Who are the congitivists?Originally posted by BeBro
IIUC the cognitivists say otherwise -are they wrong?
Preservation of the knowledge of history, in case it is useful (which it is, usually). Preservation of the history of philosophy is similarly useful, but teaching actual philosophy isn't the same thing.Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why do you think history is useful in university if you think the only job to result would be in teaching history (making it a big cycle)? You objection to philosophy in universities and saying history is useful in university doesn't make sense.
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The same isn't true with philosophy.
Of course it is. It is important for people to have a mind for critical thought
How does a philosophy course teach that? I don't need a course for critical thinking skills.
Yes, but there is a big difference between doing science and with writing a creative paper.Obviously, you have no concept of what goes on in university programs. If all we did was numbercrunching, we'd have computers for that.
I never felt all that creative in my science classes, as it was always rote and more rote. Students sitting down and copying off the overhead. No discussions whatsoever.
Number crunching dressed up.Somebody has to solve the problems. Somebody has to think. And I'm talking real thinking here, not the "thinking" you get with ethics courses. Where we do not argue if it's ethical to save a burning baby against its mothers wishes, but try to figure out how to write the most efficient algorithms to, say, fold proteins...
Actually, I know several very decent lawyers. One of them used to be an engineer, and find his time much better compensated as a lawyer than as an engineer.Scientists, in general, don't have to lie to make a living. Most lawyers do this without thinking. Politicians do it, as well (funny how many lawyers become politicians).
If you're caught, and even then, you aren't likely to be arrested, or prevented from continuing your profession.It's generally impossible to lie in science, or if you do you're caught and severely punished (see the Bell Labs incident last year).
Which is what I argued at UBC, to raise my tuition to better reflect the cost of education. Can you blame me for paying only what everyone else did?You're seriously unaware that your education is heavily subsidized by the Canadian government?
You pay a minority of the cost it takes to educate you. The rest comes from society in the form of taxpayers.
I started as a Physics and Astronomy major. So please, tell me how such a screening process prevented me from attending UBC in the first place.There's nothing wrong with it, of course. I do take issue with lots of public funds being used to teach useless courses that do not benefit society in return.
You think I plan to be a construction worker all my life? No. It's a means of support while I seek other avenues.Such as you taking a whole degree in something trivial (was it history?), and then end up doing something that you don't even need a high school diploma to do.
Also, you have to consider that most of my contribution to society is not compensated financially. So I have proved a benefit, even if I don't get paid. The market does not reflect total benefits to society. In fact, one could argue just the opposite.
Not if it permits me to do work that doesn't compensate me.You're uber-right-wing, don't you see the wastefulness of your behavior?
And if you have a problem with me working as a construction worker and wasting my degree, why don't you pay me to write full time?
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
They claim moral statements can indeed be true or false, opposed to the non-cognitivists, which say they are only based on emotion. Both positions were described as basic meta-ethical theories.Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Who are the congitivists?
(IIUC it correctly, I do not study philosophy, but history- I'm just interested in reading about philosophy
)
Banana
You aren't going to learn this in science classes. A philosophy course teaches this by questioning most of the premisses that you have come up with and challeging you to think of alternative explanations.How does a philosophy course teach that? I don't need a course for critical thinking skills.
I've found my history classes much more useful for this though, in spotting evident bias, and assessing sources for historical reliability.
No better way to learn critical thinking.
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
Okay. Do you believe that everyone ought to be tolerant of beliefs not their own?Wrong. Firstly there is the counter of human truth, secondly there is my counter of the subjective context and thirdly there is the notion of qualitative relativism, assuming a relativist will concede quantative.
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Number crunching dressed up.
Not at all. Saying designing efficient algorithms and such is "number crunching" is like saying writing an essay is work just fit for a computer printer.
Not really. Most algorithms require understanding of the mathematical processes involved, and tend to break the problem down into ways that the computer can understand them better.
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
Originally posted by BeBro
They claim moral statements can indeed be true or false, opposed to the non-cognitivists, which say they are only based on emotion. Both positions were described as basic meta-ethical theories.
The cognitivists are wrong. However, it'd be more precise to say that moral statements arise out of human emotion (in a broad sense of the term; instinct would be better).
I don't need a philosophy course for that.Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You aren't going to learn this in science classes. A philosophy course teaches this by questioning most of the premisses that you have come up with and challeging you to think of alternative explanations.
Preservation of the knowledge of history, in case it is useful
What is so useful about how people lived in the Middle Ages (as an example)?
How does a philosophy course teach that? I don't need a course for critical thinking skills.
I can easily see someone saying they don't need a course to learn algebra either, but its still on the cirriculum.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
What is so useful about how people lived in the Middle Ages (as an example)?
Understanding how human societies and economies work.
I can easily see someone saying they don't need a course to learn algebra either, but its still on the cirriculum.
In theory, yes, you can derive algebra by yourself. In practice, this would mean almost no one would learn it. Moreover, in math there is an absolute truth, it's not any part of expression or opinion. Philosophy is something that should be developed personally, not imposed by others.
Knowledge of the past can give you orientation to act in the present and future (which does not mean you can directly apply historic knowledge - politically - to the present). It can to some extent form identity for a society (although this is debated as this opens up the possibilities for manipulation).Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Preservation of the knowledge of history, in case it is useful
What is so useful about how people lived in the Middle Ages (as an example)?
Banana
I didn't find something about how they were disproven - were they? (I really have no ideaOriginally posted by Kuciwalker
Originally posted by BeBro
They claim moral statements can indeed be true or false, opposed to the non-cognitivists, which say they are only based on emotion. Both positions were described as basic meta-ethical theories.
The cognitivists are wrong.
Banana
In order to add we need to understand the abacus...
In order to build a better computer we need to understand the punch card system...
In order to go to the moon we need to know where the moon came from...
BS
The cognitivists are wrong.
Now, now.. they are wrong to you, Kuci... let's not get trapped in the absolutist model.
Understanding how human societies and economies work.
Bah, bah, bah... who cares how people lived in the Middle Ages to understand present day society and economics? If you are making policy, all you really have to know about society and economics is from the last 200 or so years.
How the Middle Ages ran really has very little bearing and furthermore, hardly anyone knows that history.
If you think history should be taught in the university but philosophy shouldn't, then you have to explain why these minutae are worth time while exploring Kant isn't.
Philosophy is something that should be developed personally, not imposed by others.
*points to Bible belt*
No one imposes philosophy on others in these classes. They explain the great philosophies and have discussions and prod people to use their reasoning capabilities to decide which they think is the better argument. Also they can see the best way to make and carry out a logical argument (Hell, they can do it just by exploring Plato).
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
That's because you need to have the necessary tools to engage in the discussion.Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yes, but there is a big difference between doing science and with writing a creative paper.
I never felt all that creative in my science classes, as it was always rote and more rote. Students sitting down and copying off the overhead. No discussions whatsoever.
You have to do a helluva lot more real, critical, analytical thinking in a research paper in university sciences than you think. Not to mention the problem-solving skills you need...
In the same sense that philosophy is a grammar class dressed up, or literature is a spelling class dressed up.Number crunching dressed up.
Likely, given how lawyers make a lot of money being professional liars.Actually, I know several very decent lawyers. One of them used to be an engineer, and find his time much better compensated as a lawyer than as an engineer.
Untrue, you're usually stripped of your degree from your university (as was the case with Bell Labs). He's even being charged, IIRC. Fraud or something.If you're caught, and even then, you aren't likely to be arrested, or prevented from continuing your profession.
Who said anything about a screening process? Obviously these philosophy courses aren't as useful as people think, since it's very rare for them to even understand what an argument is about, it seems...I started as a Physics and Astronomy major. So please, tell me how such a screening process prevented me from attending UBC in the first place.
Good on you. But you, yourself, have admitted in other threads that your degree hasn't gotten you a job.You think I plan to be a construction worker all my life? No. It's a means of support while I seek other avenues.
I forgot that we benefit from your uber-religious rants, for which we definintely must be thankful for your education...Also, you have to consider that most of my contribution to society is not compensated financially. So I have proved a benefit, even if I don't get paid. The market does not reflect total benefits to society. In fact, one could argue just the opposite.
Because you don't deserve it.And if you have a problem with me working as a construction worker and wasting my degree, why don't you pay me to write full time?
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Depends what you're talking about.Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You aren't going to learn this in science classes.
Doing general problem solving will teach you critical thinking far better, far more usefully I may add, than having a lecturer tell you all about Plato and what he did. Or have a lecturer debating the ethics of saving burning babies from unwilling mothers.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
"understand them better"? Interesting terminology.Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not really. Most algorithms require understanding of the mathematical processes involved, and tend to break the problem down into ways that the computer can understand them better.
Algorithms -- as used in computers -- do not boil down to even "number crunching". They boil down to shifting and comparing bits, if that's how you want to look at it.
The problem with your thinking is you clearly do not understand that the high-level nature of algorithms and the problem solving behind them is what makes them difficult.
They require true critical thinking, not the bullshit in history or philosophy.
"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "
Doing general problem solving will teach you critical thinking far better
Bullshit. Critical thinking is taking an argument apart and analyizing it in detail. Math ain't going to do that. It'll teach you how to deal with numbers, but it ain't going to jack for actual arguments.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
Really?Moreover, in math there is an absolute truth, it's not any part of expression or opinion. Philosophy is something that should be developed personally, not imposed by others.
You should discuss proofs sometime with an eminent mathematician and see if he agrees with you.
And many in Philosophy would also disagree with you, in saying that there are very real similarities between mathematics and Philosophy.
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
and it don't matter what the subject is.many in Philosophy would also disagree with you
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Really?
You should discuss proofs sometime with an eminent mathematician and see if he agrees with you.
That sometimes mathematicians may disagree is just like sometimes physicists may disagree (though the latter occurs far more often) - it doesn't mean that there actually are two conflicting truths about reality.
And many in Philosophy would also disagree with you, in saying that there are very real similarities between mathematics and Philosophy.
Mathematics is a part of pure philosophy, but that's not using the term in the same way as when one talks about a philosophy major.
What discussion is there? You have your assignments, and when you get them returned, then you go back to the lectures.That's because you need to have the necessary tools to engage in the discussion.
What would you discuss about when the prof has the final say, and you have a tremendous amount of material to plow through?
And the number of research papers I did in science? None. They don't do papers. They have assignments instead.You have to do a helluva lot more real, critical, analytical thinking in a research paper in university sciences than you think. Not to mention the problem-solving skills you need...
My friend is a patent lawyer, so I guess patents are just a bunch of lies that should be abolished in favour of everything being public domain.Likely, given how lawyers make a lot of money being professional liars.
Not usually no. The most I've ever seen is a slap on the wrist for this sort of thing.Untrue, you're usually stripped of your degree from your university (as was the case with Bell Labs). He's even being charged, IIRC. Fraud or something.
If you know so much about me, then what degree do I have, Asher?Good on you. But you, yourself, have admitted in other threads that your degree hasn't gotten you a job.
No, this isn't what I'm talking about as a benefit to society.I forgot that we benefit from your uber-religious rants, for which we definintely must be thankful for your education...
Right, and I suppose you would pay someone to write full time if he were better?Because you don't deserve it.
Don't make me laugh.
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The cognitivists are wrong.
Now, now.. they are wrong to you, Kuci... let's not get trapped in the absolutist model.
I'm not talking about different morals. There is absolute truth a priori, in the form of tautologies. However, most of what is commonly termed "philosophy" cannot be broken down and proved using propositional logic, whereas in math almost everything has a very rigorous proof.
Understanding how human societies and economies work.
Bah, bah, bah... who cares how people lived in the Middle Ages to understand present day society and economics? If you are making policy, all you really have to know about society and economics is from the last 200 or so years.
Not at all. History from long before that has far-reaching modern implications.
Philosophy is something that should be developed personally, not imposed by others.
*points to Bible belt*
/me is an atheist
/me obviously doesn't approve
No one imposes philosophy on others in these classes.
Teaching your philosophy, that is, teaching that your philosophy is right, is an imposition.
Why not? Wouldn't you have to say that one of the two mathematicians were in error in order to make this claim?it doesn't mean that there actually are two conflicting truths about reality.
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
you have never taken a real math class, have you?Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Doing general problem solving will teach you critical thinking far better
Bullshit. Critical thinking is taking an argument apart and analyizing it in detail. Math ain't going to do that. It'll teach you how to deal with numbers, but it ain't going to jack for actual arguments.
Jon Miller
Jon Miller-
I AM.CANADIAN
GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.
Yes.Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why not? Wouldn't you have to say that one of the two mathematicians were in error in order to make this claim?
Mathematics has very rigorous standards of proof. Philosophy (in the common sense) does not.
Have you ever done one?Mathematics has very rigorous standards of proof.
Yet you freely use such terms like a priori?Philosophy (in the common sense) does not.
I suggest you reconsider this, since many of your own standards of proof seem to be based on philosophical concepts developed by philosophers.
Scouse Git (2) LaFayette Adam Smith and Solomwi you will be missed
"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies." - Trotsky.
"I don't consider any of them authoritative" - Kidicious on Scripture.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks