An Open Letter to the American People (signed by 61 Nobel Laureates )

[quote name='thrustbucket']I was going to say something simmilar to TRQ. Except it's not anti-intellectual, it's wannabe intellectual.
[/QUOTE]

Wannabe intellectuals? Those posts started with bashing of Nobel Laureates, who are hardly wannabe intellectuals. Also, I'd say anyone with Ph D from a decent program is far from a wannabe intellectual. You can't get through comps/qualifiers if you're not intellectually inclined, much less complete a dissertation meeting the standards of good doctoral programs.

[quote name='thrustbucket']Well I think each of you have stated the same things at least 7 or 8 times by now.[/QUOTE]

No doubt. I'm pretty tired of going in circles on this stuff. FoC is too anti college to soften his views, and I'm not going to soften my views on the value of college any more than I already have by clearly stating repeatingly that it's not for everyone.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Wannabe intellectuals? Those posts started with bashing of Nobel Laureates, who are hardly wannabe intellectuals. Also, I'd say anyone with Ph D from a decent program is far from a wannabe intellectual. You can't get through comps/qualifiers if you're not intellectually inclined, much less complete a dissertation meeting the standards of good doctoral programs.
[/QUOTE]

Just because someone might be a real intellectual, doesn't mean every conversation they have on the internet is an intellectual conversation. That's what I meant.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Just because someone might be a real intellectual, doesn't mean every conversation they have on the internet is an intellectual conversation. That's what I meant.[/QUOTE]

Oh of course.

I try to stay out of intellectual conversations on the net...which is why I'm often absent from this forum for long stretches.

If you have an intellectual job, it's not much of a break to hop online and have intellectual discussions.

I'd rather just hop on CAG and shoot shit about games, rile up fan boys etc. to kill some time and take a break most of the time. But I'm in hardcore procrastination mode now...will have this damn prospectus 1st draft done by the weekend though!

But that doesn't really get at TRQs point of being disheartened by people being anti-intellectual, by bashing science, education, etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']But that doesn't really get at TRQs point of being disheartened by people being anti-intellectual, by bashing science, education, etc.[/quote]

Just checking: Did I bash science?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Just checking: Did I bash science?[/QUOTE]

Nope, that was bmulligan and to a lesser extent Thrust (his was more education).
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Just checking: Did I bash science?[/QUOTE]

It was I.

And I wasn't bashing science, just the claim that science advances society. Then there's the further reaching claim that government sponsored science research is the only way to sufficiently fund said science.

I still haven;t gotten an adequate definition of what advancement of society means apart from we drive better cars and know how to zap some cancers with drugs and radiation. If anything, this implies that the applied sciences (the ones seemingly frowned upon as plebeian, or unintellectual) are what hold claim on advancement, not the theory about weather dark matter exists.

Name one government sponsored scientific breakthrough that has advanced society, please. Anyone, please ?
 
I don't have the patience to argue the usefulness of science, or need for government funding any more than I already did, as my earlier explanations were sufficient IMO. And more generally, I'm not wanting to procrastinate enough to argue against ignorant, fringe views that aren't really worth recognizing.

Though I will say that I agree that applied science is what I do and believe in. You're the one who was touting philosophy as being so great. I have little patience for theoretical science. I see the value in it, as we have to have new ideas to test, but my work is all about taking theory and applying it to real world programs (policing strategies for the most part currently) and seeing if they work.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't have the patience to argue the usefulness of science, or need for government funding any more than I already did, as my earlier explanations were sufficient IMO. And more generally, I'm not wanting to procrastinate enough to argue against ignorant, fringe views that aren't really worth recognizing.

Though I will say that I agree that applied science is what I do and believe in. You're the one who was touting philosophy as being so great. I have little patience for theoretical science. I see the value in it, as we have to have new ideas to test, but my work is all about taking theory and applying it to real world programs (policing strategies for the most part currently) and seeing if they work.[/QUOTE]

It's unfortunate you don't seem to have enough patience for much of anything and prefer insults as a substitute.

No one is arguing against the usefulness of science. We all enjoy its benefits, and science obviously has it's uses, none of which can teach a child to read, ride a bike, instruct someone how to calculate a derivative, or make an Acapulco sunset any more beautiful. It may allow us to kill more efficiently, communicate faster and less meaningfully, calculate and profit more effectively, but aren't there just as many detriments to these "advances" as benefits? Many of the "liberals" here argue exactly that - that our efficiency in these and many more areas is what's wrong with society.

Ignorance is bliss, even for the over-educated.
 
I don't buy the whole efficiency equals bad for society thing. People just have to be smart enough to take care of themselves and not be lazy. Having things to make everyday tasks easier, for instance, doesn't preclude going to the gym, going for runs, hiking, eating well etc. It all comes down to personal responsibility.

And the good things far outweigh any negatives in my view. Advances in health care out weigh negatives of advances in technology making people lazy. Average life expectancies are way up from centuries past do to advances in science. etc. etc.

And sorry, but I don't have much respect for people who don't realize that and demean science and the need for public funding of science.

Much research is not profitable and thus would not be sufficiently funded by the private sector. Look at the space program and the billions and billions that have went into it. It doesn't make a cent. There's no current profit in exploring space, landing on mars etc. It's simply a scientific endeveaor to gain more knowledge about the universe. Maybe in a century or two we'll be colonizing another planet and there will be profit involved and there may be more private funding. But for now it's up to governments to fund this quest for knowledge.

Yes there are those who say it's a waste of time and shouldn't be paid for. But I don't waste my time having discussions with people who don't value the quest for knowledge in all disciplines. Again, I view knowledge as what makes us human, and there's no greater work a person can do than working to advance human understanding.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It's unfortunate you don't seem to have enough patience for much of anything and prefer insults as a substitute.

No one is arguing against the usefulness of science. We all enjoy its benefits, and science obviously has it's uses, none of which can teach a child to read, ride a bike, instruct someone how to calculate a derivative, or make an Acapulco sunset any more beautiful. It may allow us to kill more efficiently, communicate faster and less meaningfully, calculate and profit more effectively, but aren't there just as many detriments to these "advances" as benefits? Many of the "liberals" here argue exactly that - that our efficiency in these and many more areas is what's wrong with society.

Ignorance is bliss, even for the over-educated.[/quote]

Have you ever found anyone who thought similarly to you? I'm just wondering where you got this stuff.
 
[quote name='camoor']Have you ever found anyone who thought similarly to you? I'm just wondering where you got this stuff.[/QUOTE]

It is an amalgam of talk radio, anonymous emails and things he hears at sleazy bars.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Because another "liberal" won a Nobel? Big surprise there. At least it brings us back on topic.[/QUOTE]

Like the time they gave it to that Ur-liberal, Henry Kissinger, AMIRITE?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']It may allow us to... communicate faster and less meaningfully...[/quote]
Stop it with your fast and meaningless communication.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']off topic, howd dmaul get a temp ban?[/quote]

I was wondering the same thing, it might have something to do with the GGT.
 
[quote name='camoor']Have you ever found anyone who thought similarly to you? I'm just wondering where you got this stuff.[/QUOTE]

It's important in any discussion to define terms. The assumption that societal "advancement" is a function of scientific research just doesn't make sense to me. I wanted to know how the good doctor defined "advancement" so that we could then argue the finer points of the discussion. All I got in return was "I don't deal with people who disagree with me."

I would have thought an aspiring PhD candidate would welcome a good semantic discussion, or maybe be adept at creating an original thought. Unfortunately, instead of bothering to question the world of assumptive constructs, he, and all the rest of you, prefer blind existence in a universe, accepting everything as defined by your superiors as truth.

But, I suppose the academic social sciences are just as paradigmatic and dogmatic as the genuine sciences.;) Real higher knowledge usually transcends these boundaries.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']
I would have thought an aspiring PhD candidate would welcome a good semantic discussion, or maybe be adept at creating an original thought. Unfortunately, instead of bothering to question the world of assumptive constructs, he, and all the rest of you, prefer blind existence in a universe, accepting everything as defined by your superiors as truth.

[/QUOTE]

Just to be fair, I personally don't know a PhD that isn't like this.
 
This whole conversation about whether or not society advances from sciences is so fuckin' absurd on the surface that it isn't worth discussing, Ph.D. or no.

Let me offer up a corollary that's similarly asinine: the economy does nothing to advance society.
 
No man, Bmugs is right. What is "advancement"? I mean, aren't we all just running in the rat race working for the man? You could think "advancement" in society means that people are generally better off, live longer lives, don't work as hard, etc., but that's just how the man defines it. Is our society really any more advanced than one where people live til 35 working hard all day as a peasant incapable of improving ones life?

And what is "blue"? Blue is just a wavelength of light man, just a reflection off a surface interpreted by your brain as a separate color from other light, so is anything really blue?

Oh man, you're so deep bmugs.
 
[quote name='SpazX']No man, Bmugs is right. What is "advancement"? I mean, aren't we all just running in the rat race working for the man? You could think "advancement" in society means that people are generally better off, live longer lives, don't work as hard, etc., but that's just how the man defines it. Is our society really any more advanced than one where people live til 35 working hard all day as a peasant incapable of improving ones life?
.[/QUOTE]

Your attempt at an insult alludes to ideas more enlightening than 2 PhD candidates trolling in this thread. Political structure and thought has advanced society much more than any scientific achievement. And this change in the human social paradigm has facilitated the advancement of science, instead of the converse. Consider yourself smarter than a doctor.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Your attempt at an insult alludes to ideas more enlightening than 2 PhD candidates trolling in this thread. Political structure and thought has advanced society much more than any scientific achievement. And this change in the human social paradigm has facilitated the advancement of science, instead of the converse. Consider yourself smarter than a doctor.[/quote]

I think you're simply grasping onto part of the answer just so you're not wrong. Obviously political changes have changed social structures for the better, but scientific advancements have also improved life and society. Medical advances and technological advances from vaccinations to germ theory to plows to tractors to electricity to microwaves to computers to the internet. They have profound effects on both individuals and society as a whole. Not every effect is necessarily positive (what does "positive" even mean!), but overall people's lives have improved and society has "advanced" because of scientific advances.

You can't argue that scientific advances have a worse effect on society than political ones unless you only focus on the positive political changes. There is plenty of good and bad to both scientific and political advances.

Political advances aren't always predecessors to scientific ones or vice versa, they work together. Tools created for farming had an undeniable effect on how societies organized themselves, and theory led to machines, which led to industrialization, which had a huge effect on political structures, just to name a few big ones.
 
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I've supported Obama since he got the ticket.

The Nobel Peace Prize might have lost its sparkle, but the science ones are still the biggest honor you can get.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Your attempt at an insult alludes to ideas more enlightening than 2 PhD candidates trolling in this thread. Political structure and thought has advanced society much more than any scientific achievement. And this change in the human social paradigm has facilitated the advancement of science, instead of the converse. Consider yourself smarter than a doctor.[/QUOTE]

TTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHPPPPPPBBBBBB.

Really, for fuck's sake, type something worth debating. This kind of argument is crap. It's like saying Guiding Light is a better show than Days of Our Lives (real answer? All My Children. empirically provable).

Next time you step on a nail, or run the risk of picking up polio, have fresh vegetables in the wintertime, communicate with dozens of assholes on CAG, find your job is made simpler thanks to your computer and the internet, find that the chickenbreasts you bought 4 months ago aren't decayed thanks to refrigeration, fill your tank with unleaded and discover that you've reached 200,000 miles on one engine, bought an item that was thought of in the us, manufactured in China, and shipped to the US -

are you going to thank "political structure" over "science"?

I'm sure you will, out of the need for "philosophical consistency." But you're just being a pedantic brat at that point.

Or you're just being a semantic prat.

I mean - really, now. You - YOU - are praising government and the political structure? P'shaw. Now you're just being contrarian for its own sake.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']TTTTTTTTHHHHHHHHHHPPPPPPBBBBBB.

Really, for fuck's sake, type something worth debating. This kind of argument is crap. It's like saying Guiding Light is a better show than Days of Our Lives (real answer? All My Children. empirically provable).

Next time you step on a nail, or run the risk of picking up polio, have fresh vegetables in the wintertime, communicate with dozens of assholes on CAG, find your job is made simpler thanks to your computer and the internet, find that the chickenbreasts you bought 4 months ago aren't decayed thanks to refrigeration, fill your tank with unleaded and discover that you've reached 200,000 miles on one engine, bought an item that was thought of in the us, manufactured in China, and shipped to the US -

are you going to thank "political structure" over "science"?

I'm sure you will, out of the need for "philosophical consistency." But you're just being a pedantic brat at that point.

Or you're just being a semantic prat.

I mean - really, now. You - YOU - are praising government and the political structure? P'shaw. Now you're just being contrarian for its own sake.[/QUOTE]

I'm glad you've decided to join the dark side and honor the achievements of men, their profit, and relative advancement they've bestowed upon society through innovation and technology. It was most graciously accomplished without the Socialist overlords directing scientific breakthrough.

Now, if only you could reconcile your new found beliefs with your campaign to save the earth from technological destruction brought to you by the same people that gave you that refrigerator and microwave. Be truthful, Myke, you HATE technology, it's wasteful.

There's also that annoying conscience of yours that says we all need to be saved from ourselves, our evil nature, and inability to provide for our own needs and make good decisions without the help of the common good, or the State, whichever you prefer.

I feel the conflict within you. Which is it, Myke? Are we more advanced because we're idiots who can't care for themselves? Or are we heroes because we can boil water in a minute thirty yet can't decide whether to buy an SUV or a Toyota Prius? There is only surface with your attempts at argument, Myke, and no depth at all.
 
:lol:

Now you're just trollin', pudding pop.

One of these days you're going to come out of your house when I'm in Michigan, we're going to do shots of Jameson, and I'm gonna find out whether you're a prat who just likes to pisstake on the internet like the dime-a-dozen myriad, or if you're really a blithering idiot.

Because I can assure you, I am who I come off as. But I refuse to believe that you can stream together so many big words in a sentence and manage to come off as a rambling simpleton without doing so intentionally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top