21-09-2004 22:02									#301
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Asher There's the point again -- why are their economic prospects not so good after they're done? If it was truly beneficial, would this not reflect in their salaries afterwards?

Not necessarily. A higher proportion of philosophy grads (in the UK) go into teaching, charity work and other public service, that usually pays less than it's commercial counterparts. Accountancy pays more than most, but are accountants really as important as teachers, engineers or doctors?

	22-09-2004 03:00									#302
	Inflate your Upload Space

Don't most teachers get a degree in education?

So funding education degrees is better than funding philosophy degrees if you want more teachers. And why would you need philosophy for charity work?

	22-09-2004 03:18									#303
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Thus, it needs to show another public good to justify government subsidy.

Yes, I agree, and perhaps I skipped a step in my statement, but I am arguing that a great majority of people believe it to be a public good and thus demanding public subsidy for it. If the people did not think philosophy was a public good, I'd argue it would not be funded at the unversity.

	22-09-2004 03:20									#304
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Don't most teachers get a degree in education?

Only the crap ones . Actually though in the US most pre-univeristy teachers are required to get a degree in education due to the teachers' unions. Someone who is a history God can't teach at the local high school without 'education training'. Frankly it's a dumb requirement.

However, in the University, I doubt you'll see anyone outside the education department that got a degree in education. Though you may see those who got a degree in philosophy in the Political Science Department or History Department.

	22-09-2004 03:22									#305
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

My point being that a philosophy degree is not the best suited to becoming a teacher, except maybe of philosophy

	22-09-2004 03:26									#306
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Don't most teachers get a degree in education?

Not in the UK, teaching is usually done as a PGCE qualification, a years postgrad degree, or two years work experience type thing, IIRC. You can do a 4 year combined teaching degree, but most do the 3+1 route.

	22-09-2004 03:47									#307
	Remove this text

quote: My point being that a philosophy degree is not the best suited to becoming a teacher

Frankly, I'd rather have those who specialize in critical thinking be my teacher rather than someone who has gotten a degree in 'education'.

	22-09-2004 03:49									#308
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Aggie has a philsophy degree

PWNED!!!!

	22-09-2004 03:57									#309
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

And Kidiculous has an economics degree.... there are always exceptions .

All kidding aside, I don't think Aggie would be a bad professor. I've known plenty of biased professors who can act very neutral or be very interesting without offending in the classroom.

	22-09-2004 05:47									#310
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Exactly provable. For instance, (given a normal understanding of what I mean by various arithmetic operations and mathematical symbols), saying that 2*x=4 implies x=2 is rigorous.

And a very narrow definition of rigorous.

quote: 1: rigidly accurate; allowing no deviation from a standard;

Or

quote: 2: demanding strict attention to rules and procedures;

Seem to me better definitions that can apply not only to maths, but also to Philosophy. There are certain rules in philosophy that need to be followed, in order to establish a proof, similar to those in maths.

Look at all your logic, is that mathematical, or philosophical? Or what you consider a proof by induction? That can be done by both. It certainly is not the sole property of mathematics.

	22-09-2004 05:54									#311
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Considering in the UK, that would include 2nd year college level maths, that's not bad.

No, not quite that far along in our program, since we do the maths at the same time as that particular compsci course.

The course was available for both science majors and compsci majors, and was not just the introductory course.

At the time, I was in honours sciences out at UBC, and looking at getting into co-op, and this is the compsci course they recommended that I take for my placement in the spring session.

So the maths we were expected to have are the first year calculus courses, both integral and differential calculus.

Again, it's a half a year course, specifically for C++, but I haven't had to use the course for the last three years.

	22-09-2004 05:57									#312
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Surely, since at a top college everyone would have AP in their major,

Yeah, before you get to putting me down, consider that I was the top student in my HS before going to UBC, and that I finished the IB diploma program.

So if that counts for anything, it says that I have a little bit of a broader education than someone who has devoted himself to compsci.

	22-09-2004 06:10									#313
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: I haven't had a course like that since first year.

Well, then your profs have a different style than the ones out at UBC.

All we had were assignments through first and second year, with an expressed avoidance of research papers.
Granted, I had to do them in the lab sessions, a paper for each lab, but not in the lectures, where we just had assignments. I don't know if the papers you are talking about are done in your lecture sessions or the labs.

I'm sure as you progress you get more, and I've helped my graduate maths student roomate with his papers, so I see that they ask more research papers as you get further along.

However, I don't really consider a research paper done in sciences to be much the same as they are in an arts class. There are big differences between the two, even if you use the same word for both.

quote: What "science" and how far? I've written many papers in computer science, in fact...research papers are one of the most critical parts of a scientific education.

Physics and Astronomy, plus some Chem. I did best in Chem and Astronomy.

quote: Have you looked at patents? Damn straight a huge chunk of them are lies -- especially those that require patent lawyers to defend.

Well, be sure to remember that for some of your coding when you want to be compensated for your intellectual property.

quote: I don't proclaim to know everything about you, but I do remember you mentioning that in your thread about your construction job (that your degree didn't get you a job or a good job).

Yeah, that's because I haven't finished yet, and I want to pay off the rest of my degree so I'm not in debt.

So the fact that I don't have a job related to my degree is not the fault of the degree.

quote: I work closely with a team at work, all they do is write. The thing is, they know what they're doing -- they're computer science graduates. There's one or two English majors on the team, and they've been relegated to grammar checking, since they have a very hard time getting things correct...

What are they being asked to write, if I may ask? Technical reports?

I'm not surprised then that the English students are having problems. Unless they have some prior experience in the field, and some understanding of the technical side, then they are basically wasted in your company.

	22-09-2004 06:13									#314
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Nonsense, take a high-level discrete mathematics course before talking about this any further. "argument" = "statement" or "theory", and you've got yourself math.

Yes. Do you have any commentary about my point of what is considered a proper proof in mathematics at that point?

There is considerable leeway in how a proof may be constructed to the extent that should the proof meet with the approval of others in the field, it is considered proper.

	22-09-2004 06:18									#315
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

we had to write papers all the time from soph year on in my physics course (generally one paper per week per lab course)

the structure requirements were very rigorous

in fact, I had trouble writing them properly, and took mine to the writing center to get help, and they couldn't (well they thought they did, but apparently they didn't have a clue about how to write a scientific paper)

Jon Miller

	22-09-2004 06:20									#316
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi And a very narrow definition of rigorous.

Or, well, a very rigorous one

In fact, just with that you've conceded that mathematics is more rigorous than philosophy.

quote: Seem to me better definitions that can apply not only to maths, but also to Philosophy. There are certain rules in philosophy that need to be followed, in order to establish a proof, similar to those in maths. Look at all your logic, is that mathematical, or philosophical? Or what you consider a proof by induction? That can be done by both. It certainly is not the sole property of mathematics.

Unless you're doing propositional logic, your proof isn't going to be rigorous. Maybe a computer could do a rigorous proof with higher-order logic, but people can't (or at least do not).

	22-09-2004 06:21									#317
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: The original point was about making BETTER algorithm. I can bet you have never done any of that, and your original point about that being close to number crunching being totally off.

All I know is that when I write a paper for English, the paper is still readable even if I miss a semicolon.

Not so with some of the compilers. So I find the two very different, with coding much less free than writing. Much more like number crunching. You have a process and you iterate the process to write the program.

Writing a better algorithm I guess is like editing, looking over the paper, and finding a better way to make things work. I can see an analogy between the two.

	22-09-2004 06:21									#318
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Yeah, before you get to putting me down, consider that I was the top student in my HS before going to UBC, and that I finished the IB diploma program. So if that counts for anything, it says that I have a little bit of a broader education than someone who has devoted himself to compsci.

I may have a broader education than you think in no way are my courses "devoted to comp sci" - it's one out of four or five areas I'm specializing in.

	22-09-2004 06:23									#319
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

So why don't we both give each other a little credit, eh?

I don't think you are stupid, and I've never put down any aspect of your education.

	22-09-2004 06:24									#320
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi All I know is that when I write a paper for English, the paper is still readable even if I miss a semicolon. Not so with some of the compilers.

Which is why CS, and by extention math, is FAR more rigorous than philosophy... an equation or expression has exactly one interpretation. Language is intentionally vague.

quote: So I find the two very different, with coding much less free than writing. Much more like number crunching. You have a process and you iterate the process to write the program.

The computer iterates the process. You just write it so the computer can understand it. And that's coding, not designing the algorithm.

	22-09-2004 06:26									#321
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: In fact, just with that you've conceded that mathematics is more rigorous than philosophy.

Nothing of the sort. Your definition doesn't really work for most of the proofs in maths which is why you need a better standard.

For example, how would your definition apply to proofs in maths through induction?

quote: Unless you're doing propositional logic, your proof isn't going to be rigorous. Maybe a computer could do a rigorous proof with higher-order logic, but people can't (or at least do not).

Like I said, your definition doesn't apply to maths, but just one small aspect of maths.

	22-09-2004 06:29									#322
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

some mathematicians don't consider induction proofs valid

JM

	22-09-2004 06:29									#323
	Tired of ads?

quote: Which is why CS, and by extention math, is FAR more rigorous than philosophy... an equation or expression has exactly one interpretation. Language is intentionally vague.

I'm not arguing that an English paper is anything like Philosophy. The two are different disciplines.

However, you seem to be having your cake and eating too.

Either compsci is a rigorous process, or it is a creative one.

	22-09-2004 06:33									#324
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Of course, you're going to come back with something like "but I was talking about judgements of moral value"

Indeed, that was what I was doing. But still, even a sentence like the one you gave about the car can trace back to some sort qualitative principles who most probably have necessary moral implications.

BTW, using monetary worth was a bad example because there are relatively scientific ways to determine the value of an object.

quote: There's plenty of reason to do so. For instance, if I know a girl is a lesbian, I wouldn't hit on her.

Why not? it's her problem

quote: When did I say he is?

You seem to be basing your relativism on the premice that a priori knowledge is impossible. Many moral theories stem from empirical knowledge that has been through an epistemological filter.

	22-09-2004 06:33									#325
	Suffering from ads?

quote: As for the rest, it just shows how you don't know what you are talking about. Jeez.. we've got the ****ing pope on our side.

	22-09-2004 06:47									#326
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: If the people cannot support their religions, then why do they have them? Why should I pay for somebody's religious beliefs?

Perhaps because religion provides a benefit to society far beyond their compensation by the state.

And they do not recieve direct funding, but rather, exemptations from tax which allow them to take on missions that would cost the government far more to do themselves.

You'd be amazed, if you ever went, just how much time people put into these things, on a volunteer basis just because it is sponsored by their religion, or organised by their church.

If you want to see all the charities vanish, then I assure you the state having to pick up the tab would increase your taxes. So if you like having a small government, and smaller taxes, you should be thankful for the churches.

	22-09-2004 06:51									#327
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: If it was truly beneficial, would this not reflect in their salaries afterwards?

So the market ! = benefit to society?

Obviously then, the lawyers which make way more money then you are providing more of a benefit to society.

	22-09-2004 09:46									#328
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi I'm not arguing that an English paper is anything like Philosophy. The two are different disciplines. However, you seem to be having your cake and eating too. Either compsci is a rigorous process, or it is a creative one.

It can be both.

It takes incredible creative ability to be able to think up new mathematical problems, let alone the solutions... ascertaining whether something is true may be straightforward (and yet look at things like Fermat's last theorem...), but coming up with a true thing, or a solution to a true relation, is not.

	22-09-2004 09:51									#329
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Oncle Boris Indeed, that was what I was doing. But still, even a sentence like the one you gave about the car can trace back to some sort qualitative principles who most probably have necessary moral implications.

How does money necessarily have moral implications?

How does having moral implications imply a moral value?

That someone may use an objective, true value such as monetary worth, or even mass and velocity, in the consideration of their morals, is not an indictment on the value.

quote: BTW, using monetary worth was a bad example because there are relatively scientific ways to determine the value of an object.

You can scientifically determine the monetary worth of something, too, basing it on the value placed in it by the owner. However, that's beside the point, as you have conceded that there are objective, non-moral values.

quote: Why not? it's her problem

Because I want some and she's not a likely source of it

quote: You seem to be basing your relativism on the premice that a priori knowledge is impossible.

Not at all. Relativism is a priori knowledge. I'm denying that any morality can be reached without being assumed a priori.

quote: Many moral theories stem from empirical knowledge that has been through an epistemological filter.

How, exactly, do you empirically observe morality?

	22-09-2004 10:57									#330
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi All I know is that when I write a paper for English, the paper is still readable even if I miss a semicolon. Not so with some of the compilers. So I find the two very different, with coding much less free than writing. Much more like number crunching. You have a process and you iterate the process to write the program.

It depends. Syntatically, computer languages are much stricter than natural languages, because of technological limitations. However, you can write the same program a gazillion ways to produce the same results.

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Writing a better algorithm I guess is like editing, looking over the paper, and finding a better way to make things work. I can see an analogy between the two.

Creating an algorithm is higher level still. It's a bit like inventing a new style of writing.