attitude towards education in the US and elsewhere, what do you think

[1338 h4x0r]

I was writing up a rant* when the thought of differing attitudes towards education occurred to me. A particular mystery for me, something I mentioned before, is how it seems that Anglo countries in particular became the shittiest wrt public attitudes to education. The anti-intellectual attitudes of the US are already well-known, but even in cultured England you have these dumb *** 'chavs', who more or less are the equiv. of wiggers and say pathetic things like "reedin iz 4 geekz n sad ppl". How did it happen? ... the way these British wiggers write is eerily similar to the broken English predicted after a nuclear holocaust in Riddley Walker. I would guess that we've simply become complacent because of our general prosperity, but feel free to enlighten me. Education is one of the most important issues for me.

What are the views towards education in your country? Which fields are valued (or disparaged) the most? What do you think of other countries? And specifically, for European readers, which European countries have the best attitudes? I'd wager Hungary and Turkey (if you want to include them in Europe), but who else?

* - http://eabcaecbbceacbae.blogspot.com/2008/05/lol-dis.html

[badtaste]

I think it's all about culture. Some treat education as very important, and so invest in it appropriately at all levels. Socioeconomic factors would also have a hand, perhaps education is too expensive for some.

Not really sure how it is in Australia. I've always been surrounded by a bright bunch of people and they've pushed me in a positive direction, participated in a Select Entry Accelerated Learning program (basically, classes for the smarter kids), attended a select entry school eventually, etc...

[1338 h4x0r]

Almost no country could get worse than the US, but I've heard bullpoop about Australia, too. Is there any truth to that?

Also, education isn't expensive at all, at least not in the industrial world. If you count libraries, anyway.

[badtaste]

Almost no country could get worse than the US, but I've heard bullpoop about Australia, too. Is there any truth to that?

Also, education isn't expensive at all, at least not in the industrial world. If you count libraries, anyway.

Again, I'm not too sure about the situation here. Certainly, we have our fair share of anti-intellectuals (well inundated with American values, haha), but I don't think it's at epidemic proportions.

Theoretically, education should be free here, but schools and institutions always manage to find ways to drain money from students.

[1338 h4x0r]

Again, I'm not too sure about the situation here. Certainly, we have our fair share of anti-intellectuals (well inundated with American values, haha), but I don't think it's at epidemic proportions.

cool

Theoretically, education should be free here, but schools and institutions always manage to find ways to drain money from students.

lol

textbooks?

[rasputin]

Australia is similar to America and Britain, but obviously to a much lesser extent (you already know my views on this 1338h4x0r :)). This isn't to say that there aren't intellectual people, you could easily say the same thing about the US and America; there's still very intelligent people. In general though, a lot of people are dumb as all hell, and it's culturally accepted to be dumb, and to not even want to be intelligent or educated.

[1338 h4x0r]

of course, culture plays no role in how able people are inherently BUT it does play a very important role in whether people use their abilities

yes, what you said about acceptance of being a ****tard really sucks ... I think we are going to get h4x3d by the East tbh

[rasputin]

perhaps the phrase socially acceptable may have been more appropriate

[1338 h4x0r]

I'd say they're equivalent

[Give me Beer]

Eh, I think attittudes on education are more something that has to do with intellect than just societal values, and you're always going to have your dumb twats.

Of course, I don't notice too much morons in my daily life because here in Belgium, the schooling system is very seggregated. You've got your "intellectual" schools (ASO) which prepare you for university, your "medium schools" which give you a slightly more pratically oriented education (TSO), and the schools that prepare you for jobs like "welder" or "plumber" (BSO). Now I should speak bad of the latter, but I was ASO educated and now study in university, and it's almost an automatic effect. Because of the way the system works, kids that can't keep up (and that includes all the dumb shits) automatically disappear to TSO and BSO schools and never make it to university.

In ASO schools you also have your divisions between your "study path" where studying "Latin & Greek" is thought of as being "better" than studying "Sciences & Economy" or something like that.

Your education will for a big part determine your social standing, where having less of an education will in fact reflect badly on you.

Of course, if you are a moron, you'll disappear to schools and jobs that I rarely have contact with. Personally I don't like the "elitist" vibe that this system gives off, and I don't like the fact that your "degree" counts for more than your natural intelligence ...

[1338 h4x0r]

Eh, I think attittudes on education are more something that has to do with intellect than just societal values, and you're always going to have your dumb twats.

idk, I've seen what peer influence can do to how people perform

in particular, my high school teachers pushed me down the heavily math-oriented path that I might not have taken otherwise

In ASO schools you also have your divisions between your "study path" where studying "Latin & Greek" is thought of as being "better" than studying "Sciences & Economy" or something like that.

So where do they employ all the people who study classical languages?


Of course, if you are a moron, you'll disappear to schools and jobs that I rarely have contact with. Personally I don't like the "elitist" vibe that this system gives off, and I don't like the fact that your "degree" counts for more than your natural intelligence ...

Hm, yes ... I can see how Évariste Galois would have gotten put in a TSO program. Conditioning someone's whole academic career on high school is kind of silly.

[beso negro]

Nothing is wrong with the US education system. Sure a lot of people don't take it seriously. So what? Fine with me. That only gives me a greater advantage.

Our public schools give kids enough resources to thrive if they want to. If some don't want to cool. We need trashmen just like we need scientists.

[1338 h4x0r]

Our public schools give kids enough resources to thrive if they want to.

That's debatable in some cases.

[rasputin]

That's what we're saying. It's not the system to blame, it's the fact that the majority of people are comfortable with being idiots, and they're accepted that way.

EDIT: this was to beso negro btw

[beso negro]

That's debatable in some cases.

idk i did private schooling 1st-8th grade and then public highschool and I was pleased with what was offered at the highschool (plenty of AP classes for example). If public schooling doesn't teach you what you need, there's always the local library.

the majority of people are comfortable with being idiots, and they're accepted that way.

and i'm cool with people doing that. more money for me.

[rasputin]

and i'm cool with people doing that. more money for me.
Yeah I suppose that's another way of looking at it. It irritates me sometimes though. When I was younger I'd get teased because I used to read a lot. When I tell people I study politics and economics, they're all like 'why the hell would you even do that'. My girlfriend is majoring in German, and a bunch of her non-uni friends think studying languages is a waste of time (while they work as a waitresses 5 days a week and go out clubbing every weekend). I guess one can ignore it, but it's all around and just gets annoying.

[mph4ever]

my experience is that europe is very structured, very much like the belgian example given. it is also very elitist.

i don't have a degree. i am a radio engineer, qualifying as a marine radio officer. at the same time as that i did telecommunications engineering and microcomputer technology. i know, but there were no degree courses in computing in any of the colleges i could get in to. third level was like a 10% thing in my day and only really rich kids could do university. thing is, after qualifying, i went to london and worked for a cool company called british maritime technology. it was a hydro and aero dynamics company. i got the highest level of security clearance so i got to work on nuclear submarines, formula one racing cars, the maxfli golfball, ship hull design, it was excellent.

stick with it for a minute, there is a point to this little tale.

microsoft were setting up in europe, dublin actually. i applied and got a job, i was employee number 41. i joined as their network engineer and set up their entire infrastructure culminating with me designing, installing and managing the most advance network in the world at the time. i earned incredible amounts with the stock options

i got cozy and bored, technology changes in waves and i was at the end of a 3 year cycle which meant i would be operationally managing a group of 173 technical staff. boring a sh'it, worst thing in thw world for a techy like me. so i had a look around outside to see if there was another job there that might be of interest. i was offered to move to seattle numerous times, i knew billg personally and travelled with him as tech support on his roadshows. hes a genuine genius. i haven't met many, hes one. anyway, i wouldn't move to the states simply because i had enough of yanks travelling there every couple of weeks. and if you don't move when offered the chance then you get sidelined. so i looked outside.

a dutch company was looking for someone to head up their irish developmnet centre. they were alerted to my availability. i went and chatted with them and half an hour later they were offering me the job. significant pay rise, like 100s of per cent to compensate for the ms stock options etc. at the end they asked me what my degree was in. i explained i didn't have one and asked why is that of interest if they think i can do the job. they said that it was company policy to hire people with degrees and that they were withdrawing the offer. i said fair enough, i think its stupid but fair enough and walked out.

got a call two days later, they were going to change their policy and make an exception, and asked when i could join. i was to head up a greenfield site, with all hiring etc by me. i asked them one question - do i have to hire only degree educated staff and they said yes. i explained that they were setting me up to fail because a degree means nothing when you are hiring staff with more than 6 or 7 years experience and that they were seriously limiting themselves in terms of the experience people they would be able to hire in ireland at the time due to the lack of graduates in the past. they said it was a rule and they would be sticking with. i told them to stick their job up their hole and remained where i was.

they set up in ireland and closed after three years citing the lack of suitably qualified people. in other words, they stuck to their guns and got shot. none of the other massively successful companies had this restriction, dell, intel, microsoft, apple, 3com, ibm, dec, hp, none of them had this rule and every single one of them can only look back on massive success from their time here.

just sayin', thats all

[rasputin]

Perfectly valid story mate, but still not what we're getting at. My opinion is that uni isn't thge focal point here. You can just as easily be intelligent and not have a degree. The idea is that people don't want to be intelligent. Judging from your story, you're obviously not that type of person.
By the way, whereabouts in Ireland are you from? My girlfriend is Irish, her dad's from Cork and mum's from Dublin.

[Pastorius]

Interesting story, but I think this is meant to be centred less on higher education and more on compulsory education, and the lack of enthusiasm displayed by a lot of children these days.

There is definitely a dangerous culture of education being a bad thing, ASBO's being a badge of honour, that kind of thing. But I think it's the minority rather than the majority.

[SugarCoatedSour]

Education is the yellow brick road that takes people to social acceptance and monetary value of living. Few people educate themselves for the purpose of enriching their view, and their ability to freely associate elements of life.

[Linkinbassist]

I think that primary and (especially) secondary education are treated in the UK as a given, so kids inevitably treat the experience poorly.

I also think that those with higher academic dreams (such as I) will eventually thrive through the system too. You have to want to participate in the system to get the best out of it.

Britain has an excellent higher education system. we have 4 of the top 20 universities in the world on this small nation and that's something not to be knocked. And having such great institutions all around to aspire to becoming a part of is what should make education worth it, i think.

[Akira]

idk i did private schooling 1st-8th grade and then public highschool and I was pleased with what was offered at the highschool (plenty of AP classes for example). If public schooling doesn't teach you what you need, there's always the local library.



and i'm cool with people doing that. more money for me.

You're using an isolated example to generalize about the whole public school system, and that is not right. My school is like yours probably was. There are tons of AP classes. The school offers rigorous courses with good teachers. However, go a couple towns over and you won't find any AP classes, or if you do they will be jokes.

[mph4ever]

Perfectly valid story mate, but still not what we're getting at. My opinion is that uni isn't thge focal point here. You can just as easily be intelligent and not have a degree. The idea is that people don't want to be intelligent. Judging from your story, you're obviously not that type of person.
By the way, whereabouts in Ireland are you from? My girlfriend is Irish, her dad's from Cork and mum's from Dublin.

for here, i'd say the ones that want to be intelligent are the ones that pursue 3rd level education. third level education is the taken very serious here. its what everyone is talking about. there are very few who don't aspire to getting a very good education, the opportunity is there for all, just some decide not to. they don't knock the ones that do either.

ireland is strange place in the we have the population of a fair sized city but are geographically dispersed. third level is a necessity if you want to get on. most especially since a lot of the menial jobs are being performed by the immigrant population.

i'm from just south of dublin, wicklow to be precise, for now anyway.

[Futue te Ipsum]

Education is the yellow brick road that takes people to social acceptance and monetary value of living. Few people educate themselves for the purpose of enriching their view, and their ability to freely associate elements of life.If money was all that mattered, all the physics students would want to study engineering, all the biology students would be doing dentistry, all the maths students econ and english students would be doing law.

That so many straight A students are in the hard sciences, heading off to underfunded post doc work whilst their friends drive around in german sports cars in fashionable areas suggests that there's still hope for this world :p

[Futue te Ipsum]

Britain has an excellent higher education system. we have 4 of the top 20 universities in the world on this small nation and that's something not to be knocked. And having such great institutions all around to aspire to becoming a part of is what should make education worth it, i think.seeing as UCL came 9th and LSE, ICL, Ox and Camb are clearly better, surely we must have 5?

If ucl is in the top ten and ICL and LSE aren't, then that says more about the table than it does the institutions in it. And as a UCL student I'm the complete opposite of biased.

Also, what you have to understand with the "top" unis is that they are absolutely loaded with international students. LSE even has a MAJORITY of its students being internationals, with ICL and UCL being close. Yes, any top ten university in Britain will have outstanding facilities, funding and international reputations, but it is produced and funded on the back of (mostly asian) international students with their higher fees and nauseating addiction to the library.

[Reaganista]

'chavs' are a natural reaction to people like you who overvalue education, especially certain types of education, as much as they undervalue it

[sLarkin20]

I really don't know much about educational systems, at least outside the U.S., other than the fact that our country doesn't have the greatest literacy rate, and actually fairly low math and science comprehension rates, or whatever it's called, compared to the rest of the world. If I remember correctly, that is.

I don't believe that our educational system is awful or anything, but it's not terribly hard to make it through life here with just a high school or GED level education, or even less. It might not be the most glamorous life, but every person here doesn't have to graduate college in order to lead a successful life. Although, I do believe that graduating college and going into a career field is the "safest" and most "accepted" route to go.

I do think we have some fantastic colleges and universities throughout the country, though. I think it's the K-12 area that could use improvement. But, like I said, I don't know much about the subject :] That's just my (probably worthless) opinion.

[Linkinbassist]

seeing as UCL came 9th and LSE, ICL, Ox and Camb are clearly better, surely we must have 5?

If ucl is in the top ten and ICL and LSE aren't, then that says more about the table than it does the institutions in it. And as a UCL student I'm the complete opposite of biased.

This is according to the THES world table...there's another table called the Academic Ranking of World Unis that is slightly more comprehensive.

THES has Oxford, Cambridge, UCL and ICL in it. However, this list has been critiqued for being based purely on academic output i.e. research.

ARWU has Cambridge and Oxford in the top 20. UCL and ICL fall at 23 and 25 in that list.

LSE is a great teaching institute but isn't that large and doesn't produce that much academic output as far as i can ascertain.

Also, what you have to understand with the "top" unis is that they are absolutely loaded with international students. LSE even has a MAJORITY of its students being internationals, with ICL and UCL being close. Yes, any top ten university in Britain will have outstanding facilities, funding and international reputations, but it is produced and funded on the back of (mostly asian) international students with their higher fees and nauseating addiction to the library.

Well, that's not really a problem, is it? i think that says more about their attitudes towards studies. the fact that you find their addiction to the library 'nauseating' is pretty vocal about the perception of education in this country. I like studying. Reading on a subject i truly enjoy is fun for me.

My International Relations tutor is a phD of Bombay University, and Indians with post-graduate educations are practically worshipped because so few get a shot at it. however, i do agree the institutional reliance on international student funding has become a bit intolerable. I recently found out that my university and the one down the road (Keele, so that should tell you where i am) almost shut down when international tuition fees went up in 2002.

Not good.

[Bordello]

my skool iz a jok

[Futue te Ipsum]

Well, that's not really a problem, is it? i think that says more about their attitudes towards studies. the fact that you find their addiction to the library 'nauseating' is pretty vocal about the perception of education in this country. I like studying. Reading on a subject i truly enjoy is fun for me.Don't kid yourself on them enjoying it.

[Futue te Ipsum]

My International Relations tutor is a phD of Bombay University, and Indians with post-graduate educations are practically worshipped because so few get a shot at it. however, i do agree the institutional reliance on international student funding has become a bit intolerable. I recently found out that my university and the one down the road (Keele, so that should tell you where i am) almost shut down when international tuition fees went up in 2002.Oxbridge, LSE/ICL/UCL, warwick and durham are seriously considering privatisation of courses for this reason.

For some reason I think that'd bring gordon brown down, so I'm actually surprised they haven't been making more vocal threats on the subject recently.

[Mr. Ron]

I was writing up a rant* when the thought of differing attitudes towards education occurred to me. A particular mystery for me, something I mentioned before, is how it seems that Anglo countries in particular became the pooptiest wrt public attitudes to education. The anti-intellectual attitudes of the US are already well-known, but even in cultured England you have these dumb *** 'chavs', who more or less are the equiv. of wiggers and say pathetic things like "reedin iz 4 geekz n sad ppl". How did it happen? ... the way these British wiggers write is eerily similar to the broken English predicted after a nuclear holocaust in Riddley Walker. I would guess that we've simply become complacent because of our general prosperity, but feel free to enlighten me. Education is one of the most important issues for me.

What are the views towards education in your country? Which fields are valued (or disparaged) the most? What do you think of other countries? And specifically, for European readers, which European countries have the best attitudes? I'd wager Hungary and Turkey (if you want to include them in Europe), but who else?

* - http://eabcaecbbceacbae.blogspot.com/2008/05/lol-dis.html

I think it boils down to this.


Around where I live, its quite popular to laugh at people who read. I'm not joking.

Such unforgettable phrases: "Duuuude, how can you even pay attention that long to finish a book?" or "History? Why do we need to know that stuff, it already happened and nothing is interesting." or "Anyone who has a GPA over 2.5 is a serious nerd".

[1338 h4x0r]

'chavs' are dumbasses

fix'd

Eat ****, subhuman

Such unforgettable phrases: "Duuuude, how can you even pay attention that long to finish a book?" or "History? Why do we need to know that stuff, it already happened and nothing is interesting." or "Anyone who has a GPA over 2.5 is a serious nerd".

That sounds like dialog from Idiocracy. What a sad state of affairs!

/<33 history

[beso negro]

I honestly can't finish fiction books. Well I can but I have to force myself. I go through non-fiction like a champ though.

[1338 h4x0r]

I have never finished Dune. The plot confused me. I can really tear through fantasy books though, which is why I like George R.R. Martin ... each one of his books is ~900 pages.

[descendents1]

Bring back spanking in schools.

[1338 h4x0r]

I don't think that's necessary

[samariah]

reading is 1000x more fun than tv

[1338 h4x0r]

abreed

good attitude

[Mr. Ron]

Imagination!

[samariah]

yeah. i guess im in the minority. i love learning, reading, etc. just not in a formal, institutional setting. i feel as though i learned 5x more during my semester off than i did in the semester i'm in now.

[1338 h4x0r]

word

I have my issues with formal institutions but they do afford a lot of benefits

[Mr. Ron]

Reading is awesome. I secretly want to kill anyone who does not share that opinion.

[1338 h4x0r]

you can use the books you read to pump up your e-peen

and if that's not good, I don't know what is

[irishslappop]

T.V. is horrible. I enjoy reading philosophy sometimes and like reading fiction, mainly stories that take place during the middle ages, Hood was one i just finished and while it was a really easy read it was pretty entertaining.

im a horrible student in most courses though. i cant do math to sve my life unless its statistics or word problems. im half good at science since i cant realy do math, but ive always been pretty good at writing. even though i suck at school i understand how important and under funded it is though.

the price of college in california is beyond rediculous.

[griftadan]

i'm sorry where is this notion that anglo countries have poor attitudes about education coming from?

[1338 h4x0r]

The US and UK seem to be among the worst, idk it's partly anecdotal. However, there are data that suggest illiteracy and innumeracy are widespread in both countries. And as we saw earlier, it seems that it's acceptable to be dumb in Aus as well. I also know that creationism (cretinism) has the strongest foothold in Anglo countries as well. So it would seem there's some pattern.

[Smokey D]

Anecdotal evidence is pretty lame. I would really hesitate before using literacy and numeracy stats as a substitute for detailed analysis on the state of education and attitudes towards intelligence more generally.

And ID and creationism have no foothold in any western country except the US.

[1338 h4x0r]

The weed of cretinism is alive in the UK too. Not as much as in the US, but still there. The same can be said for Canada.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2006/UK/38_creationism_in_the_united_king_12_4_2006.asp
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/nov/27/controversiesinscience.religion
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-euevolution16mar16,0,3494508.story

[descendents1]

the price of college in california is beyond rediculous.

Not if you're a California resident!

[Smokey D]

Creationism has never really taken off in Britain because the idea that religion and school shouldn't mix has never been so supreme in the UK. Religious people don't feel the need to push the religious agenda anywhere near as much because the established system isn't as hostile. Also all the English fundies moved to America in the 1600s.

[1338 h4x0r]

Creationism has never really taken off in Britain because the idea that religion and school shouldn't mix has never been so supreme in the UK. Religious people don't feel the need to push the religious agenda anywhere near as much because the established system isn't as hostile. Also all the English fundies moved to America in the 1600s.

I agree. But cretinism HAS been taught in British schools and it's probably more on the radar there than in any other place in Europe barring small nutjob areas like Jönköping.

[Smokey D]

It's been taught in biology?

[1338 h4x0r]

See here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1535358/How-Genesis-crept-back-into-the-classroom.html

pure garbage


But not everybody disagrees with the project. Nick Cowan, head of chemistry at the Bluecoat Secondary School, Liverpool, told The Guardian: "Just because it takes a negative look at Darwinism it doesn't mean it is not science. I think to critique Darwinism is quite appropriate."


lol wut

[siva_chair]

It's been taught in biology?

I don't know of any school that teaches creationism in biology.

And I live in Kansas.

[Futue te Ipsum]

it was taught to us in RE

an absolute disaster for the poor RE teacher as she was lumped with a class built upon top set science students who actually did argue back and, unlike her, knew what they were talking about

the teacher was breaking the rules to teach that though

about teaching creationism in schools: yeah, it's a bit retarded. luckily most of these schools are packed with smart people and I know a few people who went to such schools and none of them are creationists. actually, the only creationists I come into contact with are all muslims

[1338 h4x0r]

I don't know of any school that teaches creationism in biology.

And I live in Kansas.

In my neck of the woods there was this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

At least those federal judges smacked down the defendants

Oh and by the way Dover is a backwards shithole just like almost every other part of Pennsylvania. I hate this ****ing place.

[Futue te Ipsum]

lol wuti love how they always say darwinism

obviously because we can prove evolution

[1338 h4x0r]

I dun get it

There is no 'proof' in science, per se

[siva_chair]

In my neck of the woods there was this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District

At least those federal judges smacked down the defendants

Oh and by the way Dover is a backwards poophole just like almost every other part of Pennsylvania. I hate this ****ing place.

Well I know there is a lot of **** in Kansas over the whole deal, but I never experienced any of it.

We were taught evolutionary theory and there was no mention of creationism or ID in our biology class.

[1338 h4x0r]

cool

[Futue te Ipsum]

I dun get it

There is no 'proof' in science, per seWell, the saying "proof is for photos, alcohol and creationists" rings true if you consider the word to mean absolute proof. In science it can be used when something is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and in this case evolution is fact.

[1338 h4x0r]

Well, the saying "proof is for photos, alcohol and creationists" rings true if you consider the word to mean absolute proof. In science it can be used when something is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, and in this case evolution is fact.

Observable fact, true.

However, proof doesn't exist in science. Only well-tested observations.

[BridgeToSolace]

It's called over justification. Look it up.

Also, read Alfie Kohn.

www.alfiekohn.org

I recommend the article called "What does it mean to be Well-Educated?"

I can't direct link to it on this computer, or I would.

[1338 h4x0r]

err

http://www.westburyfriends.org/connections/welleducated.htm

I agree with a lot of this article: standardized tests are bullshit, rote memorization is bullshit, etc.

However, I believe in this concept of becoming a 'Ranger of the mind'—which is almost like being a 'Renaissance man' except with a little less focus on strictly theoretical material—which goes against what the article suggests. I think a well-educated person should be fairly elite at language arts, rhetoric, math, history, geography and a whole bunch of practical skills like computers and home repair to do well in this world. Like Robert Heinlein said, "specialization is for insects"

[DBoons Ghost]

However, I believe in this concept of becoming a 'Ranger of the mind'—which is almost like being a 'Renaissance man' except with a little less focus on strictly theoretical material—which goes against what the article suggests. I think a well-educated person should be fairly elite at language arts, rhetoric, math, history, geography and a whole bunch of practical skills like computers and home repair to do well in this world. Like Robert Heinlein said, "specialization is for insects"

Define for me, if you don't mind, what "doing well" in this world would be to you? Since you would prefer people to be "elite" in areas that have no use to your working life, what would be the purpose in being elite in them?

This subject fascinates me somewhat and it's something my wife and I discuss a great deal since she's a professional educator and I am.. well, an uneducated professional.

[Sleep]

Nothing is wrong with the US education system. Sure a lot of people don't take it seriously. So what? Fine with me. That only gives me a greater advantage.

that's all well and good for your ego but i'd think it would be far more beneficial for me and society as a whole to live in a country full of smart people than a country full of stupid people. cuz, you know, these are the people that provide you with services and run your country and ****.

i'm okay with the education system in my country as it's taken place in the schools i've gone to, but i realize that may vary greatly in other cities and provinces. learning for me has taken place mostly as class discussion, students teaching students, presentations, simulations, and the assignments never require a straight regurgitation of facts. i can't remember the last time i've gone through a formal "lesson," except in math. it seems to me that critical thinking and analysis are encouraged in everything we do. of course, it's far from perfect, and your learning experience will vary depending on the teacher and school you have, i guess, so maybe i'm wrong.

one thing i can say though, is that i've never felt peer pressure to do poorly in school, and i've never heard of someone being made fun of for being intelligent or doing well academically? i find that absolutely bizarre. most of of the "popular" kids in any of the places i've lived do quite well in school, or at least try to.

[1338 h4x0r]

Define for me, if you don't mind, what "doing well" in this world would be to you?

Being able to solve problems
Not allowing yourself to be bullshitted

Those are the two most important ones

[DBoons Ghost]

one thing i can say though, is that i've never felt peer pressure to do poorly in school, and i've never heard of someone being made fun of for being intelligent or doing well academically? i find that absolutely bizarre. most of of the "popular" kids in any of the places i've lived do quite well in school, or at least try to.

Life in the ghetto or hood is dictated by respect and reputation, not level of education. You will get more respect in the ghetto if you're defiant and smart in the street as opposed to the classroom. The street can teach you how to survive in that world, just the same as an education can teach you how to succeed in the world outside the ghetto. The more the ghetto mentality spreads and good suburban kids fall for the trend of glorifying ghetto, we'll keep moving backwards.


Reality is very different for a lot of people. A lot of those people who survived the hood and the ghetto had children when they were 16 to 18. Those kids aren't being parented and assisted at home, because their parents failed life at the earliest point and provide no reinforcement or help.. They're being shuffled along at any expense. Failure to recognize that is being out of touch with reality.

[DBoons Ghost]

Being able to solve problems
Not allowing yourself to be bullpoopted

Those are the two most important ones

Solve problems.. in general? Like.. getting over a depressing day or.. like curing world hunger?

I find college kids to be the most gullable especially NYU and Columbia students. I mean, they always end up dead in the East River.. especially the female variant.

Unless you're looking at a bigger picture there as well. Like, somehow that CO2 has become a "pollutant" and people are actually falling for it?

[1338 h4x0r]

Solve problems.. in general? Like.. getting over a depressing day or.. like curing world hunger?

By solving problems I mean all kinds of things 'blue' and 'white' collar like


Knowing how to build a house that won't turn to ****
Figuring out how to manufacture three different kinds of products to maximize profit
Diagnosing and fixing basic car problems
Understanding what your colleagues in China are saying
Applying the lessons of history to the present time
Wiring a house so that the current won't arc and cause a fire (one summer I actually helped rewire a little bungalow whose original contractor did a shitty job and there was a brown splotch over a socket where a fire broke out)


I find college kids to be the most gullable especially NYU and Columbia students. I mean, they always end up dead in the East River.. especially the female variant.

What were they majoring in? It's very hard to bullshit people in hard sciences. That's why they're hard.


Unless you're looking at a bigger picture there as well. Like, somehow that CO2 has become a "pollutant" and people are actually falling for it?

Believe it or not, an excess of CO2 and methane traps heat from the sun and causes the average temperature of the Earth to rise. That's just a fact. No amount of faith or hand-waving is going to change it.

So yes, CO2 is a 'pollutant' when there's too much of it. For an analogy, a certain amout of carbon dioxide regulates breathing and is good for people. But too much is baaad.

An easy way to show this in an experiment is to take a plastic bag and rebreathe into it for a while. You will find out how CO2 can become a 'pollutant' pretty quickly. The causes and effects are a little different, granted, but the outcomes are pretty analagous.

Hell, even oxygen can be a pollutant. Ozone is a good thing up in the stratosphere, but it's really not cool closer to ground level. Same with nitrogen. In the atmosphere, it keeps raging fires from breaking out everywhere (which is why the NASA started to use nitrogen in cabin gas mixture after the Apollo 1 disaster), but too much nitrogen compounds in the soil make it pretty damn shitty for growing crops.

EVERYTHING is a poison.

[DBoons Ghost]

I was kinda joking on that CO2 thing but thanks for the science lesson.

I gotta admit that list is interesting. I.. really can't even think of a sensible response but I'm glad you're ambitious in your desires for the rest of your fellow citizens.

[1338 h4x0r]

I was kinda joking on that CO2 thing but thanks for the science lesson.

Well, that is kind of the point. The more you know about science and math, the more finely tuned your bullshit detector is. If someone understands even basic physics and bio, it's easy to see through a lot of alternative medicine hoaxes. If someone understands basic math, he will know not to be a retard and buy lottery tickets. These things are very practical.

I gotta admit that list is interesting. I.. really can't even think of a sensible response but I'm glad you're ambitious in your desires for the rest of your fellow citizens.

I think it's the only way for our society to move forward really. I know a lot European and Asian ppl who meet a good deal of those criteria, which is why I think Europe and Asia are poised to take the lead in the modern world. I'm not saying all of these goals have to be met, but as many as possible.

[DBoons Ghost]

Well, that is kind of the point. The more you know about science, the more likely you are going to be able to say "don't bullpoop me".



I think it's the only way for our society to move forward really. I know a lot European and Asian ppl who meet a good deal of those criteria, which is why I think Europe and Asia are poised to take the lead in the modern world. I'm not saying all of these goals have to be met, but as many as possible.

I agree to be honest. Every American who owns a home should know every square inch of it and how to take care of it. Every American should know how to fill out a loan application and understand it so they cannot be taken advantage of. Every American should know how to change their own oil as well as properly recycle it, as well as basic things you need to get your car started in circumstances beyond assistance.

I would sincerely disagree that these things are not currently being taught in school though. It's not the problem.

Also, you do realize building and housing codes vary greatly from state to state and in most cases there are severe penalties in cases of neglect. This is why in some states there is a lengthy inspection process done by independant inspectors at the expense of the mortgage lender to protect the bank as well as the buyer. In most states, the situation you provided examples for is nearly impossible. It happens all the time though.


I see your point either way. These things have been ignored but that is almost not always the responsiblity of the school. I learned that stuff from a parent or step parent.

Who cares enough about their parents or their surroundings to bother?

[ncnxonattronn]

school is getting too hard for sum kidz and their are too many bullies i think kidz should just be allowed to work if they want

[1338 h4x0r]

I would sincerely disagree that these things are not currently being taught in school though.

I didn't really receive any formal education on that.


In most states, the situation you provided examples for is nearly impossible. It happens all the time though.

Yeah it was a really craptacular job they did.

Who cares enough about their parents or their surroundings to bother?

Depends on what values you instill in ppl. I think we need to have more respect for wisdom (which most adults have) and less respect for the idiot box, etc. For me it rarely mattered what other people thought b/c I pretty much aggressively disciplined myself into certain routines and habits of thinking.

[DBoons Ghost]

Well I mean, when I was in high school we had basic wood shop, building models of typical foundations of homes simply to understand it so when we bought a home we didn't tear down a load bearing wall.. and we had some basic automotive education. I realize things might have changed since cars have certainly advanced beyond the scope of "basic" education and the emphasis on reliability have replaced the need for the weekend mechanic. I worked on all my own cars. Now, I can't. I don't have an emissions computer in my house and all I can do these days is change oil. Distributor caps are no longer replaceable and cleaning out your carb is kinda hard when they're controlled by computers with fuel injection. Tunes ups are pretty much a thing of the past. However, it's still important to understand how the basic stuff works.

To that end though, we didn't get any computer classes. I didn't have a single computer in my high school and I attended from 85 to 88. No computers. Now, maybe you guys get all the computer classes and they don't teach home economics anymore, or wood shop is gone as schools found insurance premiums too high to keep kids working on table saws, or crawling under cars to look at how a transmission works.. I don't know really.

I respect that you at least try to value the wisdom some adults provide, though it wasn't much when I was younger, and I can see that worsening as opposed to improving.

It all starts at home, with the values instilled upon the children by their parents. To me, a lot more people value higher education now then when I was younger. It's simply a matter of qualification and affordability as opposed to lack of it entirely.

[BridgeToSolace]

I see your point either way. These things have been ignored but that is almost not always the responsibility of the school. I learned that stuff from a parent or step parent.


What about the street kids that you spoke about earlier? It's not long bet to assume that their parents don't really know a lot about loans or house care either.

We have no such vehicle education or shop or home economics. And I go to one of the best high schools in the state.

It's about parents, generally. Parents tend to be extremely grade oriented, and care little for actual conduct. They don't care if we run out of funds and have to cut wood working. Colleges don't generally care for wood working.

But when they tried to cut an AP biology class, parents were pissed.

Parents are the main enemy of any kind of constructive education reform.

[Akira]

Well I know there is a lot of **** in Kansas over the whole deal, but I never experienced any of it.

We were taught evolutionary theory and there was no mention of creationism or ID in our biology class.

In my eighth grade science class we had to make dioramas of various prehistoric ages, and the teacher decided that any Christians uncomfortable with that could instead make one that falls in like with the 10,000 year old earth creationism concept. There was at least one kid who did it, I think more.

Even in eighth grade I was smart enough to feel insulted.

[mph4ever]

It's about parents, generally. Parents tend to be extremely grade oriented, and care little for actual conduct. They don't care if we run out of funds and have to cut wood working. Colleges don't generally care for wood working.

But when they tried to cut an AP biology class, parents were pissed.

Parents are the main enemy of any kind of constructive education reform.

being a parent, i take responsibility for ensuring that my kid is best equipped to deal with the sh'it that is coming his way, whether it be from the system, from the teachers or from subject matter. i don't prepare him but more silently help him navigate. hes getting to the stage now where he realises the challenges that the system brings and has the unsharpened tools to deal with it. after each knock, he learns, dusts himself off and moves on. it can be very painful as a parent to watch your kid going through sh'it but you have to help from a distance, otherwise you end up interfering and that aint good either.

education should left to the educators but there should always be parent and student representation to ensure they, the educators, are kept in line and make decisions in the best interests of the students, not in the interests of what subjects the teachers want to work at.

[DBoons Ghost]

The parental guidance provided from birth through 5 are the most important times in a child's life. Alternatively that is the time most likely to be ruled by nanny, nursery and anything else to wait until they can walk and talk and are easier to "deal with". Every whoring moron 16 year old who wants a baby because they're "cute" realize they are not cute. They drop them off to granny or anyone who'll take them and that ruins more kids than anything.

However, where do we fail? Self discipline? Discipline to go out and do something. Discipline to work at something. Discipline to try harder... to practice.. discipline to ignore peer pressure.. Discipline comes from constant reinforcement for the same sources. If that reinforcement changes night to night from nanny to nursery to preschool teacher to whoever else you hire to watch your kid, chances are more likely that kid will end up a troubled mess because no constant reinforcement came their way. They will scoff at authority because they didn't learn it in the least. Kids should be ready to go with some small sense of independance when they enter 1st grade. If that is not the case, then you have failed.

If your kids don't see you read when they see you, they will not regard reading very well. If they see you insult each other and if they see you abuse your wife, they will have no regard for women or their feelings.

Your kids are sponges and you are the water pouring out of the faucet for those early years. There is never a more important time in a child's life then those years.


Rant.. sorry.

[McP3000]

Mommy, why does grandpa Dboon talk so much?

[ncnxonattronn]

mommy why did daddy cheat on you?? :(

[DBoons Ghost]

mommy why did daddy cheat on you?? :(

I believe no one can identify with what I wrote more then you.

It's too bad mom and dad didn't pay you the attention you deserved, so that you wouldn't have to live in a van down by the river, or in a garage as it were.

How old is your mom anyway Tronn? Was there even a dad?

[samariah]

yeah i hear stupid girls all the time (not necessarily even as young as 16) going on about wanting to have 3-4 kids because they're so cuttee and their going can't wait to dress them up in cute clothes and blah blah blah. i know a girl who wants to have five kids. does she realize how her body is going to change, how she is going to be physically and psychologically exhausted, how many resources those children will require, and then the fact that the children will very possibly be comprimised at the expenses of the others due to there being so many.

[DBoons Ghost]

Well sam, they have to make those mistakes themselves. I have known 5 to 8 kid households that have produced amazing children though from quality parents. Hopefully they all will be excellent parents, and they will get the support from family they need to succeed.

In my experience, girls always say that stuff until the first kid's shoulders tear their vagina apart literally. Then they breastfeed and their nipples grow 4 inches from being sucked on and their breasts leak and sag, and then it all changes.

Don't worry. It's just talk.

[samariah]

well ive decided im not having children a while ago. kids aren't even that cute. people should be having less too.

[guitrguy]

I have 3 brothers, and it certainly makes finding money for school really hard. I refuse to have more than two kids, because I want to be able to pay for their school.

[samariah]

anyone ever hear the line that your selfish if you dont have children? explain that to me

[DBoons Ghost]

anyone ever hear the line that your selfish if you dont have children? explain that to me

That's crap. It's also crap for you to dictate the amount of children people have. It's a personal choice in the end.

Having children is for some people, our only purpose for existing.

[samariah]

i'm not dictating. its my opinion. not all large families suffer but it seems that more resources devoted to fewer children makes more sense to me. if you have the means to support more children than go for it.

[DBoons Ghost]

i'm not dictating. its my opinion. not all large families suffer but it seems that more resources devoted to fewer children makes more sense to me. if you have the means to support more children than go for it.

The fact that in this country our income dictates our lives is a sad bit of reality.

It wasn't always this difficult.

[samariah]

yeah well it will always to a degree. but depending on what you want to get out of life, you have a level of control on how much income will dictate.

[mph4ever]

what ever happened to the waltons?

[1338 h4x0r]

I respect that you at least try to value the wisdom some adults provide, though it wasn't much when I was younger, and I can see that worsening as opposed to improving.

I have issues with a lot of adults, but overall they're the lesser of two evils. I have almost nothing but contempt for the youth of my generation. They suck! So a lot of my habits have changed. I cut my hair and beard short so I don't look like a drifter and dress nicely. I kind of try to have a daytime schedule. And despite the things I dislike about Eastern societies, I find myself emulating them more and more because, in my experience, their youths act more like civilized, grown-up human beings than all the loud-mouthed, drooling chimps I have to suffer everyday.

idk it's weird

[guitrguy]

Well eastern societies tend to be oriented towards elders as opposed to the west that values youth more than the old.

[samariah]

facial hair doesn't indicate immaturity. or at least it shouldnt

[BridgeToSolace]

However, where do we fail?

I see parents fail, at least from the education standpoint, at overestimating their own judgment. "I know what's best for my child" is the biggest fallacy in parenting.

Because their are two types of authority. Authority of competence and authority of power. Parents almost always have the latter, but this does not mean that they have the former.

Rant.. sorry.

There's not a lot of communication between the adult community and the parented community. I appreciate the perspective. Feel free to rant :)

facial hair doesn't indicate immaturity. or at least it shouldnt

A trimmed beard will make you look mature. It's all about how well kempt you are. Facial hair is fine if you take care of it.

[guitrguy]

facial hair doesn't indicate immaturity. or at least it shouldnt

If it did, I would be like tronn.

[1338 h4x0r]

facial hair doesn't indicate immaturity. or at least it shouldnt

For other people, it does. Sorry.

Well eastern societies tend to be oriented towards elders as opposed to the west that values youth more than the old.

Exactly. Which is more black metal, 'young/fresh/new' or 'ancient/wizened/elder'? Three points for the East, ironically.

[samariah]

people need to stop making vast generalizations based upon appearance.

[BridgeToSolace]

People need to start recognizing and accepting that first impressions are important and often related to appearance.

[samariah]

in my personal experience i have found that generalizations have been more damaging than helpful

[1338 h4x0r]

people need to stop making vast generalizations based upon appearance.

Hey, I know it's garbage. But we're all guilty of it. Even though I try to be a purely rational judge of character, superficial **** hits even me.

For instance, I can virtually guarantee that if I stopped bathing for a few days and wore a repulsive smelling shirt, you wouldn't react to me as nicely as you would if I had showered, worn a nice shirt and maybe shaved. That's true for most people I think. Except maybe social workers.

Likewise, when I'm walking around in public and I see someone my age wearing clothing that says 'HOLLISTER' on it, I tend to assume 'ASSHOLE'. This isn't always true. I'll let curiosity and desire to be social overwhelm suspicion. Unfortunately, that isn't true of a lot of people, so you have to get it right the first time.

[mph4ever]

take me for what i am or don't take me at all

you could smell like sh'it, look like sh'it, as long as you don't act like sh'it then i accept ya. truth

its strange, we all know people who want to shock society. that is so sad that its their only outlet

[BridgeToSolace]

in my personal experience i have found that generalizations have been more damaging than helpful

The only reason bees have a yellow stripe is because animals learn that this yellow stripe indicates "Don't **** with me, I sting."

It's a biological thing. We recognize patterns with appearances and actions. There's nothing wrong with it.

[Smokey D]

Well, that is kind of the point. The more you know about science and math, the more finely tuned your bullpoop detector is. If someone understands even basic physics and bio, it's easy to see through a lot of alternative medicine hoaxes. If someone understands basic math, he will know not to be a retard and buy lottery tickets. These things are very practical.

I'm calling shennanigans. Half the science students I know are spectacularly uneducated outside their fields.

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm calling shennanigans. Half the science students I know are spectacularly uneducated outside their fields.

I'm talking about science / math hoaxes and tricks in particular

Especially if you read the skeptic publications and websites, you'll develop a much sharper view of the world around you

And besides, saying "Half the science students I know ..." is relying on anecdotes :p

[Smokey D]

What convincing empirical studies have you conducted?

And also science students might be able to call out medical quacks but they, just like other people, can fall for other sorts of elaborate tricks.Or they can just be completely ignorant of non-scientific but important forces in the world.

I cry a little when I hear people say WW2 ended in 1950.

[beso negro]

Or they can just be completely ignorant of non-scientific but important forces in the world.

I cry a little when I hear people say WW2 ended in 1950.

i don't have any stats but it seems to me like science and math students would be better problem solvers than a history student.

how is knowing history really going to help anyone?

[1338 h4x0r]

What convincing empirical studies have you conducted?

Well it follows that if you know something like how wearing a 100 Gauss magnet that's supposed to draw blood to a healing wound in effect has an attraction of ~1 Gauss (the ambient magnetism of the Earth), you'll be less inclined to buy such a device.

For another example, anyone who knows even a little bit about engineering would notice that Segway scooters would cost a lot less if there were just a third stabilizing wheel instead of a lot of expensive balancing electronics. God those exercises in masturbation piss me off.

I think no study is really needed if the cause and effect is readily apparent. FWIW, there are definitely studies that show scientists are less likely to believe in cretinism and other silly aspects of religious fundamentalism, so there's one example. I'll give odds you've seen at least one such study, but I can furnish a link if you want.

And also science students might be able to call out medical quacks but they, just like other people, can fall for other sorts of elaborate tricks.

Many, perhaps most commercial hoaxes, urban legends, fool taxes (lotteries / gambling) etc. assume some ignorance of science or math.

I suppose it might be possible for rational-minded people to fall into confidence scams or something. I wouldn't be surprised if it's much less common though. After all, if you know how geometric growth works, it's pretty easy to see why opting into a pyramid scheme is a bad idea.

Or they can just be completely ignorant of non-scientific but important forces in the world.

This is true. I've seen a few examples. :)

I cry a little when I hear people say WW2 ended in 1950.

Heh, I'm pretty sure that was in 1945. It so happens that history is one of my favorite humanities because it's one of the most useful, along with geography and languages. Well-rounded educations are a good thing.

how is knowing history really going to help anyone?

wut

"Country X fought against a world power on and off from the first century well into the tenth century when they finally expelled them. Maybe we'd better not **** with Country X."

Acknowledging that would have saved more men and resources than any amount of operations research, broseph

[samariah]

The only reason bees have a yellow stripe is because animals learn that this yellow stripe indicates "Don't **** with me, I sting."

It's a biological thing. We recognize patterns with appearances and actions. There's nothing wrong with it.

i agree, they can be useful to an extent but you shouldn't put your trust in them solely. plus we are a lot more intelligent than bees for sure.

[McP3000]

I cry a little when I hear people say WW2 ended in 1950.
hahha
who in the hell has ever said that?

wut

"Country X fought against a world power on and off from the first century well into the tenth century when they finally expelled them. Maybe we'd better not **** with Country X."

Acknowledging that would have saved more men and resources than any amount of operations research, broseph
thats a horrible reason to study history, even though we desperately need to.

[Smokey D]

Well it follows that if you know something like how wearing a 100 Gauss magnet that's supposed to draw blood to a healing wound in effect has an attraction of ~1 Gauss (the ambient magnetism of the Earth), you'll be less inclined to buy such a device.

I can appreciate that but that's not a reason to think science students are inherently more rational than anyone else.

And besides, I bet more than a few scientists have been trapped in legal or economic hoaxes.

I think no study is really needed if the cause and effect is readily apparent. FWIW, there are definitely studies that show scientists are less likely to believe in cretinism and other silly aspects of religious fundamentalism, so there's one example. I'll give odds you've seen at least one such study, but I can furnish a link if you want.

I want you to furnish a link that students of the humanities are brain dead apes who fall for tricks left right and centre.

I suppose it might be possible for rational-minded people to fall into confidence scams or something. I wouldn't be surprised if it's much less common though. After all, if you know how geometric growth works, it's pretty easy to see why opting into a pyramid scheme is a bad idea.

Urgh, I hate the assumption that students of humanities aren't rational. You're point is far more pertinent to stupid or maybe uneducated people than solely to those who aren't science students.

And as I say, there's nothing that says science students won't fool for schemes based in law or economics because much of those two fields are counter intuitive to people who have only a basic knowledge of them.


how is knowing history really going to help anyone?

Academic history is more than just reciting the facts. It's about establishing causal relationships. Why something happened is a lot more important than what happened.

[Reaganista]

i think most scams that you really dont want to get caught up in presume a lack of knowledge of practical financial or IT stuff or law kekeke

you can go through your whole life believing an urban legend that defies physcics or isnt historically accurate and it won't really matter that much

ok smokey basically said all that but i posted without reading his

[Dave de Sylvia]

I want you to furnish a link that students of the humanities are brain dead apes who fall for tricks left right and centre.
I am determined one day to establish a causal link between being an English major and becoming a Marxist.

[siva_chair]

In my eighth grade science class we had to make dioramas of various prehistoric ages, and the teacher decided that any Christians uncomfortable with that could instead make one that falls in like with the 10,000 year old earth creationism concept. There was at least one kid who did it, I think more.

Even in eighth grade I was smart enough to feel insulted.

Umm, I'm sorry?

Our biology teacher was really cool about the whole thing.

He also is a big believer in God, but you wouldn't know that unless you talked with him outside school.

[1338 h4x0r]

Urgh, I hate the assumption that students of humanities aren't rational. You're point is far more pertinent to stupid or maybe uneducated people than solely to those who aren't science students.

I said it wrong. >_>

And as I say, there's nothing that says science students won't fool for schemes based in law or economics because much of those two fields are counter intuitive to people who have only a basic knowledge of them.

Can you give an example?

hahha
who in the hell has ever said that?


thats a horrible reason to study history, even though we desperately need to.

I think getting out of a costly war seems like a good reason to learn history.

i think most scams that you really dont want to get caught up in presume a lack of knowledge of practical financial or IT stuff or law kekeke

What's finance based on anyway?

IT stuff more or less falls under the applied science department

I don't know about legal scams, but I research contracts before I get into them, which is why I haven't taken out loans from Sallie Mae to study abroad.

you can go through your whole life believing an urban legend that defies physcics or isnt historically accurate and it won't really matter that much

It can make your life much less pleasant though. For instance, if you believe the silly vaccine-autism link, then you might not be inclined to get shots for your kids.

[siva_chair]

I wouldn't shoot at my kids tbh. That doesn't seem like something a good parent would do. Maybe with a BB gun or something sometimes when they are acting up, but nothing too serious.

[1338 h4x0r]

I wouldn't shoot at my kids tbh. That doesn't seem like something a good parent would do. Maybe with a BB gun or something sometimes when they are acting up, but nothing too serious.

I hope you're joking

[siva_chair]

I hope you're joking

It wasn't obvious enough?

[Futue te Ipsum]

I'm calling shennanigans. Half the science students I know are spectacularly uneducated outside their fields.half the ones I know are useless inside it

[1338 h4x0r]

It wasn't obvious enough?

I can never really tell sometimes.

[siva_chair]

I can never really tell sometimes.

It is usually pretty safe to assume I am not being serious.

[1338 h4x0r]

word

[mph4ever]

from experience, there are dumb people everywhere and there are smart people everywhere. there are people who have a particular profile that might make them good at science or math. there are others who might be good at wood work or history or politics. where we get the exceptional people, the real high performers, is where the requirements of the job/role actually suit perfectly the mental and physical attributes of the individual. this rarely happens and that is why there have been so few obviously brilliant people in history due to circumstance. the amount of world class scientists that are out there being accountants is sad but their profile and ability to deal with numbers caused them to be pushed into a commerical career as opposed to their brilliance with numbers being used to push them to be scientific. they become hobbyists. the education system has a lot to answer for simply because the opportunity to match your desire with your attributes is inhibited by the choices presented or the advice of your parents or career guidance officer

just because someone is good at science does not make them smart, it just means they are good at science. put the same person on a pool table and they will pretty quickly discover the basics of the physics involved and master the game to a degree. however, they may never master the strategy of the game since strategy may be more suited to the person who has studied examples of strategy and have the patience and will to act strategically. after a while i would expect the scientist to have a very methodical way of dealing with a game of pool which will increase their percentages of wins to losses. however, against a smart pool player they will have a very tough time. technical brilliance does not mean you are smart.

it may actually mean that you are slightly autistic!

[1338 h4x0r]

the amount of world class scientists that are out there being accountants is sad but their profile and ability to deal with numbers caused them to be pushed into a commerical career as opposed to their brilliance with numbers being used to push them to be scientific. they become hobbyists. the education system has a lot to answer for simply because the opportunity to match your desire with your attributes is inhibited by the choices presented or the advice of your parents or career guidance officer

I think in modern times, at least around here, someone who has the potential to become a world-class scientist would be encouraged to do so.


just because someone is good at science does not make them smart, it just means they are good at science.


Eh?

technical brilliance does not mean you are smart.

I don't get it.

it may actually mean that you are slightly autistic!

This is a bad thing because...?

[Smokey D]

Har. Just because you're really smart doesn't mean you're smart.

But seriously, you don't need to be good at science to be smart.

[mph4ever]

I think in modern times, at least around here, someone who has the potential to become a world-class scientist would be encouraged to do so.

i just saying that more slip through the gaps than should due to influences other than their abilty. happens all the time


Eh?

i see no required correlation between somebody being very good at a discipline or technically brillliant and someone being smart. like i am sure it happens all the time. for smart see worldly, bright, intelligent, on the ball etc


I don't get it.

same as above


This is a bad thing because...?
not saying its bad, just saying it

[Smokey D]

You don't get it. To be technically brilliant at anything you have to be smart. But techincal brilliance isn't the totality of intelligence.

[mph4ever]

define smart please

[1338 h4x0r]

But seriously, you don't need to be good at science to be smart.

Of course! There was probably an implicit bias in my posts earlier and I'm sorry for it. My history prof, for instance, is one of the most brilliant guys I know, though he doesn't know much about science. One of my brosephinas is a non-native Japanese speaker and I imagine trying to do that would give me a headache.

My main point was that all the analysis you have to do in scientific fields can be carried into practical things. Science is useful for dismissing a lot of scams outright, but the scientific method in general is also useful for thinking about claims people make. In my experience as a CS major, writing programs is kind of like testing hypotheses. One of the first things you notice as a programmer is that everyone tends to make stupid mistakes a lot. To avoid making so many mistakes, I would think through an algorithm and look at all the cases and possible bad outcomes before I make my 'hypothesis' (i.e., an untested program). In real life, these skills are useful for investigating claims people make because you can use them to become much more circumspect.

Of course, not everyone in science applies the lessons they learn in their field outside of it. I can hardly believe that some of the people that cretinists cite as 'experts' are computer scientists or programmers, but I guess they are a really small minority.

I can say the same things about a lot of humanities now that I think of it. If you study history, for instance, you'll be less likely to buy into a scam by a politician. If you study geography or anthropology, you'll be less likely to buy into hateful or at least misleading stereotypes of other people. Etc....

[Smokey D]

define smart please

It is far to broad a topic for me to be bothered to try and explain it. Suffice it to say that intelligence is neither restricted to 'street smarts' or book smarts. Indeed they may frequently overlap.

I can say the same things about a lot of humanities now that I think of it. If you study history, for instance, you'll be less likely to buy into a scam by a politician. If you study geography or anthropology, you'll be less likely to buy into hateful or at least misleading stereotypes of other people. Etc....

There's a lot more to humanities than the bare facts they reveal to you. Properly taught, any humanities subject will make you as skeptical of unsupported claims as any science.

[1338 h4x0r]

There's a lot more to humanities than the bare facts they reveal to you. Properly taught, any humanities subject will make you as skeptical of unsupported claims as any science.

The more I think about it, the more I agree.

Thanks.

[mph4ever]

It is far to broad a topic for me to be bothered to try and explain it. Suffice it to say that intelligence is neither restricted to 'street smarts' or book smarts. Indeed they may frequently overlap.


taking up your earlier point then, you don't need to be smart to be good at science

[Smokey D]

No, that doesn't work. I can't possibly see how you could be good at something that requires intelligence to be good at without being smart.

I suppose there might be a way but you have to show how. You can't just say something that prima facie is absurd.

[mph4ever]

for smart, see shrewd or quick thinking, bright, act intuitively. i wouldn't see these required to be good at science. but you know, i think you might be right. it may be too broad and they may overlap. to get conclusion we may also be hampered by interpretation of words depending on where we come from.

my dad would say smart is well dressed and i could say you don't have to be well dressed to be a scientist!

[Smokey D]

Your dad is using an antiquated or maybe locally specific definition. We can ignore him.

As for the first point, I can't see how you can be good at science (or lots of other things) without being shrewd (ie calculating) or bright (ie smart) or having good intution (good instincts/natural intelliegence). You've basically being smart isn't the same as being smart.

[mph4ever]

hey, i agreed that there maybe overlap. i look for an out and you haul me straight back in. surely you are getting tired now smokey.

but i do know people that are good at science as far as exam results go and methodologies as far as their workplace activites go but they are not smart. they are just good at following process and maybe have some retention. to me they are as thick as fu'ck, not smart

[Smokey D]

There may be some confusion. I don't think anyone implied or meant to imply that being good at science meant sitting good exams, although I'm willing to bet there is considerable overlap.

[1338 h4x0r]

some people are good at cracking exams but phayle in practice

and vice versa

[beso negro]

1338 you up all night posting in this thread?

[mph4ever]

some people are good at cracking exams but phayle in practice

and vice versa


so in the education system they appear to be highly intelligent but are not very smart, perhaps

[Smokey D]

I don't think you can separate out those terms. They are synomyms.

[1338 h4x0r]

I don't think you can separate out those terms. They are synomyms.

Myself, I'm more thinking of people who are good at committing methods to rote memory and know what's going to be on a limited standardized test, as opposed to genuinely understanding what they're doing. I mentioned Évariste Galois earlier in this fred; he was an absolutely terrible and unmotivated student, yet is one of the most important figures in modern algebra.

1338 you up all night posting in this thread?

Not really. I woke up at 3 am.

[Reaganista]

What's finance based on anyway?

economics and law i guess

IT stuff more or less falls under the applied science department

ok maybe but being a great chemist doesn't really equip you in any way to avoid having your identity stolen or computer hacked

I don't know about legal scams, but I research contracts before I get into them, which is why I haven't taken out loans from Sallie Mae to study abroad.

you dont know something
so you defer to expert opinion before you make a decision
why would a social science person or any clever yet uneducated person not do the same thing

It can make your life much less pleasant though. For instance, if you believe the silly vaccine-autism link, then you might not be inclined to get shots for your kids.
who cares about kids lol

[beso negro]

For instance, if you believe the silly vaccine-autism link, then you might not be inclined to get shots for your kids.

i'm a living example of that then.

[1338 h4x0r]

economics and law i guess

So how can I do continuous compounding interest...?


ok maybe but being a great chemist doesn't really equip you in any way to avoid having your identity stolen or computer hacked

Sure, but being a great programmer does. :)

i'm a living example of that then.

Explain

[Dave de Sylvia]

beso negro doesn't believe in non-organic medication.

[1338 h4x0r]

lol?

[Reaganista]

So how can I do continuous compounding interest...?
huh with a calculator i guess

Sure, but being a great programmer does. :)

i thought we were talking about real sciences

[Dave de Sylvia]

lol?
No, that's what he/she believes.

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=524189

[1338 h4x0r]

huh with a calculator i guess

*cough* *cough*

What are calculators used for and how do you design and manufacture them?

i thought we were talking about real sciences

Computer science is a science. Actually it's in between a science and field of mathematics, which is arguably better.

[Reaganista]

*cough* *cough*

What are calculators used for and how do you design and manufacture them?
idk wats ur point


Computer science is a science. Actually it's in between a science and field of mathematics, which is arguably better.
no it's not a real science

[spitfirejunky]

Computer science is the science of algorithms.

[Reaganista]

Computer science is the science of algorithms
likewise comp lit is the science of comparing lit

there's only 3 real sciences

[1338 h4x0r]

idk wats ur point

Math. And to make calculators you need...

no it's not a real science

You're right, in a way. Computer science combines things that can be proven, such as the complexity of algorithms, with things that are observed empirically. (As far as I know, there is no general way to prove that a program is correct, and we simply check that they produce the right results.) In some sense, computer science is better than a 'real' science because of the added rigor of formal proof in certain places.

[Reaganista]

Math. And to make calculators you need...
ya and we need math to figure out how old FDR was when he died or wats the gdp per capita of bahrain wats your point

You're right, in a way. Computer science combines things that can be proven, such as the complexity of algorithms, with things that are observed empirically. (As far as I know, there is no general way to prove that a program is correct, and we simply check that they produce the right results.) In some sense, computer science is better than a 'real' science because of the added rigor of formal proof in certain places.
better meaning what
you keep making value judgements where no value exists

[1338 h4x0r]

ya and we need math to figure out how old FDR was when he died or wats the gdp per capita of bahrain wats your point

Not so useless huh


better meaning what
you keep making value judgements where no value exists

Being able to prove things is useful

[rasputin]

i thought we were talking about real sciences
You do realise that a science is a branch of knowledge in any particular field, and the idea that 'science' simply refers to biology/physics/chemistry is just a stupid misconception.

[1338 h4x0r]

I use 'science' to refer to anything that uses the scientific method

And to some extent, CS uses that. It's a bastard of math and science

[Reaganista]

Not so useless huh

wat are you talking about


Being able to prove things is useful
ya ok and

You do realise that a science is a branch of knowledge in any particular field, and the idea that 'science' simply refers to biology/physics/chemistry is just a stupid misconception.
you do realize that there's only 3 real sciences and that any of field that tries to steal the term like decision science or political science or computer science are pure scam artists

[1338 h4x0r]

wat are you talking about

Math.

And how it isn't useless.

ya ok and

The concept of formal proof is one of the most important influences on Western rhetoric and logic and, due to trade, conquest, etc. the rhetoric and logic of the whole world

Plus proving things is good

you do realize that there's only 3 real sciences and that any of field that tries to steal the term like decision science or political science or computer science are pure scam artists

...he said, using a routing algorithm to send his message

[Reaganista]

Math.

And how it isn't useless.

a bold conclusion!
i dont think language or water are useless so there!


The concept of formal proof is one of the most important influences on Western rhetoric and logic and, due to trade, conquest, etc. the rhetoric and logic of the whole world

ya w/e

Plus proving things is good

confining yourself to the realm of things that are provable
which is basically math and formal logic
is highly limiting
ie you cant even do chemistry in the realm of the 'provable'


...he said, using a routing algorithm to send his message
he said, pretending to be a scientist.

[Smokey D]

Computer science being able to prove things according to algorithms doesn't make it objectively better than chemistry. That's like saying economics is better than literature or painting is better than writing or reading is better than maths. They answer different questions so making any comparison is inherently retarded.

[1338 h4x0r]

ya w/e

Du har blivit pwnad.


confining yourself to the realm of things that are provable
which is basically math and formal logic
is highly limiting
ie you cant even do chemistry in the realm of the 'provable'


Actually, since chemical reactions are in the form of equations there are some proofs in that science


he said, pretending to be a scientist.

lol

Computer science being able to prove things according to algorithms doesn't make it objectively better than chemistry. That's like saying economics is better than literature or painting is better than writing or reading is better than maths. They answer different questions so making any comparison is inherently retarded.

It's not an objective comparison. Or a very serious one.

[Reaganista]

Du har blivit pwnad.

ok that makes about as much sense as the last thing you said


Actually, since chemical reactions are in the form of equations there are some proofs in that science
not really no

lol

ya i think it's pretty funny too i am a clever guy

[1338 h4x0r]

ok that makes about as much sense as the last thing you said

"You have been pwned."

not really no

One of my brosephinas in discrete math is taking that class because she's a chemistry major and felt the need to learn how to write proofs for, e.g., p. chem. You are full of ****.

[Dave de Sylvia]

did you really just say brosephinas

[1338 h4x0r]

let's check

brosephinas

brosephinas

brosephinas

brosephinas

[spitfirejunky]

likewise comp lit is the science of comparing lit

there's only 3 real sciences

List them.

[krovvy]

They were listed above



One of my brosephinas in discrete math is taking that class because she's a chemistry major and felt the need to learn how to write proofs for, e.g., p. chem. You are full of ****.

Also the area of chemistry she is working with is highly based on empirical data. Most of the mathematical equations in chemistry are not based only on chemical properties but on statistical models that mimic the observed data. The best we can do with chemical reactions at the moment is develop mechanisms to explain what is most likely occuring on the molecular scale but scientists don't have a universal model for chemistry, just many pieces.

[1338 h4x0r]

Also the area of chemistry she is working with is highly based on empirical data. Most of the mathematical equations in chemistry are not based only on chemical properties but on statistical models that mimic the observed data. The best we can do with chemical reactions at the moment is develop mechanisms to explain what is most likely occuring on the molecular scale but scientists don't have a universal model for chemistry, just many pieces.

Yes, but she still needed to know how to write proofs. Just like I would need a proof to show that the worst case of a binary search is O(log n), even if it runs on a computer whose lowest-level processes may not be entirely understood (I don't know, but probably true if you dig down deep enough).

[spitfirejunky]

I don't see why the utility of computer science is an issue here.

Somebody needs only to convince Tway that algorithms exist naturally, which will probably be a hopeless endeavor anyway.

[Ando!]

l. All teams must make the state playoffs, and all will win the championship. If a team does not win the championship, they will be on probation until they are the champions, and coaches will be held accountable.

2. All kids will be expected to have the same football skills at the same time and in the same conditions. No exceptions will be made for interest in football, a desire to perform athletically, or genetic abilities or disabilities. ALL KIDS WILL PLAY FOOTBALL AT A PROFICIENT LEVEL

3. Talented players will be asked to work out on their own without instruction. This is because the coaches will be using all their instructional time with the athletes who aren't interested in football, have limited athletic ability, or whose parents don't like football.

4. Games will be played year round, but statistics will only be kept in the 4th, 8th, and 11th games.

5. This will create a New Age of sports where every school is expected to have the same level of talent and all teams will reach the same minimal goals.
If no child gets ahead, then no child will be left behind.

[Reaganista]

"You have been pwned."

ok but not really also you are very nerdy


One of my brosephinas in discrete math is taking that class because she's a chemistry major and felt the need to learn how to write proofs for, e.g., p. chem. You are full of ****.
you cant prove anything that deals with reality so she's full of ****

List them
biology physics chemistry

[1338 h4x0r]

ok but not really also you are very nerdy

dumbass : nerd :: thrall : jarl

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to be insulted by being called a 'nerd'


you cant prove anything that deals with reality so she's full of ****

Please, tell us more about your knowledge of formal proof and p. chem.

[spitfirejunky]

biology physics chemistry

What makes chemistry more "real" than computer science?

[Ando!]

guys my post was immaculate quit ignoring it plz

[Reaganista]

What makes chemistry more "real" than computer science?

is that a serious question

[Reaganista]

dumbass : nerd :: thrall : jarl

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to be insulted by being called a 'nerd'

ya typical nerd response


Please, tell us more about your knowledge of formal proof and p. chem.
you cant prove anything about reality
chemistry is real
therefore you cant prove anything in chemistry
anything chemistry may claim to 'prove' is purely a matter of convention and nothing has actually been proven

[Ando!]

"discovered" might be a more appropriate term?

[Reaganista]

reality might not even exist think about that

[Ando!]

well within the realm of reality, then

[1338 h4x0r]

ya typical nerd response

Keep going, peon


you cant prove anything about reality


There are six distinct ways to take two objects from four distinguishable objects. Try it. I can prove it.

[Reaganista]

for all i know im a brain in a vat

[Reaganista]

Keep going, peon
lol peon i dont think you even know what that means


There are six distinct ways to take two objects from four distinguishable objects. Try it. I can prove it.
math has nothing to do with this

[irishslappop]

THE DEVIL HAS DECIEVED YOU INTO BELIEVING REALITY IS EXPLAINABLE!!!!


philosophy 1A

[spitfirejunky]

is that a serious question

About as serious as your equivocal use of the term real.

[Reaganista]

About as serious as your equivocal use of the term real.

i never equivocate and im offended by your insinuations

[1338 h4x0r]

lol peon i dont think you even know what that means

As far as I know, 'peon' originally referred to someone who was employed to sap or mine the walls of a fortress (i.e. a 'peoneer'). Since these occupations were looked down on, 'peon' became an insult for anyone considered to be of little worth.

math has nothing to do with this

You said it's impossible to prove anything having to do with reality. I just showed you an example of something in reality than can be proven very easily. I guess you don't know what 'proof' means.

[irishslappop]

im offended by the use of the term offended.

[Reaganista]

As far as I know, 'peon' originally referred to someone who was employed to sap or mine the walls of a fortress (i.e. a 'peoneer'). Since these occupations were looked down on, 'peon' became an insult for anyone considered to be of little worth.

o in that case then you just dont know that im of astounding worth in both the objective financial and moral sense
this leads me to believe you are unobservant

You said it's impossible to prove anything having to do with reality. I just showed you an example of something in reality than can be proven very easily. I guess you don't know what 'proof' means.
prove that 'distinguishable objects' exist in reality
or indistinguishable objects for that matter

[1338 h4x0r]

o in that case then you just dont know that im of astounding worth in both the objective financial and moral sense

Why? You can't argue worth a damn

prove that 'distinguishable objects' exist in reality
or indistinguishable objects for that matter

No wonder you can't tell your elbow from your asshole

[Reaganista]

Why? You can't argue worth a damn
im the most important being to ever exist because im the only one to ever have a thought prove me wrong

No wonder you can't tell your elbow from your asshole
hmm what was that

[1338 h4x0r]

Two distinguishable objects

[Reaganista]

imaginary objects for all anyone knows

[Smokey D]

Tway's right when he says what we think of is real is actually only a perception logically consistent with other perceptions we have which may or may not in fact be true. Ultimately we have no way of knowing whether our perception of reality is consistent actual reality. All we can say is that it's consistent with what we know.

I think we already went over the point somewhere that what's real what's logical aren't necessarily the same thing.

But for the record, using Scandinavian words when you aren't in fact Scandinavian and are speaking in English really is very very nerdy.

Also peon probably doesn't refer to sappers. It derives from Spanish for someone who moved around on foot (ie were too poor to afford a horse). The sapper definition seems to come from the German but note that the word in German is pionier or pioneer not peoneer.

[beastman168]

that is pretty basic Sartre

[spitfirejunky]

Tway's right when he says what we think of is real is actually only a perception logically consistent with other perceptions we have which may or may not in fact be true. Ultimately we have no way of knowing whether our perception of reality is consistent actual reality. All we can say is that it's consistent with what we know.

I think we already went over the point somewhere that what's real what's logical aren't necessarily the same thing.

This doesn't contradict the idea of computer science as a science.

[Smokey D]

No probably not. I don't really see why Tway's saying it's not unless it's some point about computer science dealing with internally algorithms as opposed to attempting to construct a phenomenology for the properties of matter. But I don't know if that works.

[mph4ever]

how can anyone say that computer science is not a science? then again, i suppose they could have just as easily called it computer embroidery or tapestry

[DBoons Ghost]

In regards to computer science as a major, I've always thought of it as more the science of computing more then looking at computing as a whole as science.

[guitrguy]

From what my brother tells me, he is a computer science major, that its focused on software development, language, and theory.

[Bread and Faxes]

I always thought about Computer Science as just the topic of Computers and their maintenance and repair and upkeep. But It seems that it's very elaborate and much more in depth then what I previously thought.

[Reaganista]

This doesn't contradict the idea of computer science as a science.
it's not bound by the natural limitations of reality

[1338 h4x0r]

it's not bound by the natural limitations of reality

It is true that CS sometimes entertains questions like "is x computable?" without actually doing it. But so does physics, so I don't see what your point is. In fact, physics is notorious for ridiculous abstractions and theoretical problems, hence the joke about the physicist rigging a horse race under the assumption that the horses are spherical and moving in simple harmonic motion.

[Reaganista]

except in physics x refers to something in reality or something that could be part of reality

[1338 h4x0r]

except in physics x refers to something in reality or something that could be part of reality

As in CS

Don't mouth off about what you don't understand

[mph4ever]

ok, so lets agree on one thing, as with science in general, it uses the scientific methods, empirical research and observation. its not like we can just take something that was developed elsewhere or is a function of an existing program and build anything we want. sure we can benefit from previous science but with each new development we must identify our challenge, research it, model it, observe it, prove it.

[spitfirejunky]

No probably not. I don't really see why Tway's saying it's not unless it's some point about computer science dealing with internally algorithms as opposed to attempting to construct a phenomenology for the properties of matter. But I don't know if that works.

except in physics x refers to something in reality or something that could be part of reality

Many of the current running time problems are problems we've noted directly through observation and actually have no logical explanation for.

[Reaganista]

As in CS

Don't mouth off about what you don't understand
no nothing about cs is real
Many of the current running time problems are problems we've noted directly through observation and actually have no logical explanation for.
observation in the artificial reality of a computer program isnt real observation

[iliketoplaydrums10111]

hahaha tway i love how you always start **** regardless of what it is.

[1338 h4x0r]

observation in the artificial reality of a computer program isnt real observation

Observation of the (real) electronic state of the hardware is real observation. It's not like programs run out there in the ether.

[krovvy]

Perhaps...


But perhaps not!








I'd contribute more but I'm not sure what's being argued anymore.

[Reaganista]

you cant prove anything about the physical manifestations of a program
seeing as it might not even exist
you can only prove things within the artificial confines of a program

[1338 h4x0r]

you cant prove anything about the physical manifestations of a program
seeing as it might not even exist
you can only prove things within the artificial confines of a program

That makes no sense. You're just talking out of your *** now

[Reaganista]

no it does make sense what dont you understand

[1338 h4x0r]

First, 'proof' and 'empirical observation' are not to be used together

That whole post was a cluster**** of ambiguity

[Reaganista]

you cant prove that youve observed what you think youve observed
or anything at all

[guitrguy]

chris, you know that hes just trolling you.

[Reaganista]

he would have to be an objective observer to know that and those don't exist in reality

[Dave de Sylvia]

i'm actually a simulation of a troll

prove me.

[Reaganista]

ill leave the simulations to the computer scientists tyvm

[1338 h4x0r]

you cant prove that youve observed what you think youve observed
or anything at all

I challenge you to prove that deez nutz aren't in your mouth as we speak.

[Reaganista]

I challenge you to prove that deez nutz aren't in your mouth as we speak.

they might be we can never be sure

[1338 h4x0r]

What? I can't understand you when you're talking through a mouthful of my balls.

[Smokey D]

I already covered this with my Sartre impersonation.

[1338 h4x0r]

I have to, have to entertain trolls all the time. They entertain me as well. It's a weakness of mine.

[Reaganista]

What? I can't understand you when you're talking through a mouthful of my balls.

actually i'm not talking at all think about one for a minute huh

[1338 h4x0r]

*mmff* *mfff* *mmmfff* *mmff*

Yeah, I know you love it. Give me some sugar, baby!

[Reaganista]

see this is exactly what i'm talking about we appear to be experiencing two completely different realities!

[1338 h4x0r]

thanks for dragging postmodernist bullshit into this thread

also, more tongue / less teeth next time kthx

[Reaganista]

ooo a 'scientist' calling postmodernism bullshit there's a novel concept

[1338 h4x0r]

this is why postmodernism is bullshit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

[Smokey D]

So a scientist, misunderstanding postmodernism, thinks he has outsmarted post modernists by being post modern?

That's pretty post modern.

[Reaganista]

a journal with no peer review process is why post modernism is bullshit
printing a nonsense article is actually pretty post modern in an ironic or subversive sense anyway

also by that same token here is why biochemistry is bullshit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Published_material

[1338 h4x0r]

So a scientist, misunderstanding postmodernism, thinks he has outsmarted post modernists by being post modern?

That's pretty post modern.

Sokal wrote a bunch of flattering bullshit and this journal uncritically swallowed his bullshit, since it was almost completely indistinguishable from the bullshit they usually print

I think it was pretty clever, and the reaction it provoked only goes to affirm that

Of course, it's not needed for people to write hoaxes like that anymore when a program can do almost as good of a job these days:

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

also by that same token here is why biochemistry is bullshit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe#Published_material

One fringe fundie? Wow, I sure have lost my faith in biochemistry.

[Smokey D]

Yes I read the article. I just think it's a laughably post modern way to prove that post modernism is stupid. But also Tway's point. You can't discount an entire branch of philosophy -- especially something as broad as post modernism, whatever that is -- by the actions of one person or one magazine.

[Reaganista]

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

this is the rough equivalent of saying 'ching chong chang' and claming to speak chinese


One fringe fundie? Wow, I sure have lost my faith in biochemistry.
faith

[1338 h4x0r]

Yes I read the article. I just think it's a laughably post modern way to prove that post modernism is stupid. But also Tway's point. You can't discount an entire branch of philosophy -- especially something as broad as post modernism, whatever that is -- by the actions of one person or one magazine.

That's the problem—it's way too broad. And a lot of respected postmodernist figures, such as Jacques Lacan, are either full of **** or just plain total ****ing charlatans. That 'field' is seriously flawed.

this is the rough equivalent of saying 'ching chong chang' and claming to speak chinese

I read about someone who used an essay from the postmodernism generator to troll a postmodernist. It back-fired (or not, depending on how you see it) when she took it seriously.

As you are a lawyer in training, I'm shocked that you apparently haven't learned about the pitfalls of a poorly-constructed analogy. Your analogy falls down on several points.


Chinese, unlike most postmodernist essays, has a coherent grammar.
Nobody who really speaks Chinese could be fooled by someone saying "ching chong chang" in various tones.
Chinese people who talk about math usually know what they're talking about. Postmodernists usually do not. (In fact, some of the native translations of Western math terms are pretty cute mnemonics.)

[Smokey D]

Not really. Post modernism is a field in the same way history is a field. You can call parts of it flawed without in anyway passing meaningful comment on the rest.

[1338 h4x0r]

Not really. Post modernism is a field in the same way history is a field. You can call parts of it flawed without in anyway passing meaningful comment on the rest.

On average, there's way, way less gristle in history than there is in postmodernism. Nearly every postmodernist essay or talk I have ever seen fell somewhere in between regular old vanilla bullshit and bullshit so rank it was starting to turn into saltpeter.

[Smokey D]

In the opinion of an unimaginative scientist maybe.

[Reaganista]

Nobody who really speaks Chinese could be fooled by someone saying "ching chong chang" in various tones.
yeah that was my point
your happening to be mystified by that little random word generator is hardly surprising because you don't 'speak chinese'

[1338 h4x0r]

Are you saying my "bullshit so rank it was starting to turn into saltpeter" comment wasn't imaginative?

this is bullshit ->


One phenomenon feminist historians have focused on is the rape and torture metaphors in the writings of Sir Francis Bacon and others (e.g. Machiavelli) enthusiastic about the new scientific method. Traditional historians and philosophers have said that these metaphors are irrelevant to the real meanings and referents of scientific concepts held by those who used them and by the public for whom they wrote. But when it comes to regarding nature as a machine, they have quite a different analysis: here, we are told, the metaphor provides the interpretations of Newton's mathematical laws: it directs inquirers to fruitful ways to apply his theory and suggests the appropriate methods of inquiry and the kind of metaphyiscs the new theory supports. But if we are to believe that mechanistic metaphors were a fundamental component of the explanations the new science provided, why should we believe that the gender metaphors were not? A consistent analysis would lead to the conclusion that understanding nature as a woman indifferent to or even welcoming rape was equally fundamental to the interpretations of these new conceptions of nature and inquiry. Presumably these metaphors, too, had fruitful pragmatic, methodological, and metaphysical consequences for science. In that case, why is it not as illuminating and honest to refer to Newton's laws as "Newton's rape manual" as it is to call them "Newton's mechanics"?

http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2005/09/know-thy-enemy-newtons-rape-manual.php

yeah that was my point
your happening to be mystified by that little random word generator is hardly surprising because you don't 'speak chinese'

Yes, but apparently it's not very hard to fool people who do 'speak Chinese', to continue with the metaphor.

[Smokey D]

Are you saying my "bullpoop so rank it was starting to turn into saltpeter" comment wasn't imaginative?

No but this whole conversation adds to my opinion that you are something of a cliched metalhead/Tolkien fan/scientist with reasonably limited understanding of the theories and fields you're criticising. Like when you criticised social scientists for being irrational.

this is bullpoop ->

Possibly. But there's probably something in saying that language shapes thought. In fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstructionism

And it's not like that's the totality of post modern philosophy.

There's plenty of shoddy science, history, economics, medicine or what have you out there as well and no one pretends that invalidates the field.

[Reaganista]

Yes, but apparently it's not very hard to fool people who do 'speak Chinese', to continue with the metaphor.
um actually it is
there arent comparable organizations to the discovery institute that go around peddling randomly generated articles as post modern ideas

[1338 h4x0r]

No but this whole conversation adds to my opinion that you are something of a cliched metalhead/Tolkien fan/scientist

To be honest, this is one of the awesomest compliments I have ever received.


with reasonably limited understanding of the theories and fields you're criticising. Like when you criticised social scientists for being irrational.


Poor choice of words on my part. And I'm sure you know I love history and language.

Possibly. But there's probably something in saying that language shapes thought.

I agree with this (not to the point of believing in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which is really kind of bogus), but I think anyone who calls 'Newton's mechanics' 'Newton's rape manual' really does not know that much about Newton himself. IIRC, the author of that paper is pretty well-respected (and cited) in her circle.

There's plenty of shoddy science, history, economics, medicine or what have you out there as well and no one pretends that invalidates the field.

People who try to propagate sub-par research in this fields are, in most cases, quickly called out as bullshit artists. Look at that Enzyte product, for instance; they had to get an incredibly dishonest and sleazy doctor to hawk their penis pills for them. Although, in some cases, the larger medicine co's can get away with highway robbery, but that's a horse of a different color.

[spitfirejunky]

observation in the artificial reality of a computer program isnt real observation

There's nothing artificial about permutations.