"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?

[BeBMan]

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.

[BeBMan]

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).

[BeBMan]

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)