 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
He didn't predict that computers would be obselete in 100 years, he predicted that the types of hardware and software that you are learning to use, manipuate, perhaps build, so forth and so on will be obselete in 100 years, and thus all the technical information you are recieving will be as usefull in a century as studies about punchcards are today. This while the same philosophy class taught today could be transplanted to 2103 and remain equally as valid, informative, educational.
That seemed a simple enough thing to understand from what he wrote. |
I'm not taught technical details in school
Are you confusing computer science with a computer programming or IT course at a community college?
Computer Science is about mathematics, computability theory, algorithm design, software design, etc. We're not taught anything technical past the first year. We're told we're going to be using X hardware and X programming language, and if we don't know it we have to go learn it ourselves.
Computer Science is useful in that it doesn't teach to technology, it teaches concepts and ideas that can be applied repeatedly as technology matures. That's why a CS degree is way more valuable than a twerp with a programming diploma.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Perhaps that is the point in and of itself, that someone who is teaching philosophy has demonstrated incredible foolishness.
1) Arguing with me about it all the time
2) Predicting computers will cease to exist in 100 years
BTW, what are my prejudices here?
And all I'm asking for is a simple post which chronicals the contributions philosophy departments have made in the past 50 years. It shouldn't be that hard, unless, of course, there are none. At which point the best course of action would be to ignore it, as everyone has conveniently done... |
The problem Ahser is with your prejudice about what constitutes a contribution. It seems that for you, only if it lead to some thing (thing defined as either an object or another sort of non-corporial product) Can it be seen as a contribution. I would say that this is inherently utterly wrong. Lets take Neo-conservatism. This is an idea, an idea powerfull enough to drive national policy and thus have a direct effect on human lives, as dramatic and far reaching as any new advance in computing. Well, what the hell is Neo-conservatism? What makes it different from other conservatism? What makes conservatism different from liberalism? All these are just anmes for ideas, ideas that are built on the back of the iquiry of philosophers into what the object of human life is, what is happyness, what is the best possible human community, so forth and so on. Even the notion of "society" is a prodcut of philosophy, and given that you deal with it daily, its basis remains as important as it ever was.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
But Philosophy is, after all, the tradition we ultimately owe computers to. |
Complete rubbish.
Babbage, Turing, etc -- none of them were philosophers.
Not to mention you're only helping my point, by giving faulty examples hundreds of years old while ignoring what they're doing today. 
Even Boole, who is often credited as a philosopher, was simply a mathematician. He was branded as a philosopher by philosophers who thought he introduced some fundamental ideas they could use. Then they started teaching "logic" based mostly on his work, and apparently now taking credit for it, as well. 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The problem Ahser is with your prejudice about what constitutes a contribution. It seems that for you, only if it lead to some thing (thing defined as either an object or another sort of non-corporial product) Can it be seen as a contribution. I would say that this is inherently utterly wrong. Lets take Neo-conservatism. This is an idea, an idea powerfull enough to drive national policy and thus have a direct effect on human lives, as dramatic and far reaching as any new advance in computing. Well, what the hell is Neo-conservatism? What makes it different from other conservatism? What makes conservatism different from liberalism? All these are just anmes for ideas, ideas that are built on the back of the iquiry of philosophers into what the object of human life is, what is happyness, what is the best possible human community, so forth and so on. Even the notion of "society" is a prodcut of philosophy, and given that you deal with it daily, its basis remains as important as it ever was. |
"What is happiness" -- this is an example of the bullshit they're spending my tax money on? 
"What is the best possible human community?" How the hell would a snob in a beret know anything about what the best possible human community is?
Philosophy is just thinking, and you don't need to be a philosopher to think. The greatest "philosophers" are philosophers only because the philosophy people want to take credit for their work, and because they thought about things.
It still irks me how they take credit for computers, when all they did was overly complicate logic for the sake of semantic arguments with eachother.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
In a dscussion of philosophy, why not first define it?
philosohy: 1. orig lve of, or the search for, wisdom and knowledge 2.theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe: included in philosophy are ethics, aesthetics, logic, epistemology, metaphysics, etc. 3. the general principles or laws of a field of knowledge, etc. [the philosophy of economics] 4. a) a particular system of principles for the conduct of life b) a treatise covering such a system 5. a study of human morals, character and behavior 6. mental balance or composure thought of as resulting from the study of philosophy. [OBS] 7. NATURAL PHILOSOPHY.
So, philosophy is the first subject of higher study (which is why the thing is called a Ph.D, or Doctorate in Philosophy). Over time, as subheadings of this field got more and more complex they got their own offshoot classes. Over time, what wasd then left in philosophy is the most basic concepts which are applicable to ALL of the sub-headings that got their own little fiefdom over time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Actually, philosophy is the underlying foundation of all disciplines in the university,and thus exactly why it will continue to be taught. |
So explain to me the usefulness of PHIL 105 that Reismark is taking: Philosophy of Film.
I understand that "philosophy" (which could very well be synonymous for education) is very general and serves as the foundation for just about everything, but that's precisely why it needs to go.
If political science courses require philosophy courses on political science type stuff, why is this not simply a political science course?
Why have upper level philosophy of logic courses? Just what the hell do they hope to accomplish by bickering over syntax and being able to find utterly-important paradoxes like saying "I am lying", or whatever...
quote:
But you are essentially a mathematician at heart, which means you got your head so far up into numbers you can't see much beyond them..a sort of virtual mathematical reality. Newsflash though, the symbol for something is not always the thing in itself |
I'm not a mathematician, I'm an applied mathematician -- computer science. The very nature of that means I look for ways to apply it to our world, the reality.
Philosophers, on the other hand, have their heads up in the clouds. Which is precisely why they're incapable of seeing just how useless their field is today. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
So explain to me the usefulness of PHIL 105 that Reismark is taking: Philosophy of Film. |
If we return to the definition given, ths falls under defi.3, or, the general principles of the subject.Oh my, now why would someone want to learn the general principles of their subject?
quote:
I understand that "philosophy" (which could very well be synonymous for education) is very general and serves as the foundation for just about everything, but that's precisely why it needs to go. |
Yes, arithmatic is the foundation of all higher math..since we can use calculators to do it all anyway, children should no longer be taught this in school, it is a waste of time! So the kid can;t add 2 plus 3 in his head..big freaking deal! They can do it electronically, and that suffices: who needs to know the foundations of anything!
quote:
If political science courses require philosophy courses on political science type stuff, why is this not simply a political science course? |
Because the subject matter is not limited to political science: it has applications accross the board, to all fields of klnowledge. Thus it is philosophy, and not political science.
quote:
Why have upper level philosophy of logic courses? Just what the hell do they hope to accomplish by bickering over syntax and being able to find utterly-important paradoxes like saying "I am lying", or whatever... |
It would be reall nice for an individual, when asked to exlain the basis for their arguement, to give either an answer, or more likely, a logical arguement for its validity. Philosophy might lead you to a bunch of paradoxes, but in tackling these you are able to decide what you believe, and then be able to back up any other beliefs based on this higher up in the chain of ideas.
quote:
I'm not a mathematician, I'm an applied mathematician -- computer science. The very nature of that means I look for ways to apply it to our world, the reality. |
Computers aren;t the real world either boy.
quote:
Philosophers, on the other hand, have their heads up in the clouds. Which is precisely why they're incapable of seeing just how useless their field is today. |
Philosophy is as usefull today as it was in 300bc, and as long as man strives for knowledge beyond faith, it will remain as usefull.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
If we return to the definition given, ths falls under defi.3, or, the general principles of the subject.Oh my, now why would someone want to learn the general principles of their subject? |
Why is it only possible to learn general principles of your studies under a philosophy department?
quote:
Yes, arithmatic is the foundation of all higher math..since we can use calculators to do it all anyway, children should no longer be taught this in school, it is a waste of time! So the kid can;t add 2 plus 3 in his head..big freaking deal! They can do it electronically, and that suffices: who needs to know the foundations of anything! |
Strawman! I agree completely that basic arithmetic should not be taught in university as well as philosophy. See, I am consistent. 
quote:
Because the subject matter is not limited to political science: it has applications accross the board, to all fields of klnowledge. Thus it is philosophy, and not political science. |
How is neoconservatism vs. liberalism philosophy and not political science?
quote:
It would be reall nice for an individual, when asked to exlain the basis for their arguement, to give either an answer, or more likely, a logical arguement for its validity. |
But the philosopy TEACHER can't give the basis for his argument, nor a logical argument for its validity. So why is he teaching this crap??
quote:
Computers aren;t the real world either boy. |
So Agathon believes computers will not exist in 100 years, and you believe they don't exist...period.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Why is it only possible to learn general principles of your studies under a philosophy department? |
Because maybe someone in the visual arts department ddin;t crosslist this class? or maybe cause some prof. in the philosophy dept. wanted to talk about film?
quote:
Strawman! I agree completely that basic arithmetic should not be taught in university as well as philosophy. See, I am consistent. |
When you find me an elementary school that teaches it's kids philosophy, we can talk about it no longer being in a university. But beyond this, i find your point incredible: you acknowledge philosophy to be the basis, yet you deny then the importance of learning the basis?
quote:
How is neoconservatism vs. liberalism philosophy and not political science? |
Becuase the differences are based on a world view difference. Poli Sci by itself is a focus on how government works, how states interact, how political power is wielded. Now, there are disagreements about how to use power based on differing world-views, and this is where philosophy enters pol sci.
quote:
But the philosopy TEACHER can't give the basis for his argument, nor a logical argument for its validity. So why is he teaching this crap?? |
Actually, any good philosopher can do these things.
quote:
So Agathon believes computers will not exist in 100 years, and you believe they don't exist...period. |
Maybe you should take a class in grammar as well as more philosophy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
When you find me an elementary school that teaches it's kids philosophy, we can talk about it no longer being in a university. |
Hey, it was your strawman, not mine...
quote:
But beyond this, i find your point incredible: you acknowledge philosophy to be the basis, yet you deny then the importance of learning the basis? |
Because it's not necessary. It was the basis of all of the fields, which have since evolved and matured and are now on their own. Learning the basis with philosophy is like talking to your great great great great great great grandfather about computers these days. It's not exactly the best way to go about it, even if he was somehow the basis...
quote:
Maybe you should take a class in grammar as well as more philosophy. |
You're the one with about 100 spelling mistakes and counting in this thread, but you don't see me sinking to that level and picking on it. Does that say something for how strong your case is?
Do you also understand what a wink means? Would you like another philosophy class on the purpose of a wink, is that the only way your type can understand that?
Sheesh.
(And your comment that "computers aren't the real world" is ridiculous on so many levels...)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Hmm, so now we are getting to more basic issues.
The analogy is false.Beyond the nitpicky arguement that there was no computing that many generations ago, the fact is that the field we are speaking of, KNOWLEDGE, remains similar enough so that the ideas of someone 2000 years ago are valid. The basis of all science today is the scientific method: this is a philosophical creation. Someone centuries ago decided and create an arguement for why the only knowledge to be trusted is that which one experiments on. This is a philosophical arguement. It seems impossible to me to attempt to teach science without teaching the scientific method: how then can you trust that students will understand the basis for what they are doing? Ditto for philosophy and all fields. |
Scientific method is taught in jr. high and high school, at least here...philosophy, in the university level, is practically the antithesis of the scientific method. You can't prove much of anything, so you try to make convincing arguments. It's a high school debate club with a larger vocabulary.
quote:
I was questioning your reading comprehension, not how you structure your sentences or spelling. |
But the glorious irony is it was you who did not comprehend. 
quote:
And true in so many others. |
Computers are not the real world, that much is obvious.
Philosophy is not the real world.
In fact, the only thing that is the real world is the real world itself.
Boy, semantics shur iz phun. I be a filosofer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Scientific method is taught in jr. high and high school, at least here...philosophy, in the university level, is practically the antithesis of the scientific method. You can't prove much of anything, so you try to make convincing arguments. It's a high school debate club with a larger vocabulary. |
Yawn. It is at the university level that one gets to argue whether empirical knowledge is more valid or not. In essence, you demand empirical knowlegde to come from philosophy (which I infer from your statement about "prove"), which is not going to happen. So we come back to your biases and preferences coloring your view of this subject.
quote:
But the glorious irony is it was you who did not comprehend. |
It is not writen anywhere that placing a smiley means the other posetr must respond in the same spirit of the post. I chose to disregard the smiley, as is my perogative.
quote:
Computers are not the real world, that much is obvious.
Philosophy is not the real world.
In fact, the only thing that is the real world is the real world itself.
Boy, semantics shur iz phun. I be a filosofer. |
A lousy one, yes. You are learning a bunch of mathematical rules so that later in life you imput a bunch of numbers and symbols into an electronic machine so that then you get the desired output, be it more symbols and numbers, or something sensual, or an action. Someone with a different bias vs. symbols can very easily claim what you do is nothing but mumbo jumbo.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-09-2003 00:33
|