Your response fails.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Once, again, I've already preempted your point that there are exceptions

What you call exceptions are the actual talented people. The nuclear scientists. That's all I'm talking about. The average Jane is not a part of this discussion.

We were speaking of advanced sciences. Are you now moving the goal posts to all education?

And where exactly did I stop talking about advanced sciences? Or are the advanced sciences not considered sciences?

Whuat percentage of people are sufficiently talented, motivated, and intelligent to master a topic such as nuclear engineering or theoretical physics on their own? Perhaps a minute percentage,

A minute percentage of a 8 billion people is a big number.

such as my first fucking post said that you responded to you moron.

Well, moron, if you agree that there are a lot of people who don't need formal education to become nuclear scientists, how exactly are you arguing against my position that "a formal track is not a requirement for sufficiently elite people"?

You also are engaging in yet more logical fallacies. You presume that because I am stating that a majority of people will require formal education and mentorship to master some of these subjects, I must be mediocre myself. This is clearly a poor attempt at argumentation and reasoning.

That would be a fallacy, had I done so. On the contrary, I assert that you are below mediocre solely based on your performance - others are irrelevant to this. The obvious proof is that I too agree with that statement and I am not mediocre. Therefore, it would be insane for me to argue as you claim.

As to evidence, once again, you have yet to provide evidence and proof, any kind of study, or alternative, to undermine my very first point that for the vast majority of people need these more formal studies and mentorship

Why would I need to provide evidence for something we both agree upon? The vast majority of people are indeed mediocre and require hand-holding to become mediocre with a specialization. I said that on a previous post almost verbatim. Do you not read?

who is going to be your over-study? Who is going to guide you for several years at a professional level in research, applied or basic?

Obviously, it would be the fruit of my labor. And that labor could be by the nature of each respective field either theoretical or practical. So assuming I self-studied studied to become a top expert in the field of Kac–Moody algebra, I'd produce some theoretical work in the form of submitting papers to journals. My work would then be judged by my peer topologists. And I would either be a top expert in Lie groups or a fraud. Isn't it very straightforward? What exactly stumps you?

You appear to not understand how some of these fields work.

Of course, what would I know about these things? I'm actually a backwater farmer posing as an all-knowing person online, never having stepped foot in these acade...something waters.

They certainly won't hire you as a scientist under other scientists, without already having training.

Getting hired or not is irrelevant to my assertion. I explicitly stated that you don't get a job as a nuclear scientist without a degree, regardless of the theoretical background you may have mastered.

In most professions I've been around they don't use "proof" as a term, but instead use terms from evidence to data.

That's because they're layman fields.

So strangely enough you think that professional terms are lay person terms, and lay person terms such as "prove" something are professional.

Haha, that's very interesting. You obviously don't know but in the centuries of academia, professions have been considered lay by the intellectuals. They've been seen basically in the same light as how the ancients looked at manual labor: disgusting and unworthy (to express it in a colloquial way). It's not being publicly communicated as such any more (for various reasons you probably won't care about) but that's basically the sentiment still on those high clouds.

In short, at those ivory towers, proof is the name of the game.

For example, in science you NEVER "prove" something, but instead the evidence and data either support or do not support a given hypothesis. If you don't know that, perhaps you are unqualified to speak on such topics as advanced sciences and research.

This is a prime example why you're such a lay person trying to argue about things you don't understand (but you think you do).

Let's assume that you agree with my position that Physics is indeed a science. Then, by your argument, are you claiming that the Adiabatic theorem is a hypothesis that was null tested and found to be acceptable with a 95% confidence interval?

Try telling that nonsense to a room of Physicists. Let me know how many died from incessant laughing.

So what happened here? Well, it's obvious. You're trained in some platitudes that are good enough in a professional setting. That's not bad at all. What is bad is that you've taken the things you've learned as THE truth, while in reality things are much more nuanced and require in depth understanding to even begin talking about them in an intelligent way. There's a branch of philosophy called Epistemology that studies exactly how we know stuff in the various scientific fields. I happen to be really into that. So you're even more unlucky in arguing these things with me.

Be honest, you have no background in it and presume due to your studies and work in other areas and success that you know enough to say what is required to master them.

Yes, you've caught me, I'm a farmer specializing in the field of grain studies.

Even IF you are so intelligent (in certain ways) that you do not require such tutelage, your reasoning would certainly be atrocious in the setting of leadership in let's say education policy or any other relevant topic.

Being an effective leader is very commendable but that's a practical skill. We've been talking about intellectual capacity and action upon that in the knowledge field. As for policies - especially in education - this is something I would absolutely hold my nose if I was forced to tackle.

You are falsely and irrationally extrapolating your perceived personal experience and abilities to the whole, a classical logical fallacy.

The fuck ????? :D :D :D :D :D :D

Regale me again about your superior logic and critical thinking skills.

It, as Aristotle said, is self-evident. It is only a matter if a third-party has the ability to perceive it or not. But this is of no matter to my ability of reasoning itself, is it?

Your response fails.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Once, again, I've already preempted your point that there are exceptions

What you call exceptions are the actual talented people. The nuclear scientists. That's all I'm talking about. The average Jane is not a part of this discussion.

We were speaking of advanced sciences. Are you now moving the goal posts to all education?

And where exactly did I stop talking about advanced sciences? Or are the advanced sciences not considered sciences?

Whuat percentage of people are sufficiently talented, motivated, and intelligent to master a topic such as nuclear engineering or theoretical physics on their own? Perhaps a minute percentage,

A minute percentage of a 8 billion people is a big number.

such as my first fucking post said that you responded to you moron.

Well, moron, if you agree that there are a lot of people who don't need formal education to become nuclear scientists, how exactly are you arguing against my position that "a formal track is not a requirement for sufficiently elite people"?

You also are engaging in yet more logical fallacies. You presume that because I am stating that a majority of people will require formal education and mentorship to master some of these subjects, I must be mediocre myself. This is clearly a poor attempt at argumentation and reasoning.

That would be a fallacy, had I done so. On the contrary, I assert that you are below mediocre solely based on your performance - others are irrelevant to this. The obvious proof is that I too agree with that statement and I am not mediocre. Therefore, it would be insane for me to argue as you claim.

As to evidence, once again, you have yet to provide evidence and proof, any kind of study, or alternative, to undermine my very first point that for the vast majority of people need these more formal studies and mentorship

Why would I need to provide evidence for something we both agree upon? The vast majority of people are indeed mediocre and require hand-holding to become mediocre with a specialization. I said that on a previous post almost verbatim. Do you not read?

who is going to be your over-study? Who is going to guide you for several years at a professional level in research, applied or basic?

Obviously, it would be the fruit of my labor. And that labor could be by the nature of each respective field either theoretical or practical. So assuming I self-studied studied to become a top expert in the field of Kac–Moody algebra, I'd produce some theoretical work in the form of submitting papers to journals. My work would then be judged by my peer topologists. And I would either be a top expert in Lie groups or a fraud. Isn't it very straightforward? What exactly stumps you?

You appear to not understand how some of these fields work.

Of course, what would I know about these things? I'm actually a backwater farmer posing as an all-knowing person online, never having stepped foot in these acade...something waters.

They certainly won't hire you as a scientist under other scientists, without already having training.

Getting hired or not is irrelevant to my assertion. I explicitly stated that you don't get a job as a nuclear scientist without a degree, regardless of the theoretical background you may have mastered.

In most professions I've been around they don't use "proof" as a term, but instead use terms from evidence to data.

That's because they're layman fields.

So strangely enough you think that professional terms are lay person terms, and lay person terms such as "prove" something are professional.

Haha, that's very interesting. You obviously don't know but in the centuries of academia, professions have been considered lay by the intellectuals. They've been seen basically in the same light as how the ancients looked at manual labor: disgusting and unworthy (to express it in a colloquial way). It's not being publicly communicated as such any more (for various reasons you probably won't care about) but that's basically the sentiment still on those high clouds.

In short, at those ivory towers, proof is the name of the game.

For example, in science you NEVER "prove" something, but instead the evidence and data either support or do not support a given hypothesis. If you don't know that, perhaps you are unqualified to speak on such topics as advanced sciences and research.

This is a prime example why you're such a lay person trying to argue about things you don't understand (but you think you do).

Let's assume that you agree with my position that Physics is indeed a science. Then, by your argument, are you claiming that the Adiabatic theorem is a hypothesis that was null tested and found to be acceptable with a 95% confidence interval?

Try telling that nonsense to a room of Physicists. Let me know how many died from incessant laughing.

So what happened here? Well, it's obvious. You're trained in some platitudes that are good enough in a professional setting. That's not bad at all. What is bad is that you've taken the things you've learned as THE truth, while in reality things are much more nuanced and require in depth understanding to even begin talking about them in an intelligent way. There's a branch of philosophy called Epistemology that studies exactly how we know stuff in the various scientific fields. I happen to be really into that. So you're even more unlucky in arguing these things with me.

Be honest, you have no background in it and presume due to your studies and work in other areas and success that you know enough to say what is required to master them.

Yes, you've caught me, I'm a farmer specializing in the field of grain studies.

Even IF you are so intelligent (in certain ways) that you do not require such tutelage, your reasoning would certainly be atrocious in the setting of leadership in let's say education policy or any other relevant topic.

Being an effective leader is very commendable but that's a practical skill. We've been talking about intellectual capacity and action upon that in the knowledge field. As for policies - especially in education - this is something I would absolutely hold my nose if I were forced to tackle.

You are falsely and irrationally extrapolating your perceived personal experience and abilities to the whole, a classical logical fallacy.

The fuck ????? :D :D :D :D :D :D

Regale me again about your superior logic and critical thinking skills.

It, as Aristotle said, is self-evident. It is only a matter if a third-party has the ability to perceive it or not. But this is of no matter to my ability of reasoning itself, is it?