TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Has Our World Been Dumbed Down?
Pages (6): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »

quote:

Originally posted by Jake Benson Yeah they got the same retards interviewed after probably interviewing a lot more Americans who had answers. I'm sure I can go into a rural town in southern Germany and encounter the same dumbasses there too.

Back when I used to listen to talk radio, Sean Hannity did a "man on the street" segment, where he sent his assistant out to the street to do live interviews on the air. I swear, he received the exact same types of answers from random folks.. People who didn't know the Vice President...who didn't know the leader of Iraq (just before the war began, etc). A huge chunk of Americans really are that ignorant.

quote:

Originally posted by jerZ07002 do you have a degree in any field?

Yes, but I never used it. Started a company years before I got it, worked out much better.

Going to go back and work towards a doctorate at some point in the very near future in a different field, since variety is the spice of life.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby What do you think about particle physics?

I can blabber on all day, but if a particle physicist working on CERN were to waltz into our humble abode, I'de immediately yield the floor. Want to be a doctor? Guess what, you need credentials. I really don't understand you.

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton I can blabber on all day, but if a particle physicist working on CERN were to waltz into our humble abode, I'de immediately yield the floor. Want to be a doctor? Guess what, you need credentials. I really don't understand you.

I've thought about responding to this one a few times, and wrote some lengthy (and probably interesting to someone out there!) replies, but just couldn't bring it together right, and it's because of your last sentence.

I hear it alot, from everyone in every walk of life, and I'll remember it fondly when I'm holding my nobel prize. =P

peace

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I've thought about responding to this one a few times, and wrote some lengthy (and probably interesting to someone out there!) replies, but just couldn't bring it together right, and it's because of your last sentence. I hear it alot, from everyone in every walk of life, and I'll remember it fondly when I'm holding my nobel prize. =P peace

I wonder how frequently academically unaccredited but otherwise brilliant individuals such as Nikola Tesla got to laugh at closed-minded statements similar to the one that you just commented on.

It's fitting that Mr. Tesla was good friends with Mark Twain, who was famously quoted as saying,

quote:

I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I wonder how frequently academically unaccredited but otherwise brilliant individuals such as Nikola Tesla got to laugh at closed-minded statements similar to the one that you just commented on. It's fitting that Mr. Tesla was good friends with Mark Twain, who was famously quoted as saying,

Tesla is my hero.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X I wonder how frequently academically unaccredited but otherwise brilliant individuals such as Nikola Tesla got to laugh at closed-minded statements similar to the one that you just commented on. It's fitting that Mr. Tesla was good friends with Mark Twain, who was famously quoted as saying,

Close-minded statement? Your statement right here is more than close-minded, it's downright stupid. Nikoli Tesla studied electrical engineering at the Austrian Polytechnic, otherwise known as the Graz University of Technology, and was thus accredited. It seems like you're making a concerted effort to dumb us down in the PDD..

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Close-minded statement? Your statement right here is more than close-minded, it's downright stupid. Nikoli Tesla studied electrical engineering at the Austrian Polytechnic, otherwise known as the Graz University of Technology, and was thus accredited. It seems like you're making a concerted effort to dumb us down in the PDD..

To be fair, it's doubtful anything he learned in school helped him discover anything at all, but rather his willingness to experiment himself and step outside the box.

We have thousands of great minds every generation, a few of which get acclaim; I see no reason why one day everyone could be Einstein.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby To be fair, it's doubtful anything he learned in school helped him discover anything at all, but rather his willingness to experiment himself and step outside the box. We have thousands of great minds every generation, a few of which get acclaim; I see no reason why one day everyone could be Einstein.

Great minds have something in common. They were well-EDUCATED...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Great minds have something in common. They were well-EDUCATED...

Are you suggesting that education comes from academic institutions?

I laughed in real life for a second there. :P

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Are you suggesting that education comes from academic institutions? I laughed in real life for a second there. :P

Yes, it does. You, trancer, or colorut have yet to even attempt to explain why a university education does not matter in one's quest for knowledge. I find it amusing you guys hold internet websites and videos to a higher standard than somebody with academic credentials in a specific field. Please name me one modern scientist of any field, physical science, business, engineering, journalism, who gained prestige and authority within his field, who DID NOT receive an collegiate education...

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Yes, it does. You, trancer, or colorut have yet to even attempt to explain why a university education does not matter in one's quest for knowledge. I find it amusing you guys hold internet websites and videos to a higher standard than somebody with academic credentials in a specific field. Please name me one modern scientist of any field, physical science, business, engineering, journalism, who gained prestige and authority within his field, who DID NOT receive an collegiate education...

Probably because I've been to university and know that it's just a bullshit system to toss your money into. If you can play the game you can get a degree. I won't even hold that statement to 100% certainty, since many people WILL grow and become great thanks to some schooling and other factors.

As such, my point is non-discrimination until communication is breached.

It's like claiming American children are educated because they're forced to attend public schools. If you've been here/gone through that, you understand where I'm coming from regarding base quality.

It's simple as this: those with ambition and desire dive into their field, or many fields simultaneously, on many levels as much as they can, because they are just that: driven.

Ask any one of your favorite musical artists if they learned to write music in school, or if it was something greater.

To answer your question, Einstein, Galileo, and Edison learned their universe and trades through their own readings and experiments. Hopefully that's good enough, considering Einstein was a professor for most of his life... ironic indeed, considering his "community" ostracized him for years.

You're taking a very polar stance on what I'm saying, claiming you'll only speak indepth on these intense subjects with people who are "schooled" in the subject... that's fine for you, though I'm sure it's not true, since life is ripe with craziness and fun and good information from many angles of thought and experience in all manner of individuals.

PS: I'd appreciate it if you didn't fall into the heuristic of categorization as you did in this reply; Firstly, I never said I don't hold a value for a degree, nor did I say it is valueless. Secondly, I don't know how trancer or whoever perceives the world but don't clump me in with anyone to simplify your world, because that completely defeats the purpose of our existence.

Synopsis: I hold "internet websites/videos" to the same standard as I hold any other piece of information. I am the ultimate filter.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby To answer your question, Einstein, Galileo, and Edison learned their universe and trades through their own readings and experiments.

it never ceases to amuse me to see people name drop geniuses into the mix, as if their own lack of education is somehow comparable (no, not talking about you specifically). but seriously, so fucking what?

einstein thought so little of tertiary education that he became a professor. i could point out heaps of geniuses who have made landmark discoveries that got phDs so what is your argument? that it is possible to know stuff without having gone to school? yeah, no shit.

as i have stated already, formal education is not the panacea for all knowledge. but when you need surgery, do you give the knife to the guy who got the surgery degree or the fella who watched zeitgeist ffs?

there are people in here that make regular factual errors of the pretty obvious variety, i doubt they would make those same errors had they actually done tertiary study on the subjects they have "researched". fuck i met plenty of idiot lecturers at school, but i also found a few inspiring teachers. uni is what you make it, if you cant find a worthwhile pursuit/experience then its your own fault.

there are plenty of arrogant self-appointed experts in here that could do with having some professionals pass judgement on their nonsense, especially in the economics and civil engineering departments.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Probably because I've been to university and know that it's just a bullshit system to toss your money into. If you can play the game you can get a degree. I won't even hold that statement to 100% certainty, since many people WILL grow and become great thanks to some schooling and other factors. As such, my point is non-discrimination until communication is breached. It's like claiming American children are educated because they're forced to attend public schools. If you've been here/gone through that, you understand where I'm coming from regarding base quality. It's simple as this: those with ambition and desire dive into their field, or many fields simultaneously, on many levels as much as they can, because they are just that: driven. Ask any one of your favorite musical artists if they learned to write music in school, or if it was something greater. To answer your question, Einstein, Galileo, and Edison learned their universe and trades through their own readings and experiments. Hopefully that's good enough, considering Einstein was a professor for most of his life... ironic indeed, considering his "community" ostracized him for years. You're taking a very polar stance on what I'm saying, claiming you'll only speak indepth on these intense subjects with people who are "schooled" in the subject... that's fine for you, though I'm sure it's not true, since life is ripe with craziness and fun and good information from many angles of thought and experience in all manner of individuals. PS: I'd appreciate it if you didn't fall into the heuristic of categorization as you did in this reply; Firstly, I never said I don't hold a value for a degree, nor did I say it is valueless. Secondly, I don't know how trancer or whoever perceives the world but don't clump me in with anyone to simplify your world, because that completely defeats the purpose of our existence. Synopsis: I hold "internet websites/videos" to the same standard as I hold any other piece of information. I am the ultimate filter.

Ok, I understand your viewpoint. Very well then, I have nothing more to say in response. What you're saying is much different from that of trancer or colorut, so I'll leave it there..

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN it never ceases to amuse me to see people name drop geniuses into the mix, as if their own lack of education is somehow comparable (no, not talking about you specifically). but seriously, so fucking what? einstein thought so little of tertiary education that he became a professor. i could point out heaps of geniuses who have made landmark discoveries that got phDs so what is your argument? that it is possible to know stuff without having gone to school? yeah, no shit. as i have stated already, formal education is not the panacea for all knowledge. but when you need surgery, do you give the knife to the guy who got the surgery degree or the fella who watched zeitgeist ffs? there are people in here that make regular factual errors of the pretty obvious variety, i doubt they would make those same errors had they actually done tertiary study on the subjects they have "researched". fuck i met plenty of idiot lecturers at school, but i also found a few inspiring teachers. uni is what you make it, if you cant find a worthwhile pursuit/experience then its your own fault. there are plenty of arrogant self-appointed experts in here that could do with having some professionals pass judgement on their nonsense, especially in the economics and civil engineering departments.

I'm not sure where you're going with the animosity since you're basically rehashing my point of view with this post.

PS: Wasn't "name dropping"... it's a factual answer to the man's question using names that people in this generation and time can understand. Don't put me on the spot for being concise.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I'm not sure where you're going with the animosity since you're basically rehashing my point of view with this post. PS: Wasn't "name dropping"... it's a factual answer to the man's question using names that people in this generation and time can understand. Don't put me on the spot for being concise.

no animosity at least, none towards you.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby PS: I'd appreciate it if you didn't fall into the heuristic of categorization as you did in this reply; Firstly, I never said I don't hold a value for a degree, nor did I say it is valueless. Secondly, I don't know how trancer or whoever perceives the world but don't clump me in with anyone to simplify your world, because that completely defeats the purpose of our existence. Synopsis: I hold "internet websites/videos" to the same standard as I hold any other piece of information. I am the ultimate filter.

Such heuristics exist precisely because, given finite resources, an organism that employs them is likely to make better decisions than one that does not.¹

If we are going to apply the same standards in evaluating all pieces of information, regardless of source, then it must necessarily be one characterized by extreme skeptecism. Considering the investment of time that might be necessary to adequately investigate a factual contention according to this standard, we have a compelling reason to limit our investigation to those factual contentions with the highest probability of proving accurate. Overwhelmingly, those will be the contentions of highly credible individuals or organizations rather than internet videos. I do agree that paper credentials should not be over-emphasized where other criteria by which to evaluate the credibility of a source are readily available. But all too frequently such alternatives are lacking, and in those cases the categorical supposition that the published work of a PhD is more credible than the video of an anonymous internet user is likely to be more efficient, and therefore more productive, than the alternative.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Such heuristics exist precisely because, given finite resources, an organism that employs them is likely to make better decisions than one that does not.1 If we are going to apply the same standards in evaluating all pieces of information, regardless of source, then it must necessarily be one characterized by extreme skeptecism. Considering the investment of time that might be necessary to adequately investigate a factual contention according to this standard, we have a compelling reason to limit our investigation to those factual contentions with the highest probability of proving accurate. Overwhelmingly, those will be the contentions of highly credible individuals or organizations rather than internet videos. I do agree that paper credentials should not be over-emphasized where other criteria by which to evaluate the credibility of a source are readily available. But all too frequently such alternatives are lacking, and in those cases the categorical supposition that the published work of a PhD is more credible than the video of an anonymous internet user is likely to be more efficient, and therefore more productive, than the alternative.

I believe that if we break down the boundaries and limitations set upon us by a number of factors, including ourselves, these many heuristics as well, we wouldn't need to be skeptical because the everything would immediately make more sense in ways in which we can not imagine.

It's not a pipedream, it's doable right now, right here.

It's also important to remember that very little of what we know today, tomorrow, or any time in the past is or has been accurate. It's just good enough to work, simple enough to be understood by men, and well enough to be plausibly entered into our realm of what is real.

Or, as I like to think of it, the realm of what could be real.

Most of our ideas hinge on imagination, and gradually slope towards such as they reach these three criterea.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby I believe that if we break down the boundaries and limitations set upon us by a number of factors, including ourselves, these many heuristics as well, we wouldn't need to be skeptical because the everything would immediately make more sense in ways in which we can not imagine. It's not a pipedream, it's doable right now, right here.

Heh, there seems nary an occasion where skepticism is more justified than when it comes to statements of belief positing vague hypotheticals that purport to describe a state of being we can't imagine. Our biology doesn't appear to support your belief. I wonder if anything does.

quote:

It's also important to remember that very little of what we know today, tomorrow, or any time in the past is or has been accurate. It's just good enough to work, simple enough to be understood by men, and well enough to be plausibly entered into our realm of what is real. Or, as I like to think of it, the realm of what could be real.

It seems to me there are (at least) two problems with this particular claim. First of all, it seems to regard 'accuracy' in a binary sense. If we limit the scope of 'knowledge' to statements which are either true or false, then that makes sense -- but then the claim is obviously false (we would have to do worse than random guessing.) On the other hand, where accuracy is a matter of degree it is entirely true that perfect accuracy will be rare; but perfect accuracy is rarely required. For exactly that reason, heuristics provide especially efficient ways of approaching such problems.

The second problem is more fundamental. If we 'know' x₁... x_n and, for each i 1-n, x_i is probably not accurate since 'very little of what we know is accurate,' then we obviously have a problem. Either the knowledge that each other piece of knowledge is probably not accurate is false, or it is true, which necessarily makes it false, since then at least half of what we know is accurate.

But this little epistemological misadventure seems neither here nor there; the issue is not how accurate what we hold as facts are, but how to most productively estimate the probability that specific factual contentions are accurate. That is, an unspecified degree of inaccuracy is not only tolerated, it is assumed.

here's my view: an academic education serves two main efficiency purposes. First, formal education is beneficial because the information has already been compiled for people to study, and that information otherwise may have been impossible for someone to discover alone. sure, a person could learn anything without going to school, but it likely to be much less efficient because not only do you have to study, but you also have to discover the information (which is handed to you in college). Second, it is a non-arbitrary way for others to evaluate someone's skills.

i'm so disgusted with the state of our country it makes me sick. our country has been going down the wrong route for quite awhile now and we'll eventually wake up and realize that we are so below the curve in today's globalization. i do my best to constantly educate myself and always keep an open mind, i'm 27 years old and have been out of school for quite some time but still find that you can remain in a constant state of learning your entire life and never reach a comfortable level of knowledge, but one should still strive for the next level of enlightenment.

our country NEEDS psychedelics and a wake up call.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Probably because I've been to university and know that it's just a bullshit system to toss your money into. If you can play the game you can get a degree. I won't even hold that statement to 100% certainty, since many people WILL grow and become great thanks to some schooling and other factors. As such, my point is non-discrimination until communication is breached. It's like claiming American children are educated because they're forced to attend public schools. If you've been here/gone through that, you understand where I'm coming from regarding base quality. It's simple as this: those with ambition and desire dive into their field, or many fields simultaneously, on many levels as much as they can, because they are just that: driven. Ask any one of your favorite musical artists if they learned to write music in school, or if it was something greater. To answer your question, Einstein, Galileo, and Edison learned their universe and trades through their own readings and experiments. Hopefully that's good enough, considering Einstein was a professor for most of his life... ironic indeed, considering his "community" ostracized him for years. You're taking a very polar stance on what I'm saying, claiming you'll only speak indepth on these intense subjects with people who are "schooled" in the subject... that's fine for you, though I'm sure it's not true, since life is ripe with craziness and fun and good information from many angles of thought and experience in all manner of individuals. PS: I'd appreciate it if you didn't fall into the heuristic of categorization as you did in this reply; Firstly, I never said I don't hold a value for a degree, nor did I say it is valueless. Secondly, I don't know how trancer or whoever perceives the world but don't clump me in with anyone to simplify your world, because that completely defeats the purpose of our existence. Synopsis: I hold "internet websites/videos" to the same standard as I hold any other piece of information. I am the ultimate filter.

Nice post Shibby.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Heh, there seems nary an occasion where skepticism is more justified than when it comes to statements of belief positing vague hypotheticals that purport to describe a state of being we can't imagine. Our biology doesn't appear to support your belief. I wonder if anything does. It seems to me there are (at least) two problems with this particular claim. First of all, it seems to regard 'accuracy' in a binary sense. If we limit the scope of 'knowledge' to statements which are either true or false, then that makes sense -- but then the claim is obviously false (we would have to do worse than random guessing.) On the other hand, where accuracy is a matter of degree it is entirely true that perfect accuracy will be rare; but perfect accuracy is rarely required. For exactly that reason, heuristics provide especially efficient ways of approaching such problems. The second problem is more fundamental. If we 'know' x1... xn and, for each i 1-n, xi is probably not accurate since 'very little of what we know is accurate,' then we obviously have a problem. Either the knowledge that each other piece of knowledge is probably not accurate is false, or it is true, which necessarily makes it false, since then at least half of what we know is accurate. But this little epistemological misadventure seems neither here nor there; the issue is not how accurate what we hold as facts are, but how to most productively estimate the probability that specific factual contentions are accurate. That is, an unspecified degree of inaccuracy is not only tolerated, it is assumed.

I think I understood your point there, but not entirely. It's seems like a clash, especially going by your inductive example, of induction v.s. deduction if I'm correct? BTW, sometimes I think you're the only person in here who understand formal logic .

I am still in the process or reading all the posts, so more relevant posts will follow, however, I wanted to make a quick comment about wikipedia: I think the people who use wikipedia as a legitmate source for proving a point or arguing in a debate are not helping in making anyone smarter -- wikipedia should be used as a starting point, nothing more.

I also wanted to mention one last thing: has anyone noticed the complete jump in poor writing and mechanics? Most people don't know what a semicolon or a hyphen are even used for -- although, it should be said, that I too make mistakes. I don't think you should pass through college if you can't write; hell, you shouldn't pass through high school if you cannot manipulate the English language well enough to articulate a point.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.