"Maths, in university, is useless bull..."

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by BeBro
IIUC the cognitivists say otherwise -are they wrong?

Who are the congitivists?

[Kuciwalker]

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.

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

Obviously, you have no concept of what goes on in university programs. If all we did was numbercrunching, we'd have computers for that.

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.

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...

Number crunching dressed up.

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).

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.

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).

If you're caught, and even then, you aren't likely to be arrested, or prevented from continuing your profession.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

You think I plan to be a construction worker all my life? No. It's a means of support while I seek other avenues.

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.

You're uber-right-wing, don't you see the wastefulness of your behavior?

Not if it permits me to do work that doesn't compensate me.

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?

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Who are the congitivists?

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.

(IIUC it correctly, I do not study philosophy, but history - I'm just interested in reading about philosophy )

[Ben Kenobi]

How does a philosophy course teach that? I don't need a course for critical thinking skills.

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.

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Okay. Do you believe that everyone ought to be tolerant of beliefs not their own?

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[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.

[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. 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).

[Kuciwalker]

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.

I don't need a philosophy course for that.

[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)?

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.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[BeBro]

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)?

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).

[BeBro]

Originally 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.

I didn't find something about how they were disproven - were they? (I really have no idea)

[Japher]

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

[Imran Siddiqui]

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).

[Asher]

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.

That's because you need to have the necessary tools to engage in the discussion.

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...

Number crunching dressed up.

In the same sense that philosophy is a grammar class dressed up, or literature is a spelling class dressed up.

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.

Likely, given how lawyers make a lot of money being professional liars.

If you're caught, and even then, you aren't likely to be arrested, or prevented from continuing your profession.

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.

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.

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...

You think I plan to be a construction worker all my life? No. It's a means of support while I seek other avenues.

Good on you. But you, yourself, have admitted in other threads that your degree hasn't gotten you a job.

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.

I forgot that we benefit from your uber-religious rants, for which we definintely must be thankful for your education...

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?

Because you don't deserve it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You aren't going to learn this in science classes.

Depends what you're talking about.

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.

[Asher]

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.

"understand them better"? Interesting terminology.

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.

[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.

[Ben Kenobi]

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.

Really?

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.

[Japher]

many in Philosophy would also disagree with you

and it don't matter what the subject is.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's because you need to have the necessary tools to engage in the discussion.

What discussion is there? You have your assignments, and when you get them returned, then you go back to the lectures.

What would you discuss about when the prof has the final say, and you have a tremendous amount of material to plow through?

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...

And the number of research papers I did in science? None. They don't do papers. They have assignments instead.

Likely, given how lawyers make a lot of money being professional liars.

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.

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.

Not usually no. The most I've ever seen is a slap on the wrist for this sort of thing.

Good on you. But you, yourself, have admitted in other threads that your degree hasn't gotten you a job.

If you know so much about me, then what degree do I have, Asher?

I forgot that we benefit from your uber-religious rants, for which we definintely must be thankful for your education...

No, this isn't what I'm talking about as a benefit to society.

Because you don't deserve it.

Right, and I suppose you would pay someone to write full time if he were better?

Don't make me laugh.

[Kuciwalker]

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.

[Ben Kenobi]

it doesn't mean that there actually are two conflicting truths about reality.

Why not? Wouldn't you have to say that one of the two mathematicians were in error in order to make this claim?

[Jon Miller]

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.

you have never taken a real math class, have you?

Jon Miller

[Kuciwalker]

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?

Yes.

Mathematics has very rigorous standards of proof. Philosophy (in the common sense) does not.

[Ben Kenobi]

Mathematics has very rigorous standards of proof.

Have you ever done one?

Philosophy (in the common sense) does not.

Yet you freely use such terms like a priori?

I suggest you reconsider this, since many of your own standards of proof seem to be based on philosophical concepts developed by philosophers.