01-03-2004 06:36									#61
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ming But still... being one of the teachers in the department, it's your job to teach these kids... they obviously aren't learning squat

Well, Ming, you know how the saying goes: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.

Those who can't teach, teach teachers.

	01-03-2004 06:40									#62
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by GePap "You can;t teach philosophy"? Since when 'can't you"? As for teaching logic, last time I heard, most babies aren't born knowing logic. So Vesayen, I guess you were born knowing the work of Kant, correct?

My point is that if you teach someone formalized ways of thinking and reactions off them which are overly mechanic, then that is all they can do-reproduce those mechanic movements. They cannot bring it to any new steps and when things become complex they cannot cope.

My knowledge of Kant is knowledge of his ideas, the knowledge of how to form a coherant argument is NOT something that can be taught, the same extends to most philosophical ideas.

quote: Originally posted by GePap And if you were better versed at logic, you would see how one case is NOT enough of a sample to disprove a generalization. Also, "being arguementative" is not the same as understanding ethical issues. Anyone can be arguementative. That is a character issue.

I did not say that one case was, however, it is still a case. As for when I said argumentative, I mean arguing from a point of understanding.

quote: Originally posted by Asher He meant the actual applied use of philosophy: the ability to think and argue rationally. If Philosophy was nothing more than studying past philosophers, it would be a History course.

Exactly... every philosophy course I've been forced to take is utter trite.... if you teach someone a mechanical way of thinking with NO variation, then they will not be able to expand from it.

	01-03-2004 06:45									#63
	Got spare money?

quote: He meant the actual applied use of philosophy: the ability to think and argue rationally. If Philosophy was nothing more than studying past philosophers, it would be a History course.

Actually, this is wrong. You can not teach intelliegence, which is an innate ability, but the ability to argue coherently is NOT intelligence. Besides, Philosophy is more than Rhetoric, which is the art of arguing. IN fact, Philosophy is NOT about "thinking rationally" It is about studying the character of knowledge. This is something fundamentally different from just being intelliegent, or even being able to coherently debate. Now, if you two paid more attention in philosophy class, maybe you would understand that.

	01-03-2004 06:47									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ming But still... being one of the teachers in the department, it's your job to teach these kids... they obviously aren't learning squat

Wrong again, this isn't even our department. These kids are from a satellite campus.

Anyway, I've graded for the most brilliant teachers before, all it does is lower the proportion of dreck.

	01-03-2004 06:57									#65
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap quote: He meant the actual applied use of philosophy: the ability to think and argue rationally. If Philosophy was nothing more than studying past philosophers, it would be a History course. Actually, this is wrong. You can not teach intelliegence, which is an innate ability, but the ability to argue coherently is NOT intelligence. Besides, Philosophy is more than Rhetoric, which is the art of arguing. IN fact, Philosophy is NOT about "thinking rationally" It is about studying the character of knowledge. This is something fundamentally different from just being intelliegent, or even being able to coherently debate. Now, if you two paid more attention in philosophy class, maybe you would understand that.

Philosophy is entirley about thinking rationally, it is about taking experience and knowledge and extrapolating it into a coherant image. "The character of knowledge", stuying that allows you to... dun da da dun da da.... reproduce the character of knowledge!

"Study" of philosophy is in fact a bad way to phrase it... from my experience one CANNOT learn philosophy and practical argumentative skills through "studying"-only practice, the best way to teach philosophy, so that the student understands it and is able to extrapolate from it, is to debate. The students are eventually able to realize the more effective forms of debate themselves through practice.

Did the ancient Greeks sit around reciting out of their asses "And Phylius Archelus supposates the following" or did they argue with each other over the issues? Who are undeniably amoung the greatest orators, statemens and philosophers of all time?

When someone finds out critical thinking and argumentory methods through their OWN experience, they will be better skilled in those methods, and thus their arguments will be more flexible.

Have you tried to argue about philosophical issues with someone who has had "structured" philosophy or argumentative skills taught to them? Every one I ever have, I've run circles around.

	01-03-2004 06:59									#66
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Back on T.

For the few years before he died my father was employed by the local high schools as a music teacher. He was born during the War and brought up in a single parent family. His mother's illnesses disrupted his schooling and he never finished high school.

Neverthless, when he went to work at the local high schools he was appalled at the amount of ignorance on basic issues of politics, history and culture on the part of the majority of teachers. He simply couldn't believe it.

	01-03-2004 07:01									#67
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GePap Actually, this is wrong. You can not teach intelliegence, which is an innate ability, but the ability to argue coherently is NOT intelligence. Besides, Philosophy is more than Rhetoric, which is the art of arguing. IN fact, Philosophy is NOT about "thinking rationally" It is about studying the character of knowledge. This is something fundamentally different from just being intelliegent, or even being able to coherently debate. Now, if you two paid more attention in philosophy class, maybe you would understand that.

Maybe I understand it but dismiss it as being ridiculous?

Philosophers argue that Philosophy is Knowledge, or the study of. I find that to be a ridiculous position, one that cannot be maintained (and one that has not been maintained, at least on Apolyton). It's an excuse for a department whose only purpose to serve is to give basic lectures to undergrads and other "morons" and look nice on a transcript.

To my knowledge, any work that "philosophers" at Universities in the past 50 years has been nothing more than busywork and totally useless. Saying that they're persuing knowledge for the sake of persuing knowledge doesn't cut it. I want examples on why public money continually goes into crap that people use as GPA boosters.

As far as I'm concerned Philosophy is for pseudo-intellectuals who couldn't cut it in a real field.

I also reference Agathon in my case. He's never been a very strong debater, nor does he show any real intellect aside from a broad vocabulary of needlessly-complicated Philosophical terms to describe the most mundane concepts.

I also think it to be rather lame to start a thread in which a pretentious instructor laughs at the "stupidity" of his pupils...

	01-03-2004 07:10									#68
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Anyway, I've graded for the most brilliant teachers before, all it does is lower the proportion of dreck.

That's one of the problems today... what good is a brilliant teacher if they can't teach. Too many teachers are forgeting about what their job really is... which is to teach the students. It's sad when you hear teachers whine about how stupid their students are... making fun of them... calling them peons... and whose fault is it? The teachers must be failing at their job if that's the kind of students they are developing and actually graduating. Instead of whining, maybe the teachers should do what they are paid to do...

	01-03-2004 07:11									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

This is a rage thread, not a laugh thread. Laughing is the last thing I want to do when confronted with a bunch of bad papers.

And for the record, you got your ass kicked last time we all debated this, so don't give me that crap.

Of course we could all go for your definition of a "strong debater" which is someone who repeats endless variations of the same previously debunked claim and who goes on and on flogging a dead horse.

	01-03-2004 07:14									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Ming That's one of the problems today... what good is a brilliant teacher if they can't teach. Too many teachers are forgeting about what their job really is... which is to teach the students. It's sad when you hear teachers whine about how stupid their students are... making fun of them... calling them peons... and whose fault is it? The teachers must be failing at their job if that's the kind of students they are developing and actually graduating. Instead of whining, maybe the teachers should do what they are paid to do...

Nope. The problem is that standards have slipped owing to the fact that a lot more people now enter tertiary education and because new funding models mean that hard courses get weeded out.

Look, there are plenty of bad teachers. But when I say something 5 times and write it on the blackboard in 12 inch capital letters and say "this will be in the exam!", and some people still get it wrong, I don't know what anyone could do.

PS. I was calling myself the peon.

	01-03-2004 07:17									#71
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Agathon And for the record, you got your ass kicked last time we all debated this, so don't give me that crap.

Nonsense, you just rationalized it to yourself so you believe it. No one has ever presented a useful case for the reasoning behind Philosophical research.

Imran & Co discussed how it's useful to lawyers or whatever, which may be the case, though I don't see how it is. Even so, the majority of it is bullshit busywork.

quote: Of course we could all go for your definition of a "strong debater" which is someone who repeats endless variations of the same previously debunked claim and who goes on and on flogging a dead horse.

No, a strong debater adequately debunks claims. Something which you have never managed to do in a computer thread, but you ignore the opposition and "know" you're right. I don't know if you willingly do this or if it's an inate ability of Philosophy instructors worldwide, but whatever it is -- it's really, really stupid.

	01-03-2004 07:17									#72
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: As far as I'm concerned Philosophy is for pseudo-intellectuals who couldn't cut it in a real field.

You always make the same tried arguement, and it is always equally false.

But arguing with opu on the subject is like arguing with DF, useless. So I lerave you to your faulty assumptions.

	01-03-2004 07:21									#73
	Got spare money?

Nah, I prefer to let him speak his mind trying to answer pertinent questions.

	01-03-2004 07:22									#74
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Yeah, he is like DF.

	01-03-2004 07:22									#75
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Agathon And for the record, you got your ass kicked last time we all debated this, so don't give me that crap.

Your record is kind of broken... you have been trashed EVERY time we have debated... you were the only one that didn't think so... so crap...

	01-03-2004 07:23									#76
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Ming That's one of the problems today... what good is a brilliant teacher if they can't teach. Too many teachers are forgeting about what their job really is... which is to teach the students. It's sad when you hear teachers whine about how stupid their students are... making fun of them... calling them peons... and whose fault is it? The teachers must be failing at their job if that's the kind of students they are developing and actually graduating. Instead of whining, maybe the teachers should do what they are paid to do...

Sorry Ming, but I have to (sort of) agree with Agathon here....There are some students who just won't learn for one reason or another. Whether they are goofing off or have some sort of disability...who knows?
But that's hardly the fault of the teacher.

	01-03-2004 07:28									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar But that's hardly the fault of the teacher.

Yes it is... because these same teacher pass these students on to the next teacher and they become their problem.

I've had people interview for me who can't even read or write worth a damn. And they are college graduates. It's the fault of the institutions for allowing this crap to continue, and teachers should be ashamed of themselves for letting these people pass their classes.

So yes, I can blame the teachers.

	01-03-2004 07:41									#78
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by GePap quote: As far as I'm concerned Philosophy is for pseudo-intellectuals who couldn't cut it in a real field. You always make the same tried arguement, and it is always equally false. But arguing with opu on the subject is like arguing with DF, useless. So I lerave you to your faulty assumptions.

I only continue arguing it because nobody has been able to actually refute it.

Rather than laughing, would it kill you to actually present a reasonable case? It should be easy, unless you can't think of a case...

So far my experience with Philosophers on these boards tells me that seldom do they actually debate the subject at hand. It's quite amazing, really.

	01-03-2004 08:04									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: because these same teacher pass these students on to the next teacher and they become their problem.

It isn't even up to the teacher!!! It's up to the parent whether the child moves on or not.

The teachers get low pay without many benefits, they have to deal with 25-35+ children who don't want to learn, they deal with people bringing guns and knifes to school, they become a secondary counselor to their children, they pay for many of the supplies out of their own pocket, they are constantly underfunded and shortsupplied; in their classrooms they play teacher and police, and then they get blamed when other children begin acting up!
Teachers have a very difficult job, and as such I'm reluctant to blame other childrens stupidity on the teacher. The teacher cannot force children to learn.

	01-03-2004 08:36									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ming Yes it is... because these same teacher pass these students on to the next teacher and they become their problem.

As the son of two teachers and the roommate of a another, I have to disagree. While there is no shortage of incompetent teachers, even the most able of them often has forces to contend against that are insurmountable. Many students have severe behavioral problems that aren't handled well in most urban public school systems, and they can render an entire class a nightmare. Underfunding, lack of support from administrators and parents, too many students and a lack of critical supplies--these all undermine teachers. My roommate Caroline has to spend most of her day just maintaining control over her kids, and she teaches 2nd grade. About every other day for her is emotionally havoc-wreaking. I've frequently had to help Dan convince her to go back to school the next day. And she is consistently praised by the school as one of their best teachers.

And, lest it be forgotten, some students are just hopelessly stupid and unmotivateable. Why so many found their way into Agathon's class, I don't know...maybe it's something like what draws cats to people with the worst allergies.

	01-03-2004 08:39									#81
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ming I've had people interview for me who can't even read or write worth a damn. And they are college graduates. It's the fault of the institutions for allowing this crap to continue, and teachers should be ashamed of themselves for letting these people pass their classes.

Well, I don't know about all systems, but in most public school systems in major cities, this is not up to the teacher. It's very difficult to hold back kids in a public school. Think of it as akin to how hard it is to fire a federal worker.

	01-03-2004 09:47									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Asher I only continue arguing it because nobody has been able to actually refute it. Rather than laughing, would it kill you to actually present a reasonable case? It should be easy, unless you can't think of a case... So far my experience with Philosophers on these boards tells me that seldom do they actually debate the subject at hand. It's quite amazing, really.

You are an idiot anyway, and you dismiss Agathon's arguments because you can't even understand them. Agathon is one of the best debater of this board.

	01-03-2004 09:51									#83
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris You are an idiot anyway, and you dismiss Agathon's arguments because you can't even understand them. Agathon is one of the best debater of this board.

What good is an argument if it is incomprehensible and doesn't follow? Is this how Philosophers determine the best debaters?

Perhaps he is just better than you are at it. He puts more effort into it, rather than just "You are an idiot, you don't understand!".

You aren't helping your case of Philosophers being intelligent or useful.

	01-03-2004 09:53									#84
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen "Study" of philosophy is in fact a bad way to phrase it... from my experience one CANNOT learn philosophy and practical argumentative skills through "studying"-only practice, the best way to teach philosophy, so that the student understands it and is able to extrapolate from it, is to debate. The students are eventually able to realize the more effective forms of debate themselves through practice.

Of course you can learn philosophy. When it comes to philosophy, the best 'practice' is to actually learn the doctrines of the greatest philosophers.

Besides, writing and debating are wholly different things. Many brilliant persons make poor debaters because they are not witty or eloquent.

quote: Did the ancient Greeks sit around reciting out of their asses "And Phylius Archelus supposates the following" or did they argue with each other over the issues? Who are undeniably amoung the greatest orators, statemens and philosophers of all time?

Plato followed Socrates for many years before having a philosophy of his own. Aristotle had been a Platonician for twenty years before writing something original. Almost no philosopher has ever written something influential before their thirties- even their forties.
Notable exceptions are Nietzsche and Wittgenstein, but those were uber-geniuses.

quote: Have you tried to argue about philosophical issues with someone who has had "structured" philosophy or argumentative skills taught to them? Every one I ever have, I've run circles around.

I partly agree with you. Someone with a natural skill for debating, who on top of this has a philosophical training, will crush about anyone in a bar. Both are complementary.

	01-03-2004 09:56									#85
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Asher What good is an argument if it is incomprehensible and doesn't follow? Is this how Philosophers determine the best debaters?

That is because you can't accept that philosophy is also a science, with its own vocabulary and methodology. I've not seem him using complex words uselessly- they always make sense within the debate.

quote: Perhaps he is just better than you are at it. He puts more effort into it, rather than just "You are an idiot, you don't understand!".

Well, he's a teacher and I'm a student, so he better be better than me.

quote: You aren't helping your case of Philosophers being intelligent or useful.

That'll leave you more time to defend Bill Gates and his usefullness to society.

	01-03-2004 09:57									#86
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Asher What good is an argument if it is incomprehensible and doesn't follow? Is this how Philosophers determine the best debaters? Perhaps he is just better than you are at it. He puts more effort into it, rather than just "You are an idiot, you don't understand!". You aren't helping your case of Philosophers being intelligent or useful.

This brings me to another problem I have with philosophers: pretentiousness. Exhibit A: The original post in this thread. Exhibit B: the post that Oncle Boris made that I responded to in the quoted post.

They tend to use overly-complex language, riddled with Philosopher-specific jargon, and then attack people on semantics in a debate rather than the content. Exhibit C: Boris vs. Agathon and Agathon assuming "utilitarian = Utilitarian", and basing an argument on the semantics of how one defines "Utilitarianism".

They are not open to the possiblility that perhaps they're out of their league and making an ass out of themsevles. Exhibit D: Agathon's unrelenting denial that Fitts' law is a mathematical law.

It's no wonder that philosophers can think the world of themselves and other philosophers, and most other people think so lowly of them as foppish frauds.

	01-03-2004 10:01									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris That is because you can't accept that philosophy is also a science, with its own vocabulary and methodology. I've not seem him using complex words uselessly- they always make sense within the debate.

Philosophy is NOT a Science. That's why you don't get a B.Sc in Philosophy...

You clearly don't understand "using complex words needlessly", of course they can make sense -- the idea here is that smaller, more universally understandable words work as well.

quote: Well, he's a teacher and I'm a student, so he better be better than me.

Is this an example of your logic? Teachers are not always better than students, just (usually) older and more learned. Not the same thing as better.

quote: That'll leave you more time to defend Bill Gates and his usefullness to society.

You would have a hard time arguing that what Bill Gates has done has been useless to society.

	01-03-2004 10:06									#88
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Asher They tend to use overly-complex language, riddled with Philosopher-specific jargon, and then attack people on semantics in a debate rather than the content. Exhibit C: Boris vs. Agathon and Agathon assuming "utilitarian = Utilitarian", and basing an argument on the semantics of how one defines "Utilitarianism". They are not open to the possiblility that perhaps they're out of their league and making an ass out of themsevles. Exhibit D: Agathon's unrelenting denial that Fitts' law is a mathematical law.

I am sorry, but I never understood this line of arguement. Its like saying you can't write X^2, but instead must spell it out as "X times X" becuase some people might not understand....

There is a reason you differentiate between rain and drizzle, and shower, and downpours- each different word has a specific meaning, and the more specific you get, the better you can pass on the specific meaning of what you are trying to say. Lets take you Ahser and threads about omputers- the fact is you are a techie, and when it comes to technical matters you use a lot of jargon. Why? Becuase you fell the need to show you know the jargon and confuse others? or is it simply that the jargon is a) what you use to describe these things and b) the accurate and correct words to use, since they convey the exact meaings you seek to pass on?

	01-03-2004 10:13									#89
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by GePap I am sorry, but I never understood this line of arguement. Its like saying you can't write X^2, but instead must spell it out as "X times X" becuase some people might not understand.... There is a reason you differentiate between rain and drizzle, and shower, and downpours- each different word has a specific meaning, and the more specific you get, the better you can pass on the specific meaning of what you are trying to say. Lets take you Ahser and threads about omputers- the fact is you are a techie, and when it comes to technical matters you use a lot of jargon. Why? Becuase you fell the need to show you know the jargon and confuse others? or is it simply that the jargon is a) what you use to describe these things and b) the accurate and correct words to use, since they convey the exact meaings you seek to pass on?

I anticipated this would come up.

When I'm not arguing with a techie, I do try to translate this into layman's terms. For example, when I posted the thread about buffer underrun technology being prevented in hardware, I explained it rather than assuming everyone knew what it was.

When I posted the thread about Windows running on PowerPC 970FX processors, I instead called it the "Apple G5" to confuse less people.

I do go out of my way to simplify my language when talking to people outside of my field, yet Agathon repeatedly assumes everyone would know the formal philosophical definition of "Utilitarian" and uses it as such, then argues with people who use it differently.

For example, this means jack-**** to non-philosophers:

quote: Utilitarianism proper rounds out to three things. 1) An account of the good. 2) An acceptance of consequentialism. 3) A principle of aggregation, whereby more of the good is better and less is worse. Deontological ethics denies 2 and 3 (wrongly in my view).

	01-03-2004 10:16									#90
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Asher; I'm usually on your side but could you please take your anti-Agathon troll elsewhere?
Create an anti-philosophy thread or something.