None of what you said addressed the matter at hand, the learning process for such.
Why would I address my own question? I asked you to provide an exegesis on your claim that you need a formal track to acquire the knowledge that characterizes a nuclear scientist. And you only response was "muh most people are incapable sloths". Which is true, but as I've repeatedly pointed out, those people don't become nuclear scientist anyway. So why is it that you believe that a talented, motivated and interested in the subject person is incapable of becoming a nuclear scientist? The required corpus is not some kind of well-kept secret of some sinister priesthood.
Nor, did any of what you said address again the fact that there ARE professions and practices that require advanced formal education and mentorship (which PHDs provide part of).
But I contest exactly what you call a "fact". Didn't you notice? Really?
If you are suggesting that policies should be made on exceptions to the rule
I didn't bring any kind of policy in the discussion. That's something that you threw in, for some reason. There's nothing about policies that's relevant to my assertion.
then your critical thinking and macro-planning skills are severely lacking
Is it some kind of mental deficiency that urges you to spout passive aggressive nonsense? Does it make you feel better? If so, I am a true philozoist, I can play along.
Moreover, your absurd assertion that my point was sloppy in it's simplicity
You're right, I should have thought that you are a robust philosopher, a wielder of the higher arts and it was the distilled simplicity of your superior thinking that was written there. How did I dare assume it was mere sloppiness by a third-rate wannabe?
only makes me believe that you have a far too high of a self-estimation
My self-esteem is HUUUUGE. No problem there, I assure you. That's because, like GEOTUS, I have the capital to back it up.
Once again, my original point was perfectly fine
Well, looks like someone is impervious to logic.
This only really exists in the vast majority of cases, in our present day, in the form of graduate study
Let's be honest here, shall we? You're saying that you're so mediocre that you can't even begin to image how someone can actually pull it off.
Your extreme viewpoints,
There are only correct and incorrect positions.
which are outside of the scientific community's views largely
This is so nonsensical that I believe you've really studied in the field of administration or similar.
Extreme claims require solid evidence.
Every claims matters. And so every claim requires proof. Not evidence, that's for lay people.
You claim that your comments demonstrate that you "know what you are talking about." No, no they do not.
I didn't actually claim that (this was again too subtle for you I guess), but I'm fine claiming it now anyway.
No, no they do not. Period.
Well, that was deeply academic. I am impressed. If I might venture a guess, it's not sloppy but simple, right?
Your comments lack understanding about WHY formal education exists, how a majority of people learn and are motivated, educational psychology (but one of my areas of expertise), etc
Huh? Where did I claim that formal education has no role? Let me restate it, for the bazillionth time. Here goes: formal education is not a requirement for sufficiently talented, motivated and interested people. How hard is it to get a lock on this?
Formal education is certainly a viable path for taking in average people and bringing out average people with a specialty. And it is also a path for brilliant people to move forward. For the latter though, it is not a requirement.
I get it, you have a chip on your shoulder
Are you so eager to box me in on something you can relate to or is it really that you can't grasp that some people are actually capable of reasoning?
or a lack of understanding of all areas of study.
While my ego is HUUUUUGE, and rightfully so, I cannot claim to be an expert on every subject on earth. I do claim though that I can perfectly reason about any. Yes, we exist, even if your mind can't even begin to image that.
None of what you said addressed the matter at hand, the learning process for such.
Why would I address my own question? I asked you to provide an exegesis on your claim that you need a formal track to acquire the knowledge that characterizes a nuclear scientist. And you only response was "muh most people are incapable sloths". Which is true, but as I've repeatedly pointed out, those people don't become nuclear scientist anyway. So why is it that you believe that a talented, motivated and interested in the subject person is incapable of becoming a nuclear scientist? The required corpus is not some kind of well-kept secret of some sinister priesthood.
Nor, did any of what you said address again the fact that there ARE professions and practices that require advanced formal education and mentorship (which PHDs provide part of).
But I contest exactly what you call a "fact". Didn't you notice? Really?
If you are suggesting that policies should be made on exceptions to the rule
I didn't bring any kind of policy in the discussion. That's something that you threw in, for some reason. There's nothing about policies that's relevant to my assertion.
then your critical thinking and macro-planning skills are severely lacking
Is it some kind of mental deficiency that urges you to spout passive aggressive nonsense? Does it make you feel better? If so, I am a true philozoist, I can play along.
Moreover, your absurd assertion that my point was sloppy in it's simplicity
You're right, I should have thought that you are a robust philosopher, a wielder of the higher arts and it was the distilled simplicity of your superior thinking that was written there. How did I dare assume it was mere sloppiness by a third-rate wannabe?
only makes me believe that you have a far too high of a self-estimation
My self-esteem is HUUUUGE. No problem there, I assure you. That's because, like GEOTUS, I have the capital to back it up.
Once again, my original point was perfectly fine
Well, looks like someone is impervious to logic.
This only really exists in the vast majority of cases, in our present day, in the form of graduate study
Let's be honest here, shall we? You're saying that you're so mediocre that you can't even begin to image how someone can actually pull it off.
Your extreme viewpoints,
There are only correct and incorrect positions.
which are outside of the scientific community's views largely
This is so nonsensical that I believe you've really studied in the field of administration or similar.
Extreme claims require solid evidence.
Every claims matters. And so every claim requires proof. Not evidence, that's for lay people.
You claim that your comments demonstrate that you "know what you are talking about." No, no they do not.
I didn't actually claim that (this was again too subtle for you I guess), but I'm fine claiming it now anyway.
No, no they do not. Period.
Well, that was deeply academic. I am impressed. If I might venture a guess, it's not sloppy but simple, right?
Your comments lack understanding about WHY formal education exists, how a majority of people learn and are motivated, educational psychology (but one of my areas of expertise), etc
Huh? Where did I claim that formal education has no role? Let me restate it, for the bazillionth time. Here goes: formal education is not a requirement for sufficiently talented, motivated and interested people. How hard is it to get a lock on this?
Formal education is certainly a viable path for taking in average people and bringing out average people with a specialty. And it is also a path for brilliant people to move forward. For the latter though, it is not a requirement.
I get it, you have a chip on your shoulder
Are you so eager to box me in on something you can relate to or is it really that you can't grasp that some people are actually capable of reasoning?
or a lack of understanding of all areas of study.
While my ego is HUUUUUGE, and rightfully so, I cannot claim to be an expert on any subject on earth. I do claim though that I can perfectly reason about any. Yes, we exist, even if your mind can't even begin to image that.
None of what you said addressed the matter at hand, the learning process for such.
Why would I address my own question? I asked you to provide an exegesis on your claim that you need a formal track to acquire the knowledge that characterizes a nuclear scientist. And you only response was "muh most people are incapable sloths". Which is true, but as I've repeatedly pointed out, those people don't become nuclear scientist anyway. So why is it that you believe that a talented, motivated and interested in the subject person is incapable of becoming a nuclear scientist? The required corpus is not some kind of well-kept secret of some sinister priesthood.
Nor, did any of what you said address again the fact that there ARE professions and practices that require advanced formal education and mentorship (which PHDs provide part of).
But I contest exactly what you call a "fact". Didn't you notice? Really?
If you are suggesting that policies should be made on exceptions to the rule
I didn't bring any kind of policy in the discussion. That's something that you threw in, for some reason. There's nothing about policies that's relevant to my assertion.
then your critical thinking and macro-planning skills are severely lacking
Is it some kind of mental deficiency that urges you to spout passive aggressive nonsense? Does it make you feel better? If so, I am a true philozoist, I can play along.
Moreover, your absurd assertion that my point was sloppy in it's simplicity
You're right, I should have thought that you are a robust philosopher, a wielder of the higher arts and it was the distilled simplicity of your superior thinking that was written there. How did I dare assume it was mere sloppiness by a third-rate wannabe?
only makes me believe that you have a far too high of a self-estimation
My self-esteem is HUUUUGE. No problem there, I assure you. That's because, like GEOTUS, I have the capital to back it up.
Once again, my original point was perfectly fine
Well, looks like someone is impervious to logic.
This only really exists in the vast majority of cases, in our present day, in the form of graduate study
Let's be honest here, shall we? You're saying that you're so mediocre that you can't even begin to image how someone can actually pull it off.
Your extreme viewpoints,
There are only correct and incorrect positions.
which are outside of the scientific community's views largely
This is so nonsensical that I believe you've really studied in the field of administration or similar.
Extreme claims require solid evidence.
Every claims matters. And so every claim requires proof. Not evidence, that's for lay people.
You claim that your comments demonstrate that you "know what you are talking about." No, no they do not.
I didn't actually claim that (this was again too subtle for you I guess), but I'm fine claiming it now anyway.
No, no they do not. Period.
Well, that was deeply academic. I am impressed. If I might venture a guess, it's not sloppy but simple, right?
Your comments lack understanding about WHY formal education exists, how a majority of people learn and are motivated, educational psychology (but one of my areas of expertise), etc
Huh? Where did I claim that formal education has no role? Let me restate it, for the bazillionth time. Here goes: formal education is not a requirement for sufficiently talented, motivated and interested people. How hard is it to get a lock on this?
Formal education is certainly a viable path for taking in average people and bringing out average people with a specialty. And it is also a path for brilliant people to move forward. For the latter though, it is not a requirement.
I get it, you have a chip on your shoulder
Are you so eager to box me in on something you can relate with or is it really that you can't grasp that some people are actually capable of reasoning?
or a lack of understanding of all areas of study.
While my ego is HUUUUUGE, and rightfully so, I cannot claim to be an expert on any subject on earth. I do claim though that I can perfectly reason about any. Yes, we exist, even if your mind can't even begin to image that.
None of what you said addressed the matter at hand, the learning process for such.
Why would I address my own question? I asked you to provide an exegesis on your claim that you need a formal track to acquire the knowledge that characterizes a nuclear scientist. And you only response was "muh most people are incapable sloths". Which is true, but as I've repeatedly pointed out, those people don't become nuclear scientist anyway. So why is it that you believe that a talented, motivated and interested in the subject person is incapable of becoming a nuclear scientist? The required corpus is not some kind of well-kept secret of some sinister priesthood.
Nor, did any of what you said address again the fact that there ARE professions and practices that require advanced formal education and mentorship (which PHDs provide part of).
But I contest exactly what you call a "fact". Didn't you notice? Really?
If you are suggesting that policies should be made on exceptions to the rule
I didn't bring any kind of policy in the discussion. That's something that you threw in, for some reason. There's nothing about policies that's relevant to my assertion.
then your critical thinking and macro-planning skills are severely lacking
Is it some kind of mental deficiency that urges you to spout passive aggressive nonsense? Does it make you feel better? If so, I am a true philozoist, I can play along.
Moreover, your absurd assertion that my point was sloppy in it's simplicity
You're right, I should have thought that you are a robust philosopher, a wielder of the higher arts and it was the distilled simplicity of your superior thinking that was written there. How did I dare assume it was mere sloppiness by a third-rate wannabe?
only makes me believe that you have a far too high of a self-estimation
My self-esteem is HUUUUGE. No problem there, I assure you. That's because, like GEOTUS, I have the capital to back it up.
Once again, my original point was perfectly fine
Well, looks like someone is impervious to logic.
This only really exists in the vast majority of cases, in our present day, in the form of graduate study
Let's be honest here, shall we? You're saying that you're so mediocre that you can't even begin to image how someone can actually pull it off.
Your extreme viewpoints,
There are only correct and incorrect positions.
which are outside of the scientific community's views largely
This is so nonsensical that I really believe you've really studied in the field of administration or similar.
Extreme claims require solid evidence.
Every claims matters. And so every claim requires proof. Not evidence, that's for lay people.
You claim that your comments demonstrate that you "know what you are talking about." No, no they do not.
I didn't actually claim that (this was again too subtle for you I guess), but I'm fine claiming it now anyway.
No, no they do not. Period.
Well, that was deeply academic. I am impressed. If I might venture a guess, it's not sloppy but simple, right?
Your comments lack understanding about WHY formal education exists, how a majority of people learn and are motivated, educational psychology (but one of my areas of expertise), etc
Huh? Where did I claim that formal education has no role? Let me restate it, for the bazillionth time. Here goes: formal education is not a requirement for sufficiently talented, motivated and interested people. How hard is it to get a lock on this?
Formal education is certainly a viable path for taking in average people and bringing out average people with a specialty. And it is also a path for brilliant people to move forward. For the latter though, it is not a requirement.
I get it, you have a chip on your shoulder
Are you so eager to box me in on something you can relate with or is it really that you can't grasp that some people are actually capable of reasoning?
or a lack of understanding of all areas of study.
While my ego is HUUUUUGE, and rightfully so, I cannot claim to be an expert on any subject on earth. I do claim though that I can perfectly reason about any. Yes, we exist, even if your mind can't even begin to image that.