Is it good policy to give financial aid to liberal arts majors?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Yes, but in a different and complementary fashion.

You're referring to the difference of empirical studies -- that is, studies based on reality, and the thinking of Philosophy which revolves around pulling things out of your ass and sometimes being proven right by scientists later?

[Whaleboy]

Do you realize you just called BS and said the same thing in a more flattering light?

You seem to think that the time period itself is what matters, but what you're really doing is devaluing your own definition; you might as well be talking about literature or history etc, in which case my original question to you stands... do you consider those fields to be useless?

You think too discretely

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What kind of law do you deal with?

xpost

Search and Seizure law.

I investigate allegations of police misconduct. One common complaint is that people were stopped by the police and frisked or search inappropriately. Part of my job, when people allege that, is gathering the facts as I can, then interviewing the officers and getting their reasoning for the stop, reading the NYS case law, and then deciding if the stop was valid or not.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's not.

It's that there are consequences for the Jewish kids for not doing well. I've taught loads. They aren't natively brighter than the others, but they tend to be much more motivated. The Jewish religion prizes intellectual accomplishment, the English tradition resents it.

Asian kids in NZ are exactly the same. Their parents have a much higher propensity to push them academically, and their culture values education and learning. To be a professor in an Asian country is a position of respect: in an English speaking country it is to be the object of suspicion.

Prizing intellectual accomplishment is a form of being intelligent :P

The Jews have been (by the actions of the rest of society) a set-apart community for over a thousand years. That, combined with their systematic oppression, means only the smartest genes and customs survived.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

You're referring to the difference of empirical studies -- that is, studies based on reality, and the thinking of Philosophy which revolves around pulling things out of your ass and sometimes being proven right by scientists later?

No, he means the kind of thinking that decides that the way the world should be studied is through empirical reasearch. You know, the justification for your supposed world view.

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by Agathon


I heard that the explanation for the Jews was: "Their mothers."

"Do well in your exams or I'll cook"

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You seem to think that the time period itself is what matters

So time period does not matter when defining Classics?

You think too discretely

You don't seem to think at all.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
No, he means the kind of thinking that decides that the way the world should be studied is through empirical reasearch.

This has been decided long ago, GePap.

You know, the justification for your supposed world view.

My world view doesn't need justification by people who would fail out of any real studies in university...

[Whaleboy]

The Jews have been (by the actions of the rest of society) a set-apart community for over a thousand years. That, combined with their systematic oppression, means only the smartest genes and customs survived.

You're seriously suggesting that, at most, 50 generations of weak natural selection (if at all) is sufficient for a noticable increase in intelligence?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Unfortunately there seems to be this directionless and assumed anti-intellectualism in society and discussions - I think a lot of people have grown up in a world where they feel there's the world of the academic that, perhaps through poor teaching, they're made to feel they can't reach, and the world of business and work which they're made to believe is mutually exclusive to the exercise of the intellect.

It's a bit sad really, people taking pride in their ignorance and lack of wisdom.

Read THE GOAL. There are some interesting things that he says about business needing to be more of a science. Also read BEYOND THE HYPE for a criticism of most business books.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
You're seriously suggesting that, at most, 50 generations of weak natural selection (if at all) is sufficient for a noticable increase in intelligence?

In customs pertaining to that sort of thing, yes.

After all, less than a thousand years of natural selection gave Europeans vastly better immunity to certain diseases than people in the New World.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

This has been decided long ago, GePap.

Tell that to the theologians.

My world view doesn't need justification by people who would fail out of any real studies in university...

Its nice to know one who leads the unexamined life...its probably so pleasant to believe thoughts created by others with such vehemence as to make yourself believe they are yours.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Tell that to the theologians.

Why waste your time with them?

Its nice to know one who leads the unexamined life...its probably so pleasant to believe thoughts created by others with such vehemence as to make yourself believe they are yours.

I examine life, and I've evaluated the worth of people who decide they need to study Philosophy in university to examine life by exactly that.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What the "liberal arts" side fails to recognize is that the hard sciences also teach you how to think. Physicists, biologists, and chemists aren't just little biological computers solving equations.

That's true. Freshman chemistry comes in for a lot of criticism by hard core chemists for the lack of descriptive and other chemistry. For the sheer emphasis on problem-solving. But I think this is one of the most useful things about it. Had a student who got the "aha" that freshman chemistry was "just algebra" and then improved her performance substantially. Specifically it is "word problem algebra". Which is not always easy, since you have to be able to figure out how to transform a description to an equation (hardest), then manipulate it (hard), then plug and chug (easy), then interpret the results (medium).

[Whaleboy]

So time period does not matter when defining Classics?

If you'd actually bothered to study it, you'd know that the time period itself is arbitrary. The Graeco-Roman period is of interest, and always has been (for sufficient time for it to become a rich academic field in its own right) because it was the formative years of Western civilisation as I mentioned earlier, and one studies the arts, sciences, philosophies and writings of the time to gain an insight into that period.

The same methods could be applied to any period of interest in history; if you're interested in the Dark Ages you might study Bede or Beowulf, if you're interested in the Renaissance you might study Dante or Da Vinci etc. Of course you might run into problems because of the varying quality and quantity of work on different periods.

The period is essential to the name "classics", but it's not itself integral to the nature of the study.