they influenced the development of electrical power distribution, and how technological, economic, and commercial interests shaped their adoption. This could also lead to questions about competition, business ethics, and the relationship between scientific knowledge and commercial interests.
• harr

  October 24 edited October 24

  @andang76 said:
  And as for physics, which I see as intersecting with history and social issues and applications as well, I'd say there is even more room for this kind of exploration.

  Yes! For example I find the difference between Newtonian physics, relativity and quantum mechanics easier to understand with a historical timeline in mind. I think of steam engines, nuclear power and satellite navigation. (I frequently use timelines in my zettelkasten.)

  What we consider obvious truths today were groundbreaking—almost inconceivable—ideas a few centuries or just decades ago.

  The historical perspective also helps to understand how physics progresses. And it helps to get a sense of one's own position on the timeline. What is known today? What is being explored or challenged today? What are the questions for the next 10, 20, 40 years?

  @andang76 said:
  The question, to me, is not so much whether the subject consists of debatable ideas or established facts, but what you want to understand, investigate, connect, or develop beyond simply learning the material. (…)
  This is just one example of how a Zettelkasten can help you go beyond memorizing established knowledge and develop a deeper understanding through questions, investigations, and connections.

  Yes! Arguing the other way around: you don't need a zettelkasten if you just want to learn the basics of classic mechanics. There are better tools available. Don't confuse a Zettelkasten with flashcards. ;-)

  Post edited by harr on October 24
• harr

  October 24 edited October 24

  The psychologist Abraham Maslow once wrote: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."

  I think this applies to The Zettelkasten Method as well. If you only have a zettelkasten, I suppose it is tempting to apply it to every knowledge task.
• ZettelDistraction

  October 25

  @Sage said:
  Wondering how the Zettelkasten would work in the context of subjects like Mathematics and Physics--
  Any input would be appreciated.

  Since any input would be appreciated, definitions and statements of theorems, and subject outlines work. Although this isn't mathematics or STEM-specific, it is helpful to work with the Zettelkasten to test your understanding as you read. For concision, I'll suppose you're reading a book. The process is to read, close the book, reconstruct what you have read in your notes, then check your notes against the text. Read again, close the book, and correct your notes. Reading and rereading alone is less effective than immediate retrieval and reconstruction. There isn't much specific to Zettelkasten about this, except you have navigational affordances such as linking and hashtags or keywords. It helps to use a reference manager such as Zotero to record your sources the moment you learn about them.

  Zettel GitHub. Zettel Wiki Erdős #2. Problems worthy of attack prove their worth by hitting back. -- Piet Hein. PROBLEMS. Grooks, 1966. CC BY-SA 4.0.
• Martin

  October 26

  I think the decisive question is not whether a field is factual, formal, or interpretative, but what function a piece of knowledge has in one’s actual work:

  _Is this information merely being stored, or does it become a reliable point of departure for further comparing, observing, questioning, or arguing?_
  

  That shifts the issue away from a typology of disciplines and towards a functional criterion. Mathematics, physics, and biology are not, as such, more or less suited to a Zettelkasten. What matters is the role a definition, fact, equation, observation, or result acquires within one’s ongoing train of thought.