Which of the following is the most worthless?

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Asher
In "Problems of Philosophy" in the first week of class he tried to get us "excited" about Philosophy by engaging us in a lively debate about the ethics of saving a burning baby -- is it ethical to do so?

My eyes rolled so far back into my head that it gave me a headache..

are you sure that wasnt the first BJ in college youre remembering?

[Asher]

Originally posted by MRT144
tell me what effect increasing standards of living have on birth rates.

Clearly they are more attractive socially.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MRT144
so how does one explain why different people flock to different majors with relative ease?

Again, experience and predisposition.

If everyone can learn to do it then why arent more people actually doing it?

While some kids were out playing in the sandbox as kids, they became engineers. I played computer games and became a computer scientist. Others do nothing but run around in circles, and become philosophers.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MRT144
are you sure that wasnt the first BJ in college youre remembering?

My first BJ was well before college.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Asher

My first BJ was well before college.

but the first in class

[KrazyHorse]

Every BJ has class.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by rah
This is getting hilarious. One more example, not to be intended as proof.

As a computer engineering student in a world class program, I struggled to maintain a "B" average.
Once I transferred to a soft science, I graduated with Highest Honors.

So even though I have defended the soft sciences here, I can not and will not consider them equal academic challanges.

I found the hard sciences it was much easier to get a very high grade but it was also much easier to bomb a test if you didn't have some concept down solidly.

The social sciences it was dead easy to get a B or B minus in any of them without cracking a book but A's were often tougher to get because some of the markers just didn't want to give them and it was just too freaking subjective. And a high "A" like a 90 or 95 or 100 was just not given.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Empirically, empiricism works. It's provided enormous predictive power in the past.

But if previous experience is no guide then how am I supposed to demonstrate anything about empiricism? It's a dumb question.

I choose to believe in empiricism. If you don't then you're welcome to your worldview. Have fun with that.

Trying to argue about it is useless. It must be philosophy.

with you, it is.

[Pekka]

Flubber, could be, could be.. but also in hard science, if you don't get it, usually fully, you're useless anyway. There's lots of useless folks with technical degrees. Even with pretty good grades and stuff, completely useless tossers.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


with you, it is.

Is this supposed to mean something?

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Is this supposed to mean something?

I think it was an example of useful, insightful philosophy.

Is it philosophy? Or is it not? It is all relative!

[Eli]

While some kids were out playing in the sandbox as kids, they became engineers. I played computer games and became a computer scientist. Others do nothing but run around in circles, and become philosophers.

If I weren't so lazy, I would've added this to my sig.

[Pekka]

Eli, by the way, I like your sig very much.

[Eli]

Originally posted by Pekka
Eli, by the way, I like your sig very much.

And yet you work on defensive systems that limit access to information.

Good thinking. That's the real lesson from the quote, eh?

---

If only Civ4 had SMAC's pearls of wisdom...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Is this supposed to mean something?

I understood EXACTLY what OB meant.