And, lol, I remember a time when real conservatives were strongly opposed to any idea of a big government database of everyone in the country.
Yeah, that was yesteryear. This ain't the 70s. What you want depends on the situation around you. If the place you live turns into a 3rd world shithole, suddenly the things you "cared" about aren't really worth caring.
Plus, the reality is that the government is in a position to know everything it wants anyway. Are you unaware of the massive data dumps the 3-letter agencies do? If you're online, you are a known quantity, assuming "they" want to know about you specifically. So what exactly are you against? Making it official?
You make it sound like a big problem when it's really easily solvable.
- Put election day on a Sunday.
- Subsidize obligatory half-day off for each worker whose employer remains open.
See how easy it is to solve problems by throwing some money at them?
Although I'm unaware of the context, it sounds about right.
^ this guy histories.
You are an arrogant
I am.
asshole
I strictly prefer being the dick. You don't mind, do you?
who thinks too highly of yourself
It just appears that way to you because you can't judge the heights.
and are extremely condescending about very basic topics.
I am extremely condescending but not about topics, about ignorance. And ignorance is not a natural phenomenon like rain. It exhumes from people. And there are 2 kinds of ignorant people - those who have the ability to learn but did not have the chance yet and those who simply don't have the ability. I suppose one can simply ignore the latter, but I'm not that old and cold-blooded yet.
I'm sure you are great fun at a party or in any kind of social gathering.
I absolutely am. Why is that? Because I am picky about my social circle - there are strict criteria for admission. A revolutionary concept, I know.
I won't pretend to know the answer to this. I only hope/pray that those above on our side are capable enough to find the correct answers.
So now, you are implying that your background is not in any sense professional, but instead purely academic,
I am? Where did I do that? Oh, I see. You are of the belief that these are mutually exclusive.
both in application to policy and administration
How much more disdain must I express for these fields before you stop randomly mentioning them? Just curious.
You use terms in ways that are not professionally accepted
Who cares about what (say) a mechanic accepts or not when the discussion is about intellectual capacity and the action upon it with regards to accomplishments in the knowledge field?
while claiming to have superior reasoning
This, I do claim.
as to what degree of formal education is required for a profession such as nuclear engineer or scientist
Alright, this is another point you're confusing. There's a different thing called "scientist" and a different thing called "professional". These terms do not necessarily coincide. One may be a scientist in nuclear physics and not work for a company designing nuclear plants. A scientist is a purely academic disposition backed by sufficient mental capital and subject expertise - not a title. It's a road to walk and not a destination. Of course one can very well be both a scientist and a professional in their respective field. And naturally, a professional may very well be not a scientist, but instead a lower iteration called a technician. Guess why they named those professional schools poly-technical to differentiate them from the universities (regardless of how in modern times, everything gets referred to as a university, for reasons we won't get into).
For example the religious laity is that class of people who are not professional priests, nuns, pastors, etc.
This is a Wittgenstein-type of linguistic confusion you're facing here. I don't want to fry your brain by exposing you to W, so let's just say that the word lay in this context does not have the exact same meaning as the word lay in the context we've been talking about.
As to science, it is research methodology training which states that scientific theorems or hypotheses are never "proven" but instead supported by evidence/data. Yes, I have relevant training, and yes, this was directly taught to me. Moreover, I taught science for several years.
I am not sure why you felt inclined to stretch this, after what I disparagingly wrote about it on my previous post.
But again, you apparently do not know these realities about research theory or methodology? Strange for someone so sure of your beliefs.
Suppose you're a betting person, would you put money that I am less informed in methodological concerns than you? Search for "Methodenstreit" to get a taste of the obscure epistemological stuff that I study for pleasure.
Not one thing I have said was a "platitude."
What do you call the things that someone has in their mind, that are kinda true, but not really so under any rigorous consideration? We can use that word instead since "platitudes" seems to be triggering you hard.
Well, it's been fun but I need to go. If you respond, it may take me up to 16 hours to see and type back a response. Have fun!
The question becomes who is the arbiter of the sanctions?
The one with the ability to win the hypothetical contest of violence. Sanctions work because you threaten violence. It's basically, a step before violence. But without the ability for successful violence, it is moot.
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?
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.
Ice Cube makes good music but is a really huge race baiter.
I seriously don't understand why getting a college degree is still so highly celebrated these days.
Because most universities are controlled by the left, culturally and educationally. And the left also controls the media.
So what?
People, especially liberals, like castes. And this is a soft caste system.
The real test is can you apply that knowledge rationally in the real world without constantly having to refer back to your text books looking for the answer to a problem you come up with in the wild.
Not really. That just makes you a good technician. The actual goal of the so called liberal education (before the world liberal became synonymous to madness) was to make you a lightweight philosopher. The idea was that you train people to become self-teachable, by bringing them in contact with a wide-but-not-too-deep range of matters. This way, they may not be experts, but they would know enough to think and judge for themselves. In other words, the hope was that you would take sheep as input and produce humans as output.
Sorry, you probably lack any kind of advanced scientific or mathematics knowledge.
Did you use your palantir to reach that conclusion? It really needs to go to the repair shop. If we rank everyone's degrees here and create a value hierarchy, I'm easily in the top 1%. And we're not talking about shitty "sciences", the hard kind.
At no point did I claim to be a nuclear physicist, so that point is absurd on your part too.
Of course you didn't. That was a subtle jab about you being sloppy in your argument and therefore it was clear that you're not well trained in robust expressiveness, as one would expect a nuclear scientist to be. Get it now?
Your point was a distraction, meant to undermine a logical and fair point I made. In no way did it add to the discussion, implying that because 99% of people do not become nuclear physicists, therefore my point is mute that of those who do most cannot nor do not learn it on their own. It is not mute, and remains true.
a) Moot, not mute.
b) Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean...
What, do you have a chip on your shoulder about higher education or are you just virtue signaling like a liberal, but in this case with anti-college sentiments? Which one is it? I'm leaning towards the latter.
Wait, where's the option about me actually knowing what I'm talking about after performing a coherent and deductive analysis of the matter at hand? Don't I get that one? Or are you projecting so hard that this didn't even cross your mind? I'm leaning towards the latter.
Because clearly it's irrational to believe that most people,
Again, most people don't become nuclear physicists anyway. It's the very few that do. And then you go judging the talented by the standards of the average. That's the main thing you're not getting.
Because most people cannot nor will not achieve this, therefore formal structures and mentorship are required. This usually takes place in the form of PHDs.
For lesser disciplines. You don't take a lazy, uninterested person, put them through a track and poof, you got a nuclear scientist designing the 5th generation of nuclear factories. It is the talented, dedicated and motivated ones that end up being important in their disciplines. You probably don't know, but most Phds exist to slave for their professors, for some benefits, until they move on to further mediocrity - either as visitor lecturers or low members of some lab.
If you had a background in policy and administration
Ahahahaha, you're one of those people? That explains everything.
Ugh, imperialism is about controlling not owning. And that's what this "aid" is all about. Remember all those articles about China spending a ton of money "lending" in Africa and how that's bad because they gain control etc? Same thing, we just call it "aid".
What's the excuse for that +11.4D ?
Surprisingly, this makes so much sense.
The point was that your point was sloppy, unfit for a nuclear physicist to make.
To the essence of the matter though, your point is not correct. Exactly why can't you self-study into nuclear physics? You can't get a JOB as one without a degree, that's for sure. But nothing stops you today from acquiring the knowledge outside of a formal track.
99.9% of people aren't becoming a nuclear physicist anyway.
^ This guy degrees.
This makes sense to me, thanks. I just thought that Durham is going to be releasing his info very soon.
Aren't we supposed to know by the horses mouth very soon though? Or is this still a long way?
Underwater comment.
Yes. But what's the profit of making a false statement about this?
IF YOU HOMESCHOOL YOUR KIDS, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO SOCIALIZE?
Right...