Which of the following is the most worthless?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Pekka
There is no pattern there LOTM. Some critical thinking would help to realize it

sure there is:

KH says that phil majors around here get owned on certain types of important non-scientific questions. He implies (taking his troll seriously here) thats due to their being phil types. Ok, I take a look at his sample, and note that all the members of the sample have certain improbably charecteristics in common, aside from being phil types, and assert that the other common charecteristic is whats causing the result. This is good empiricism. Of course its constrained by the small sample size, but then so is KHs analysis.

To do this properly we'd need a random sampling of say, philosophers and physicists, and an objective means of grading them on discussion of contemporary issues (and Id suggest we not limit ourselves to Canadians, so as to be able to make a more generalizable point)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

Actually that's not what I said. What a dumb conclusion to jump to. You lack critical thinking.

I said today that's primarily the kind of **** they deal with, that says nothing about them doing it before or it even being useful before...

[Pekka]

LOTM, dude, there is no pattern there. You're kidding yourself.

[Asher]

Why roll the eyes? It's amazing, the lack of comprehension you have displayed in this thread. You make random jumps with no clear links and go to town on them till everyone says, "WTF?"

[Lorizael]

Considering that philosophy is a field whose primary function appears to be effecting societal change, isn't it possible that a hundred years down the road we may say the same things that we are saying now - that modern philosophy is no longer necessary, that the concepts devised a hundred years prior were good but no concepts today are good, and that those who study the field are wasting their time?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Lorizael
Considering that philosophy is a field whose primary function appears to be affecting societal change, isn't it possible that a hundred years down the road we may say the same things that we are saying now - that modern philosophy is no longer necessary, that the concepts devised a hundred years prior were good but no concepts today are good, and that those who study the field are wasting their time?

Nope. Tell me something in the last 40 years, even, that Philosophy has done.

Philosophy is a fringe field today, its impact on society is incredibly marginal at best compared to other fields...like, oh, computers.

[rah]

Just plain snobbery. Not everyone is capable of or desires a science or engineering career. By calling those degrees worthless, you're implying that people that pursue those paths are worthless.

I know many nontechnical people that are quite successful and happy with what they're doing.

Your personal insecurities are showing. Or you're just too arrogant. Knowing most of the people here, I would guess the latter.

People here seem to prove just how anti-social the technical crowd is, and sometime I'm ashamed to be part of it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by rah
Just plain snobbery. Not everyone is capable of or desires a science or engineering career. By calling those degrees worthless, you're implying that people that pursue those paths are worthless.

I know many nontechnical people that are quite successful and happy with what they're doing.

Your personal insecurities are showing. Or you're just too arrogant. Knowing most of the people here, I would guess the latter.

People here seem to prove just how anti-social the technical crowd is, and sometime I'm ashamed to be part of it.

You're not apart of it, rah, no matter what you claim to have done 30 years ago.

I don't know why you're so upset. Look who started this thread, when somebody asks for something don't be too upset when you get it.

Not so much snobbery or insecurity, but people upset with the infuriating uselessness of stupid programs.

I will agree with you that not everybody is capable of studying or making a career out of the science or engineering degrees, but I'm fairly certain that more computer scientists are capable of getting a political science degree than political scientists capable of getting a computer science degree. Make of that what you will...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher

Nope. Tell me something in the last 40 years, even, that Philosophy has done.

Brian Reynolds.

[Asher]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Brian Reynolds.

A toy maker. Grand.

[rah]

Originally posted by Asher


You're not apart of it, rah, no matter what you claim to have done 30 years ago.

I don't know why you're so upset. Look who started this thread, when somebody asks for something don't be too upset when you get it.

Not so much snobbery or insecurity, but people upset with the infuriating uselessness of stupid programs.

I've probably written more applications in my life than you have. And I'm doing development this week.
I may manage, but I feel the need to keep my fingers dirty so I don't lose my edge.

And no I'm not upset. I was upset back in the 70's and 80's when geeks were not appreciated as they are today. Now I see the geeks doing what I didn't like the others doing back then, and it seems just silly and childish.

and your statement

"Not so much snobbery or insecurity, but people upset with the infuriating uselessness of stupid programs. "

proves one or the other. You may choose.

[KrazyHorse]

3. Sample bias - something odd about the selection of phil majors here. Connected to who plays Civ, maybe. Or lets see, Boris is Canadian. Aggie studied in Canada. Hmmm, not a big sample, but Im detecting a pattern here.

You're forgetting nostromo.

I admit that our country is overrun with filosofers.

It's a real problem.

[KrazyHorse]

Perhaps we should start clubbing them instead of seals...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Perhaps we should start clubbing them instead of seals...

I dont too much clubbing, being married and all. And if I did, I probably wouldnt do it with seals, ya know.

[rah]

KH, Another voice of reason.