Which of the following is the most worthless?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
The laws of physics simply exist in today's world, arguing about their validity is a waste of time.

Philosophy=tautology, eh?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Philosophy=tautology, eh?

Does a Zebra=banana? Discuss. Write a paper on it.

Maybe I meant that comment in terms of racial relations? OOO. ZING. Write another dozen papers on it.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, and neither can you.

That's the point.

?

If there's no verifiable objecjective standard to differentiate between what you think is crap and what you think isn't then it's all crap.

[KrazyHorse]

Just because I believe something doesn't make it demonstrable.

[Eli]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Top 10% = barely above average in my book. 1.2 sigma isn't all that impressive.

So much for speaking clearly and exactly.

[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.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Eli


So much for speaking clearly and exactly.

Sorry, but when you live in an environment where everybody's top 0.1% then your perspective is slightly different, even on a logarithmic scale.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Sorry, but when you live in an environment where everybody's top 0.1%

In Baltimore??

[Eli]

Sorry, but when you live in an environment where everybody's top 0.1% then your perspective is slightly different, even on a logarithmic scale.

I know the feeling.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Asher

In Baltimore??

My dealings with the general public are fairly limited. I attempt to keep it that way.

[Pekka]

I will defend soft sciences here as well, I think there's just no real comparison to be made here between these sciences, because it would be .. it's not a black and white world basically.

Even more so today, you have to be disciplined across the scientific fields. As in, now I'm working with hospital systems, so I had to study some medical thingies, so that I understand what is happening, I understand the lingo and the process of certain operations I'm following. I think I might be able to be there as help for the operations as well, if I needed to do that.

As I was working with IT security in my field, I was especially interested in 'physical threats', as in people coming in, breaking in, sneaking in, using deception to gain control of the system. I was even more interested in the use of a phone to gain entry, new identity, what ever. My special interest was in how to defend against these kinds of attacks, so you have to build a sociotechnical defense. I had a touch for the technical defense, and I was doing the social defense thing, I mean identifying social types of attackers, so you need to do that to respond, do your risk analysis, and manage the problems. So, I needed to study ALL kinds of ****, including sociology, social pscyhology etc etc.

Ok, when ever we are developing and integrating new systems, we need to understand the work and the environment. So that's what I have done in the past and actually do as of now in my job.

So I am NOT saying we don't need other sciences. They are important. But they are different.

And yes, we have bigger penises by default.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


I didn't make any such assertion, you maroon.

sorry, people with "real educations".

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Asher

The richer.

tell me what effect increasing standards of living have on birth rates.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Pro athletes use their education?

obviously someone didnt take offensive football theory as an elective.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Asher

Your entire post rests on this concept of innate talents. I don't think there is such a thing, talents are created through experiences and practice.

so how does one explain why different people flock to different majors with relative ease? If everyone can learn to do it then why arent more people actually doing it? whats the factor that lets other's excel where others don't?

i do believe everyone has certain aptitudes in different areas of knowledge, skill, athletics, etc etc. It's one of the only ways I can reconcile why I am much better at writing and talking than I am at math, although I could probably be really good at math if I applied myself.