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

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Like you for instance.

Perhaps if you did philosophy, economics and similar subjects, your political views wouldn't be such an obvious joke.

/me took two philosophy and two economics courses, and that was enough.

My political views are my own, and are not a "joke"...

If philosophy teaches you to have opinions such as yours, which degrades and insults differing viewpoints, I see that as a perfect exhibit for my argument.

For the record, a communist should not ever call somebody else's political views "a joke"...

[Asher]

The only good thing about the philosophy courses I've taken was the humour value of the philosophy majors struggling with boolean logic.

And the kid (complete with emo glasses) who tried to argue against De Morgan's law.

I felt like I was in elementary school, when someone writes on the board...
"Contradiction: P and NOT P is a contradiction"

[Az]

If it is put that way it is a slam dunk. Higher mathematics is useful for a very small group of people engaged in very specialized tasks. The same goes for physics and most university sciences. Most people need never learn these things as it is more efficient to have only as many as need them, do them.

[Whaleboy]

And is something that you don't need to teach somebody.

Morals should not be taught, people who need instructions on how to build arguments (especially from you) should not be in university in the first place...

Bull, the line between critical reasoning and philosophy itself is a blurred one. A philosophy of logic, which many (often unwittingly) are, has a certain logical structure. I've had education in logic and critical thinking (the former as my own extracurricular study, the latter as part of a formal course) so I suppose I can vouch for its necessity. Unless, of course, you advocate that all philosophers should learn to critically reason by themselves with no teaching?

Of course, this still leaves the question, does a philosopher belong in a formalised educational environment, or merely lovers of philosophy? That question remains open.

[Pekka]

De Morgan, HAIL THE MAN!

[Whaleboy]

If it is put that way it is a slam dunk. Higher mathematics is useful for a very small group of people engaged in very specialized tasks. The same goes for physics and most university sciences. Most people need never learn these things as it is more efficient to have only as many as need them, do them.

That's very utilitarian of you . The idea of such education is surely self betterment, not sociological betterment. Why should I, as an individual necessarily care about a function I am to perform, and sacrifice my education if having one would be inefficient?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Bull, the line between critical reasoning and philosophy itself is a blurred one. A philosophy of logic, which many (often unwittingly) are, has a certain logical structure. I've had education in logic and critical thinking (the former as my own extracurricular study, the latter as part of a formal course) so I suppose I can vouch for its necessity.

I've taken Philosophy of Logic I and II as well.

And I can say, if you learned anything in these types of courses, you do not belong in university.

What they teach are things that are innate to anyone with a shred of intellect. It sincerely bothered me that no one really got A's except for the science majors in the course.

Unless, of course, you advocate that all philosophers should learn to critically reason by themselves with no teaching?

Why should someone have to be taught how to reason? Where is the original thought when somebody instructs you on ridiculous constructs you "must" use?

Of course, this still leaves the question, does a philosopher belong in a formalised educational environment, or merely lovers of philosophy? That question remains open.

The latter. Philosophy, save for the history of it, is not something that should be taught.

Is it any wonder why philosphers have become markedly less useful in the modern era? They're taught how to think and what to think, that sure as hell isn't what philosophy should be.

Cheers to original thoughts.

[Az]

That's very utilitarian of you

No it isn't....

[Agathon]

My political views are my own, and are not a "joke"...

Of course they are a joke. You have crude right-wing views that take no cognizance of basic economics. You seem to believe that everything you think has no value, automatically has no value for anyone, and you would seek to gut things like universities while having no understanding of the function they perform in our society.

It would be boring to go over all this again. But I learned some time ago that you aren't interested in argument, or the truth, but in compensating for your personal inadequacies.

For the record, a communist should not ever call somebody else's political views "a joke"...

Sure they can, if you are a communist like me, who doesn't believe in immediate and violent revolution, but rather using the state to correct for market failures until such time that a change is needed (which won't be for some time). None of the short-term political goals I agree with would be out of place at a Liberal Party conference. But if you want to call them communists, then be my guest. I don't see any reason not to let you make a fool of yourself.

I felt like I was in elementary school, when someone writes on the board...

You did go to the University of Calgary....

I was bored in Introduction to Logic. I found it rather easy. But since it isn't taught at high school, you have to start somewhere.

I don't think formal logic is useful for most people. They would be better off taking a practical logic course. I've taught plenty of CS students in the latter and they, like everyone else, were in sore need of instruction.

[Agathon]

Why should someone have to be taught how to reason?

Because people are so bad at it. You would discover this if you had to grade their papers.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Of course they are a joke. You have crude right-wing views that take no cognizance of basic economics.

Erm...yes, it does.

Honestly, Aggie, you're a frickin' commie. No communist economy is successful. Even China has a fairly right-wing economy.

You're hurting your position more than helping it...

You seem to believe that everything you think has no value, automatically has no value for anyone

Not true. Things that have no value for anyone have no value for anyone.

, and you would seek to gut things like universities while having no understanding of the function they perform in our society.

It's my belief that morals should not be taught, people should not be taught how to think. Philosophy, in that respect, is a waste of taxpayers money. It does nothing but provide us with an ample supply of philosophy professors and McDonalds workers who can talk to you about Plato.

You did go to the University of Calgary....

I was bored in Introduction to Logic. I found it rather easy. But since it isn't taught at high school, you have to start somewhere.

Ask people anywhere. It's the same for all my friends at your prestigious University of Toronto. Most of my coworkers come from there. I asked if any of them had Lee Churchman, and they said no.

I don't think formal logic is useful for most people. They would be better off taking a practical logic course. I've taught plenty of CS students in the latter and they, like everyone else, were in sore need of instruction.

Maybe the University of Toronto students are just pretty dense, then. Or perhaps it's your instruction that's confusing them (most likely).

Formal logic is useful to no one as it's taught in philosophy. It's a bastardized and simplified form of logic used in Computer Science and Mathematics, that the philosophy geeks still find difficult.

[Az]

I just noticed this:

azazel, they are usually people who are bad in math

I am bad at math. Calc, algebra, DE, PDE, I suck at it all, well, I don't suck, but I do ok, at the very best. At least compared to maths majors and stuff. I am no Beautiful Mind. Sorry, but that's the way it is. I have my own strengths. This doesn't mean that math isn't good for a person, or for humanity. Math should be taught to more people, in higher intesnsity. If I studied more math at school, I would be better at it, and so would everyone else. Math allows people to tackle more professional problems, with greater ease. Philosophy is similar in the realm of personal relations, as long as it doesn't force ideology. It should give tools, and we all would be better people if it did.

[The Mad Monk]

It might be fair to link to the thread that started this.

[Asher]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
It might be fair to link to the thread that started this.

I don't want to link it to the site. It'd pollute it.

The thread started because Scabby got all confused with the math-set notation SP had posted. He then went on with choice quotes like this:

Maths is pure-intellectual bull**** and you know it. You're just measuring each others penises through your ability to prove the Grobman-Hartman linearization theorem. Now, I don't deny there are elements of that in predicate logic as well, but at least there it has deeper applications on everything from theory of knowledge to ethics. Don't give me any of that "physics" bull****, btw, we all know science's only application is making better blue LEDs.

Keep in mind that Scabby's contribution to the world is "music critic", where he extols the virtues of Missy Elliot and Jamaican Dancehall music in verbose articles lacking substantial content.

[notyoueither]

I rather think scabby was responding in kind to your petulance.