Cites and quotes (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Termyn8or -> Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 2:05:41 AM)

They used tio beieve the Earth was flat, in fact that "truth" was enforced at the tip of a sword, or the yoke of a gallows more than once from what I have read. In the wake of what happened in my thread about Man vs Woman, I have given careful cinsideration to me next assertation or dissertation, whatever you may wish to call it. To those who disagree with me, or who simply like to disagree, you are going to have a hard time finding any stones to throw in the vicinity of this one.

People in here are frequently asked to provide "proof" or other substantiation for their statements. Now when it comes to certain issues like statistics and/or hisrical events, OK, but when it comes to science I firmly believe that we must not resort to that if we are to achieve the greatest understanding of the point possible.

Many seem to want to see published articles from reknowned universities written by people with letters after their name, such as Phd. Letters like those seem to inbue a sort of infallibility on the author, and instill belief in the reader. This is where we go wrong I believe. I believe that while the source is important at times, the content should at least be judged on it's own merit. I decided to do some really quickie research on three individuals before posting this, so consider the following ;

Alexander Graham Bell. Everyone knows what he did. Well he did not have a higher formal education as far as I can find, and found that he was actually home schooled for a time.

Thomas Alva Edison, over a thousand patents and no degree. A brilliant Man, also home schooled for a time.

Ransom Eli Olds, who actually had a mass produced, low cost car in this country before Henry Ford, also had no letters after his name. I do not know if he was home schooled.

Two of these people were born in Ohio, is there something in the water or what ? The three of them, completely independently revolutionized the world, basically started the industrial age. (for good or bad I might add) Not one of them had a degree, so even though they are recognized now, back then, their ideas did not come from a classroom.

So no, Ford did not invent the car (as we know it) Olds did. I did not delve into Ford's background but I wouldn't be surprised to find something similar there.  No doubt there were similar developments in Europe at about the same time, but what of those inventors ? I can tell you this much, not one of them came out of Harvard or Yale. (and I haven't even checked, so correct me if I am wrong)

Farnswoth invented television while he was still in school, I don't know about Baird but he was inventing it almost simultaneously in England. That is not to say formally educated people invented nothing. Columbia Broadcasting (CBS) invented color TV, but Radio Corporation of America came up with the compatible NTSC system which is due for obsolesence this year. However for year years tween, most color TV systems around the world emulated the SSB type tramission invented HERE. I know because it is my job to know. Also most of these system were superior to NTSC, but they had a working idea and time to improve upon it. The invention of the COMB filter was necessary for VCRs to be invented, and someone at Sony did it. But then that is another country.

The COMB filter was an integral component of the PAL system used in Europe for quite some time, and when incorporated into TVs stateside, improved the resolution dramatically. But it was still our system to start with, just with a different number of scan lines and higher subcarrier frequncies. Had compatibility not been a problem we could've jacked it up here as well and had a sharper image.

But at another point of history some caveman probably named "Og" invented the wheel and had just as important an impact on human society as any of these modern doodads we take for granted.

And so many things have been reinvented. The new snazzy lockup torque convertor in you car which is necessary for overdrive to work properly, it was invented in the 1930s. Now don't screw with me here, I have a book from the 1930s describing them, and it IS old. Do I have to scan it for you ? They had electric cars in the 1910s, and I know it for a fact because the book exists and it is described in quite a bit of detail. Now of course I wonder who invented these things and what their level of education was (I know, grammar, spank me). In fact many of the features incorporated in your new cars were already on a car that almost made it, the Cord. They were made in the 1940s. Disc brakes for example. There is some controversy regarding the demise of the Cord motor company, which I will not delve into here.

So many of these new innovations you see today could be fifty years old. Actually I don't think very much has really been invented in the last fifty years. The IC chips in your PC and just about everything else are simply an extension of technology developed in the 1950s. Year after year all they really do is cram more of Bell Labs' transistors into them by using more refined techniques.

Yes I would have to agree that going from Maxwell Smart's shoe phone to what we have now is an advancement, but the trechnology was not invented so recently, merely better ways to use it. Someone made it affordable for the avareage Joe and now we see it, but it existed for longer than many think. Perhaps a better comparison would be to the communicators on the original Star Trek. They are primitive device compared to what we have now, but that doesn't change the fact that it is old technology applied in a new way.

For example the camera in your cellphone, the MOS sensor was invented quite some time ago. They invented one and it was a dandy light sensor. But then they were able to put millions of them on a plate of sorts, focus like a camera with a lens and thus it became a digital camera. And it's all dependant on older technology, when was it that Marconi lived ?

So the only logical conclusion is that the old infromation is as important as the new. Another thing to consider is that it is actually proven that good ideas can come from anywhere. That means a guy with more letters after his name than in his name can be worng, and some guy writing from a basement in Ohio somewhere lined with beer cans can be right.

Your thoughts ?

T



Vendaval -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 3:09:40 AM)

Term,
 
I am up and down all night with a nasty cold but am going to take a stab at this.  If I understand your point, it is that genius does not take place only in academic settings.
 
Now I agree with that point of view.  Many of the brightest people I know never received a degree.  The ability to think creatively seems to be innate rather than something that can be taught.  Much of our educational system is rote memory and learning facts and then when we graduate and go out in the big world we fall down.  This is where internships and hands on learning becomes important.
 
Given a choice between an academic and street smarts  I will usually go with the street smarts because there is a higher probability of direct experience.  IMO, the best minds have both aspects.
 
As always, your mileage may vary,
 
Vendaval



Hippiekinkster -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 3:11:43 AM)

Exactly. You are the Ken Kesey of Beer.



Owner59 -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 3:19:19 AM)

I`ve heard it calculated that if not for the the "church",we would have been on the moon 2 or 3 hundred years sooner.



Vendaval -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 3:27:54 AM)

You mean because of the notion that the Sun moved around the Earth? [;)]



housesub4you -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 4:30:01 AM)

I have never been one who thought only the educated are smart.  In fact if you look at education from a Sociological POV, it has been used to control movement and growth in the workplace. 

But times are different now then they where when Edison, Bell and others where able to break through the glass ceilings created by education levels.

Today, jobs require a BA that used to ask for no education level beyond H.S.  Jobs that use to require a BA now one needs a MA and so on and so on. 

I think at some level the BA is the new HS degree, but the cost of achieving even a BA is growing out of reach for many people in this country.  College tuition has grown much faster then salaries in this country. 

The college I attend cost about $20,000 for 4 years including room and board.  Today it is over $20,000 for 1 year and I was in the class of 1999.  With the cuts in grants, and a huge push towards student loans in the past 8 years, even those who earn their degree can't afford the loan payments with the low paying jobs they are offered



corysub -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 9:37:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I`ve heard it calculated that if not for the the "church",we would have been on the moon 2 or 3 hundred years sooner.


You heard wrong. Forgetting about the individual contributions of priests,  In the sciences it was the Jesuits in particular who distinguished themselves; some 35 craters on the moon, in fact, are named after Jesuit scientists and mathematicians. Catholic cathedrals in Bologna, Florence, Paris, and Rome were constructed to function as solar observatories. The "university" itself is a system of education that was first introduced by the church in Bologna, Italy in 1088. 
Ok, so they gave Galeleo a hard time....sue me!
 



housesub4you -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 9:48:42 AM)

Dammit....If only I could prove I'm related to Galeleo.....



UPSG -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 12:37:24 PM)

You are correct that an appeal to one's title or education is a logical fallacy. On the other hand a title and education can carry some weight on a subject especially if it is related in a specialized way to the subject being discussed.

Formal education is still valuable, and it is the best way to both socio-economic and intellectual growth for most people. What is more important than a college degree is passion and consistent training or constant learning in an area that interests one. One may not have to go to college to become a great basketball player but one must have the passion and put in the significant training time. I believe the same thing applies to the science and technology fields. (although having access to equipment and labs - such as at a university - is an incredible advantage)



corysub -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 12:52:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: housesub4you

Dammit....If only I could prove I'm related to Galeleo.....


You are...only five degrees of seperation...! [:)]



UPSG -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 1:16:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

I`ve heard it calculated that if not for the the "church",we would have been on the moon 2 or 3 hundred years sooner.


I think it was Nietzsche that suggested there are three ways of interpreting or writing history.

1. Monumental: coming from the word monument and focusing on specific individuals (e.g. presidents, generals, popes).

2. Antiquarian: to glorify antiquity.

3. Critical: to take a critical look at history and focus on the average person.

I would added to that that there is another common way of interpreting history and that is one that has instilled in people over the years to assume the White European world by virtue of race and not culture has always inherently been more advanced then all other peoples.

I'm not suggesting you are racist but I am suggesting we all are infected with racist frameworks of thought, no matter our "race" or color, from very early childhood.

I'm half German-American and half Black-American. My German side of the family's surname is actually Roman and from that branch we hail from out of the ancient Roman Germanic settlement of Trier, Germany (the other from Hungary - and we may possibly have Mongol blood line from that branch if the slanted eyes on one of our White antecedents implies that). Our surname may be Roman for a number of reasons one quite possibly because ancient Romans used to have Germans as slaves.

Contrary to what most "history shows" and many people like to suggest, all of Europe was not de facto the city of Rome nor ancient Greece. The "Dark Ages" is to suggest what? My Germanic ancestors lived in a time of "light" before they sacked Rome? The evidence? Rome built roads - hell Haiti has roads. [sm=lol.gif] Oh! the spectacular bath that trickled with water but tens to hundreds of people bathed in them. Yuck. Even monks realized those disgusting things were spreading disease.

I'm not going to write a long post but let me just say this, the Germanic tribes were very unsophistacated peoples, and the Anglo-Saxon under the ancient Roman era were a long way off from the sophistication of Timbuktu in the 1600's. The Anglo-Saxon (a once quite "barabric" people) gained sophistication under the Christian era. It took a long time to civilize the Northern European stocks. The Christians of Constantinople and of North Africa (including Egypt) and of the Middle East were a much more educated and cultured people, per the mean (average), than those in Englands or Scotland.

But more to the point, "The Church" did not exist everywhere on earth. Why did not the Aztecs, Chinese, Hindue Indians, the Polyensians and so forth not reach the moon? In fact if the Church held back science how was it what we call "science" bloosomed under Christian nations and propelled the European above all other nations on earth?

My Germanic ancestors did not even have a written language until Christian monks created one for them. But wait! The Moors built beautiful mosques, and palaces for harems of Sultans (check back the Nietzsche's three methods to see if a Sultans palace, gardens, and harems equals "monumental" or "critical" interpretation) and they brought geometery to Spain, so of course that equals the vague term of the "light of science" equal to brain surgery or Gregor Mendel's work on heridity. [8|]

I've got news, the Europeans brought technologies and masonry crafts to a primitive Western, Central, and Southern Africa, and many of those places descended into chaos (like post-Muslim Spain) once the inhabitants released themselves from the shackles of colonialism. So, maybe I can write an historical interpretation of how great those parts of Africa were before the European left. I mean hey! Islam has evidently brought the light of science and tolerance to Saudia Arabia and the Sudan, outclassing Italy with the Vatican loacted in Rome by a mile. [8|] (there are plenty of Mosques in Italy, and when someone can show me the Christian cathedrals in Saudia Arabia I'll be more than willing to look - oh but wait... there aren't any)



corysub -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 1:18:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

They used tio beieve the Earth was flat, in fact that "truth" was enforced at the tip of a sword, or the yoke of a gallows more than once from what I have read. In the wake of what happened in my thread about Man vs Woman, I have given careful cinsideration to me next assertation or dissertation, whatever you may wish to call it. To those who disagree with me, or who simply like to disagree, you are going to have a hard time finding any stones to throw in the vicinity of this one.

People in here are frequently asked to provide "proof" or other substantiation for their statements. Now when it comes to certain issues like statistics and/or hisrical events, OK, but when it comes to science I firmly believe that we must not resort to that if we are to achieve the greatest understanding of the point possible.

Many seem to want to see published articles from reknowned universities written by people with letters after their name, such as Phd. Letters like those seem to inbue a sort of infallibility on the author, and instill belief in the reader. This is where we go wrong I believe. I believe that while the source is important at times, the content should at least be judged on it's own merit. I decided to do some really quickie research on three individuals before posting this, so consider the following ;

Alexander Graham Bell. Everyone knows what he did. Well he did not have a higher formal education as far as I can find, and found that he was actually home schooled for a time.

Thomas Alva Edison, over a thousand patents and no degree. A brilliant Man, also home schooled for a time.

Ransom Eli Olds, who actually had a mass produced, low cost car in this country before Henry Ford, also had no letters after his name. I do not know if he was home schooled.

Two of these people were born in Ohio, is there something in the water or what ? The three of them, completely independently revolutionized the world, basically started the industrial age. (for good or bad I might add) Not one of them had a degree, so even though they are recognized now, back then, their ideas did not come from a classroom.

So no, Ford did not invent the car (as we know it) Olds did. I did not delve into Ford's background but I wouldn't be surprised to find something similar there.  No doubt there were similar developments in Europe at about the same time, but what of those inventors ? I can tell you this much, not one of them came out of Harvard or Yale. (and I haven't even checked, so correct me if I am wrong)

Farnswoth invented television while he was still in school, I don't know about Baird but he was inventing it almost simultaneously in England. That is not to say formally educated people invented nothing. Columbia Broadcasting (CBS) invented color TV, but Radio Corporation of America came up with the compatible NTSC system which is due for obsolesence this year. However for year years tween, most color TV systems around the world emulated the SSB type tramission invented HERE. I know because it is my job to know. Also most of these system were superior to NTSC, but they had a working idea and time to improve upon it. The invention of the COMB filter was necessary for VCRs to be invented, and someone at Sony did it. But then that is another country.

The COMB filter was an integral component of the PAL system used in Europe for quite some time, and when incorporated into TVs stateside, improved the resolution dramatically. But it was still our system to start with, just with a different number of scan lines and higher subcarrier frequncies. Had compatibility not been a problem we could've jacked it up here as well and had a sharper image.

But at another point of history some caveman probably named "Og" invented the wheel and had just as important an impact on human society as any of these modern doodads we take for granted.

And so many things have been reinvented. The new snazzy lockup torque convertor in you car which is necessary for overdrive to work properly, it was invented in the 1930s. Now don't screw with me here, I have a book from the 1930s describing them, and it IS old. Do I have to scan it for you ? They had electric cars in the 1910s, and I know it for a fact because the book exists and it is described in quite a bit of detail. Now of course I wonder who invented these things and what their level of education was (I know, grammar, spank me). In fact many of the features incorporated in your new cars were already on a car that almost made it, the Cord. They were made in the 1940s. Disc brakes for example. There is some controversy regarding the demise of the Cord motor company, which I will not delve into here.

So many of these new innovations you see today could be fifty years old. Actually I don't think very much has really been invented in the last fifty years. The IC chips in your PC and just about everything else are simply an extension of technology developed in the 1950s. Year after year all they really do is cram more of Bell Labs' transistors into them by using more refined techniques.

Yes I would have to agree that going from Maxwell Smart's shoe phone to what we have now is an advancement, but the trechnology was not invented so recently, merely better ways to use it. Someone made it affordable for the avareage Joe and now we see it, but it existed for longer than many think. Perhaps a better comparison would be to the communicators on the original Star Trek. They are primitive device compared to what we have now, but that doesn't change the fact that it is old technology applied in a new way.

For example the camera in your cellphone, the MOS sensor was invented quite some time ago. They invented one and it was a dandy light sensor. But then they were able to put millions of them on a plate of sorts, focus like a camera with a lens and thus it became a digital camera. And it's all dependant on older technology, when was it that Marconi lived ?

So the only logical conclusion is that the old infromation is as important as the new. Another thing to consider is that it is actually proven that good ideas can come from anywhere. That means a guy with more letters after his name than in his name can be worng, and some guy writing from a basement in Ohio somewhere lined with beer cans can be right.

Your thoughts ?

T


Yes, yes, no, no, yes, possibly, yes.

No in my mind if a person had a choice between advanced study or "go it alone"...study would win in a landslide.  We have come a long way from when "Og" invented the wheel.  I think you might not be giving enough credit to the intelligence that was developed with hard work. Comparing todays semiconductors with the transistor that replaced the vacuum tube is like comparing the space shuttle to balloon flight.  I used a "slide rule" early in my career and than we got a "monroe calculator"...most people here have no idea what a slide ruller is or heard of Monroe...but next thing you knew you had a Wang Calculator, Hewlitt Packard, IBM, Digital Equipment etc..all building on what the chinese had developed a millenium ago putting little balls on strings in a frame.   The science that can put such memory power on the head of pin can't be replicated in a garage, no matter how much passion the inventor possesed. Every journey began with that first step...and I would agree that  Pythagoras paved the way for Einstein.

Bill Gates took an article in Popular Mechanics, purchased computer in a kit...and had the vision to see a computer on every kitchen table.  Not a university grad...but now he can build his own university and 100,000 people approximately earn their living because of the his creativity.  I'll take creativity over education..but you also than have to be a risk taker and bet the ranch on your idea...a skill set not held by too many people.



SilverMark -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 1:26:57 PM)

Education isn't the answer to knowledge, without question, yet knowledge gained in other methods does not negate the importance of formal learning. Education is only as good as the one who wishes to gain it and then to put it to PRACTICAL use. No matter the wisdom gained, I would not wish to have my health in the hands of the best of auto mechanics or those who are bright beyond their education in the ways of "street smarts". I have met some pretty savvy business people that have come through the "school of hard knocks" and almost all of the ones who's opinions I value work for themselves because frankly, those in the corporate world would not have given them the opportunity to put what they know to good use. Thank God for the self-educated for without them the small businesses that help make the world go around would not exist. Thank God for corporations that value education above all else or they would have benefited from knowledge that these people have used to make themselves "bootstrap" successes and robbed the general public of some great small businesses.



dcnovice -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 1:30:02 PM)

quote:

I`ve heard it calculated that if not for the the "church",we would have been on the moon 2 or 3 hundred years sooner.


Well, of course, there's no way to prove or disprove this.

One sideways method of testing this hypothesis, though, would be to determine whether Native Americans were 200-300 years ahead of Europeans at contact.



Termyn8or -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 1:57:36 PM)

FR

cory, agreed about the Jesuits, I have heard about them quite a bit having a family friend who went to a Jesuit school. They are generally brilliant. Either that or they wash out I guess.

As far as how much religion, or more specifically the church has held us back is bound to be a point for discussion. In the old days the church held alot of political power and did have quite a bit of influence, but did it really hold back the invention of the TV, the car, the rocket ship ? We really can't say not having experienced an alternate timeline. I know this much, religion is a huge distraction for many, even without any sort of enforced dogma.

Personally I think money has done more to hold us back than any other influence. Let me give you a prime example right here in Cleveland. A guy known to me only as "Chuck" is one of these geeky type engineers and has built what appears to be a perpetual motion machine. I posted about this and discussions in real life have almost cost me a friendship or two, but it is NOT a perpetual motion machine. Via further research I found how it is done and it is not magic, not in the least, but it is very interesting. The motor or generatore uses permanent magnets to literally amplify power, so the power is coming from somewhere and I suspect that eventually the permanent magnets will lose their charge and it will no longer work. However when it does work for the five years or so it can actually generate enough electricity to power a normal household. That doesn't make it practical, why ? because of money. These things cost ALOT and if you were to add up all your electric bills for the product life cycle, you don't want it. Money. Further,  my buddy was working for "Chuck" building the prototytpes and now he has a working system that could be sold, but what he is doing is milking the project. Perhaps he is not so sure he's going to get his full cut later and wants a boodle of money now, just in case he is later discarded once another with the technical aptitude comes along and can reverse engineer one of these things, thus making "Chuck" obsolete. Is that intelligence or greed ? It really doesn't matter, it still comes back to money.

Whether it is the extreme cost of these things, or Chuck trying to fill his bags with bread before he gets the boot matters not, it still comes back to money. '

Of course the church is no stranger to money. No doubt it has had a negative impact on our technological advancement, but to what degree is quite difficult to determine.

Now I see a thread (upon which I have not yet bestowed a visit) about stem cell research. Now correct me if I am wrong but to my knowledge, stem cell research does not hurt nor kill anyone. Sio what is the big deal ? Same with using aborted fetus' for research, they are dead, they do not care. It is almost as if they are afraid to unlock these secrets of life, for what reason ? Calling it playing God ?

Let me sum up my opinion real quick (so quick it'll make your head spin); if we humans have the capacity to become Gods, we should undertake every means possible to do so.

I still think money the greater issue.Let's take the hypothetical situation of a guy who needs a birdcage of uranium to develop a new kind of battery that would power an electric car for 80,000 miles or around seven years. The first problem is that someone has to pay for that uranium. Add to that the impact such a thing would have on our petro-based economy and I doubt they get their uranium.

Now of course we got government funding a good portion of the scientific research here, and the decisions on what is to be researched and to whom the money is granted is in the hands of people who quite frankly, some of them don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. Remember the joke about a congressman asking a travel agency if it would be cheaper to take a bus to Hawaii ?

Think of drug companies making "donations" to medical schools, what impact might that have had on the curricula ? I'll tell you what impact, a generation repleat with supposed doctors who are not much more than pill pushers. And now I suspect we have some doctors who really try to be a cut above, to try to be better who now accuse certain patients of being drug hounds, like in cases of chronic pain like fibro, so there's more of a negative impact. Why do these doctors adopt this attitude ? Perhaps because they have seen through all the the bullshit and have seen that really in some cases doctors are creating people who are dependant on painkillers or are likely to abuse them. What did they see that gave them this opinion ? I say it is the actions of the pill mills, and having seen this, they want to stop the cycle. They want to do better. I can see no other motivation. You have a patient complaining about pain, the easiest thing to do is to write them a scrip. Why don't they ? Are you saying they are a sadist ? (and I don't mean the nice way) I see no other reason for this.

I've been feeling tired and cold lately, why can't I walk into a doctor's office and just get a blood test, looking specifically for what I am looking for, which would be deficiencies in minerals mainly ? Why can't I just do that without them having to run me through the mill and have all this physical and all this, I just want to know what I want to know. I got the answer, it has five letters, the first of which is "M".

Of course that is not the whole story. Money has influenced education and almost everything on all levels. Take education for instance. Formal education is frequently a joke, very inneffective and school is basically a daycare center. Not only do they oft fail to make the subject matter interesting, they do nothing to instill a hunger for knowledge in the students. When they come across one who has that hunger they havent a clue as to what to do. Many times natural curiousity is at least impeded if not stifled, believe me I know, they tried it on me. It did not work.

I dropped out early in the tenth grade, but I was largely gone way before that.I found the secret, it was so simple, just don't ever go to homeroom. For a long time before I actually dropped out I only went to math and science, and for a while music classes. Now do my posts seem like they are written by a doofus ? Don't answer that, I will asume at this time that the answer is no. I will admit that I am missing some facts in history and a few other subjects, something which has been pointed out to me at times on this board, but I got what I need. As I age I am more compelled or at least interested in some aspects of history, and I believe that is the natural order of things. Of course school tampers with that, and look at the results.

Sometimes it seems that what they consider a rounded education, mansdatory in nature, is intended to be a distraction in and of itself. I believe selective education is better, even though I can't disagree with Heilein, the body of knowledge has grown to the point where some degree of specialisation is the direction to take. As an electronics technician/tech specialist/engineer why would I need to know on what exact date George Washington cut down the cherry tree ?

I'm not saying that we should raise a generation of savants, but tax dollars should be used just to get me productive enough so that I can explore other subjects in my spare time later in life. Tax dollars did not do that for me, I did that for me. Well I did take drafting, but my Dad taught me more about it than they ever did.

Thing is I was creative, I had many ideas. Why didn't they prepare me to implement those ideas, or find out why you can't ? Today I have the skills and even the tools to implement lots of ideas, but I simply have alot less ideas. Again I think this a natural progression.

I think that each student in every school from day one should be evaluated and have a dedicated curriculum based on their interests. If there was ever a time to rethink our ways, it is probably right now. The US is falling down in almost every criterium that once made us great, the innovators, the inventors, the industrialists (well the ones who refuse to play bank). They seem to be largely gone.

What's more we have people graduating highschool who have no idea how to balance a checkbook, and what's scary is that those people are sometimes put into positions of power. And if you think you can take a bus or a train from California to Hawaii, I am not voting for you, but the thing is, someone did.

[doing my damndest to stay within TOS here]

We are not doing our best for our progeny and if it keeps up things will only get worse. If we keep this cookie cutter mentality when it comes to education we are so doomed that the light from doomed will take twelve minutes to reach us.

[think I did it]

What if I walked in the door looking for a position as a senior engineer at GM. I have about 912 credits in science, electronics, physics, higher math, chemistry and a few other things. I worked my way through college in various research priojects and that's why I have so many credits. I do not have a degree because I blew off certain subjects to concentrate my education to the matter at hand. Now do you want to hire me or the guy with letters after his name who has never even changed a flat tire in his life ?

I know who my choice would be.

OK this is long enough. I have a new timer for writing posts. I put a piece of bread out on the desk and when I see the mold it is time to end it and hit send. That might explain why I write more in the winter :-)

More later.

T



TreasureKY -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 2:06:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

... People in here are frequently asked to provide "proof" or other substantiation for their statements. Now when it comes to certain issues like statistics and/or hisrical events, OK, but when it comes to science I firmly believe that we must not resort to that if we are to achieve the greatest understanding of the point possible.

Many seem to want to see published articles from reknowned universities written by people with letters after their name, such as Phd. Letters like those seem to inbue a sort of infallibility on the author, and instill belief in the reader.


It seems to me that you are not quite understanding the point of those who ask for "proof".  Credibility comes not with education only (or education at all, as the case may be), but with knowledge and experience.  Between given the choice between a novice or amateur in a specific field and an experienced professional in a specific field, I'm going to trust the theories or finding of the professional regarding that field to be more credible.

That's only sensible.  Would you trust an experienced medical doctor with your life in a medical emergency, or just someone who's read some medical books and thinks about medicine as a hobby?

That doesn't mean that the novice or amateur is wrong, or that the professional is always right (Lord knows there are plenty of professionals out there who've been proven wrong), but that from my own lay position I'm going to put more trust in someone who at least has some verifiable background and experience (or formal training) in a specific area.  The more professional recognition that an individual has, the more likely I am to consider them a credible source of information.

Beyond that, the political interests and motivations of a "source" will also determine how much credibility they have with me.  That's not an unusual thing, either.  How many times have you seen people dismiss proven evidence from a source because they felt the source was serving interests other than their own?  The most prominent example I can think of are "experts", hired by plaintiffs or defendants, who are brought into a court to testify.   You can have two "equally qualified" experts give diametrically opposed opinions on the very same subject.  People's beliefs and motivations do color their opinions... even on scientific matters and with people who have substantial education and experience.

Bottom line is, if I don't know what a source is and where they are coming from, I've nothing to base my own belief of credibility on.



Aylee -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 5:23:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Sometimes it seems that what they consider a rounded education, mansdatory in nature, is intended to be a distraction in and of itself. I believe selective education is better, even though I can't disagree with Heilein, the body of knowledge has grown to the point where some degree of specialisation is the direction to take. As an electronics technician/tech specialist/engineer why would I need to know on what exact date George Washington cut down the cherry tree ?



You see Termy, when you talk out of your ass, and show that you have no clue, as you do here with your reference to Robert A. Heinlein, it makes me; at least; wonder about the rest of your post and what else you may be incorrect about or just plain making up. 

BTW, I believe that the quote you are thinking of is: 

A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.

Which is NOT how you presented it.  And his non-fiction writing backs up this quote. 

My point is, if you are going to get this type of information incorrect or misrepresented, you should not be surprised that people are asking you to back up other statements that you make.

Oh, and the Cherry tree thing. . . you really do NOT need to know the date as it is only an American Legend / Myth. 



FirmhandKY -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 5:35:41 PM)


God, I just love it when another Heinlein fan goes all medieval on a false interpretation of his works.

Makes me all warm and fuzzy.  [:D][8D]

Firm



MarsBonfire -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 5:46:14 PM)

Actually, the argument about the church interfering with science and engineering goes back much farther than the Catholics threatening Galileio and burning Bruno at the stake. If you've ever watched the PBS series Cosmos (available on Netflix, I believe) you'll hear Carl Sagan talk about the great library of Alexandria. Whose cheif librarian was named Hyapatia. The library was a repository of all sorts of information, including (we know through tangental accounts) information on astronomy that was 800 years ahead of it's time, by our history. But of course, a religious fanatic at the time had his followers attack and kill Hyapatia (using sea shell knives to flay her to the bone while still alive) and burned the library to the ground, setting the human race's knowledge back by several hundred years.
If this hadn't happened, Sagan conjectured... we might be building starships today, and have fusion power. The point is, that religious groups are very bad for knowledge.

Remember this, the next time a nutcase in your area suggests teaching "ID" or "Creationisim" in you public schools.

As far as Termy's "uneducated people iz jus as gud as you high-falutin' types" argument... Well, if ignorance is so great, then I think he should put his money where his mouth is. He should pull his kids from school, and make sure they grow up in his much admired "uneducated state."

Edison had over 100 highly educated men working for him, using the scientific method to engineer each and every idea he had. He was also known to sabatoge the work of rivals. (He's still believed to be responsible for the fire at Tesla's Colorado Springs lab.)

Henry Ford... well, it won't take much online reseach to see where his mind was at... just Google "Ford nazis history" and see the whole ugly story of anti-american sentiment and anti semitisim.

Many of the other people he lists also had a bad side to them. Sometimes engaging in criminal activity to make sure they came out ahead of their rivals.

Just sayin'...



UPSG -> RE: Cites and quotes (3/9/2009 6:07:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Of course the church is no stranger to money. No doubt it has had a negative impact on our technological advancement, but to what degree is quite difficult to determine.

Now I see a thread (upon which I have not yet bestowed a visit) about stem cell research. Now correct me if I am wrong but to my knowledge, stem cell research does not hurt nor kill anyone. Sio what is the big deal ? Same with using aborted fetus' for research, they are dead, they do not care. It is almost as if they are afraid to unlock these secrets of life, for what reason ? Calling it playing God ?

Let me sum up my opinion real quick (so quick it'll make your head spin); if we humans have the capacity to become Gods, we should undertake every means possible to do so.


I know they won't teach this to people on the history channel, so allow me, in between Greece and the United States and the great engineering development of New Orleans, Louisiana  was a little place called the Republic of Venice. Amazing, the people were apart of the "Church." Had it been accomplished by the Moors, the Buddhist in Tibet, or really anyone... we would not hear the end of it.

Has the Church negatively effected certain scientific research in the past and present? Yes. But dare I say the "Church" is not the only one. Some research should be stopped anyways - for example I don't like that we have nuclear bombs nor "near-nuclear" weapons like the "Bunker Busters."

And I agree with you wholeheartedly that money - resources - has perhaps the greatest impact on research and especially so today. I would prefer more money and resources would get spent on research for curing disease and improving the overall quality of life than being allocated to war and military weaponry. In fact I feel confident in saying that "The Church" has been a advocate for agricultural science, in hopes that man's talents and discoveries, can be put to use in efforts of yielding more food supplies for humanity. And nota bene: I did not say "nation-state" but humanity.

As for man becoming God, whether one believes in God or not, that is an impossibility, to become the Christian concept of "God." The image of God as an old man is something used to teach children who are to young to grasp deeper abstract notions, but the Christian concept of God is "First Cause" and outside of the material world. The Catholic concept of God is that we all - and all of nature - live within God. Or to put it another way, in a certain extent we live in an "illusion" so to speak. This is a concept very similar to Buddhist metaphysical philosophy of the world. But the the creators of the movie Matrix were well aware of the very close similarities between Christian theology and Buddhist metaphysical philosophy. In Catholic theological view point man, and all life forms in nature, participate in creation with God (participate because God is the only true reality, our reality depends on God by who we exist in and he in us, therefore our reality is not true reality since it depends on a greater reality).

That said, Buddhist I'll point out, do not believe in a "First Cause" like Jews, Christians, and Muslims, nonetheless, "gods" in Catholicism (and Orthodoxy - but they're really one and the same) would be the "community of saints" in heaven. Catholic saints are very similar to Buddhist "gods" which the Buddhists understand to be humans that died, and went to one of the many levels of heaven. Catholic saints are not understood like the Protestant view of those that have passed on. For the Catholic the person is still aware of us and is disconnected to something of the extent a person walking miles up a forested mountain shrinks in view until is no longer seen. "Church" in fact in Catholicism is believed to be one Church spanning time and space in three different realities: (1) militant (Church on earth) (2) suffering (Church in purgatory) (3) triumphant (Church in heaven).

The Catholic Eucharist - as a concept - predates the belief humans are essentially apes per Darwinian evolution. I don't see apes becoming scientists but many people that are into "scientism" seem to think humans are no more than apes or chimps with a slightly better vocabulary, but this does not strike most people odd. [8|]



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.054688E-02