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

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
And you miss half the fun, boring old you.

Academic posturing isn't fun, it's ridiculous.

[Colon™]

Originally posted by TCO


Flesh that out a little more. Then we can discuss it. Not sure exactly what you are describing or are vexed by, but will engage after you restate.

See, that's that physics mind of yours again.

[TCO]

Whaleboy: my point is that you are making a logical fallacy. You like your explanation better and claim that it is proven. then when challenged, your defense is that the converse hypothesis has not been definitively proven. that X has not been proven does not prove Not X. And "simplicity" is a value judgement. the two hypotheses are in debate and what you're saying boils down to "because it makes more sense to me" which boils down to "because I think so". It's unsupported argument. If this is the logic that you learned, I'm really dissapointed in the level of issue analysis from liberal arts. Perhaps a little Euclid would help you.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Colon™


See, that's that physics mind of yours again.

Kitty's not around so I can act that way.

[Whaleboy]

Arbitrary point in time, like 1995?

The point in time is not arbitrary, it's very specific.

See my last post. You're deliberately confusing the issue and I refuse to believe that someone who is supposedly as intelligent as you like to make yourself out to be could possibly misunderstand the point.

So why are you giving me sh*t? I'm referring to Classics and you're off and talking about generic analytical method? Get real. You can learn analytical methods outside of the Classics, what I'm referring to are the Classics. By name. Specifically.

And saying that they're useless, but I would very much like to see you separate classics from the method, when the latter is integral to the former and some might argue the best way to practice the method.

Your suggestion is, therefore, that the method itself is pointless which is fantastically stupid, since you're saying that the learning of history is pointless and useless.

Like arguing time period is not integral to "Classics", then squirming around semantics for many posts later defending that. I don't put up with that and I call it out when I see it, I don't keep up the dance like someone like GePap will.

You deliberately make out that you misunderstand someone's point, and strawman their position, making your opponent out to be pompous and obscure. In this case I make and explain a perfectly simple point, that the period is sufficient to the method. You, the hero of the straight talkers and a crusader for common sense refuses to "put up with that" and (in your own mind at least) takes them down and makes them out to be a pretentious character who really knows nothing of what they're saying.

Of course, that kind of egotistical, amateur attempt at manipulation is rich considering you yourself have implied that you know nothing of the field we are discussing .

Whaleboy: my point is that you are making a logical fallacy. You like your explanation better and claim that it is proven. then when challenged, your defense is that the converse hypothesis has not been definitively proven. that X has not been proven does not prove Not X.

Not at all, I'm open to the idea but I need to see more evidence. The evidence for the cultural explanation is evident to me and in this debate. I am Jewish and was raised in that manner, testimony from myself and Agathon has been posted, and I dont think anyone would seriously disagree with it. It has not been proven, and no-where have I claimed that, it is simply that the cultural explanation is the simplest that covers all bases, and furthermore has the most evidence supporting it here.

Like I say, I'm open to the idea that Jewish success is genetic, but I really need to see evidence for that.

You say that simplicity is a value judgement but I disagree. The genetic argument calls for a whole raft of new premises, such as selection pressures, that are not needed for the cultural hypothesis.

I reiterate, neither hypothesis has been satisfactorily proved, and if I make the mistake of unconsciously acting like the cultural hypothesis is scientific fact, then I apologise because it is not the case. It does, however, need no help in this debate, unlike the genetic hypothesis.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by TCO


Just asserting it doesn't make it true. How could you make an experiment to differentiate between the twin hypotheses of nature and nurture. Here science mindset helps a lot. The partial derivative mindset. the one factor at a time experiments from chemistry.

I'm certainly not ruling out a genetic difference. That would be premature.

However, in my teaching experience there seems to be a common trait between people who come from cultures that respect learning and those that do well in school. From what I know, these people aren't natively smarter than everyone else, it is just that they are more motivated.

This goes for Asian kids in NZ as well as Jewish kids. I prefer it as the simplest explanation.

[Agathon]

double penetration.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
See my last post. You're deliberately confusing the issue

You're the one confusing the issue.

I'm talking about Classics -- the specific study of a time period known as the classical antiquity.

You're the one confusing the issue by talking about applying concepts learned in Classics to other fields, which is not actually "Classics" -- by definition.

Your suggestion is, therefore, that the method itself is pointless which is fantastically stupid

It's only fantastically stupid because you pulled it out of your ass.

My suggestion has nothing to do with analytical method -- which can be learned outsie of Classics -- it's the study of, well, Classics. Look up the word, you seem to be confusing Classics with analytical method. Which is a pretty simple mistake to make if you're just learning how to read.

I've ignored the rest of your post because it's typical vacuous liberal arts nonsense.

[TCO]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, if you want to argue that European jews are genetically smarter for some reason, given that all humans come from the same population, you would have to explain when the difference appeared, and how it was perpetuated within this one population.

You could argue that it occured simply by random mutation, and given that this community was forced to breed amongst themselves, that new difference was maintained and multiplied in the population.

Or you could argue that given the pressures on the population form the outside, it was the smarter ones who lived, and hence its more an issue of 'natural' selection.

Or, if we go on Agathons point, if there is social respect given to those who are studious, academic, then perhaps there is a sort of sexual selection within the population that favors the more intelliegent, hence they have more offspring, and the statistically significant genetic difference in intelliegence is born this way

I'm not "arguing it". I'm saying that it has not been disproven. But playing along. If one were to argue it...

You are confounding two issues: the source of the differentiation and the mechanism of selection.
A. Source of difference
1. Mutation
2. Range existing in population
3. Other
4. Some combination

B. Mechanism of selection
1. Survival of the organism to breed.
2. The trait enabling better competition for mates.
3. Other
4. Combinations

For a clear first pass analysis, you could probably do without 3, 4; but I included them to make the issue tree more rigorous.

I think your primary vexation was at the difference between B1 and 2, that they one is natural selection and the other not? If so, you're mistaken. And if not, not sure what you are vexed by. Both are common issues in selection. In some animals, males specialize to have features that are not advantageous for food gathering but are for fighting other males. Of course there is a limit how far this can go. But it can go some in that direction.

If something else vexed you let me know. I really see nothing strange or paradoxical. You'll have to spell out your distress more.

[Whaleboy]

Agathon, what I find so amusing is that he's gone from your MS vs. Apple debates to targetting you, and then philosophers, and then "lefties" (because your average conservative would just love him ). You should be flattered! His disdain for a computer company is so strong, it's enough to make him hate everything he thinks you stand for! Check there's no rummaging in the bushes before you go to bed tonight .

[TCO]

Originally posted by Agathon


I'm certainly not ruling out a genetic difference. That would be premature.

However, in my teaching experience there seems to be a common trait between people who come from cultures that respect learning and those that do well in school. From what I know, these people aren't natively smarter than everyone else, it is just that they are more motivated.

This goes for Asian kids in NZ as well as Jewish kids. I prefer it as the simplest explanation.

Understand clarification that you are making for personal experience and your impression of the reason. I think those can have value. And that in the world, we sometimes need to rely on those for decision-making.

However, you could still think of a thought experiment to definitively settle the matter. Why not give it a shot?

[GePap]

There is a difference between sexuals selection and natural selection. A male peacocks feathers do not help him in any way to survive. Probably make it harder if anything by making it more conspicious. BUt they atract peahens for mating, and since peahens chose the males with the most garish designs, they perpetuate garish designs in the next generation.

The notion would be that the same can be true for humans, that the females in some gourp might find some characteristic more attractive than another for nothing more than social reasons, and over time, assuming that the social more does not change radically, this difference would bring about some significant genetic difference.

[Whaleboy]

Asher,
I write "the period is sufficient to the method" but not necessary,

and you're reading
"you seem to be confusing Classics with analytical method"

Three possibilities. Firstly, you're extremely dumb and thus inclined to make that kind of error. Secondly, you're deliberately strawmanning because you cant argue straight. Thirdly, you get a kick out of making a **** of yourself on the internet.

Jury's out ladies and gentlemen.

I've ignored the rest of your post because it's typical vacuous liberal arts nonsense.

Translation: "I risk being pwned, better break out the ad hominems"

[Agathon]

Originally posted by TCO

Understand clarification that you are making for personal experience and your impression of the reason. I think those can have value. And that in the world, we sometimes need to rely on those for decision-making.

I was going to start an argument like this in the Kyoto thread, but I don't have time to do it justice.

However, you could still think of a thought experiment to definitively settle the matter. Why not give it a shot?

Well, one could do the usual thing and do the separated twins experiment. But it would need to pass a high bar of empirical evidence for such a controversial thesis.

[TCO]

WB: Read back over your comments and agree/understand the clarificatiton that you are not making a statement of definitive proof/disproof one way or other. Nota bene: I think you are still a bit skewed in looking at the proof for one versus the other, versus a more truth-seeking curiousity.