 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by reismark
MATH 241 Introduction to Probability & Statistics
|
I never truly understood the probabillity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zulu Elephant
|
|
Politics & Media Studies
AIP2601 Competing Perspectives on Development
AIP2101 British Conservatism and Mass Democracy
AIP2202 Models of Democracy
AIC2201 Journalism: Writing Techniques
AIC2101 Media Sociology, Technology and Industry
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
 |
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:30
|
|
Okay, I've been at a meeting, but taking up the pseudo-cross again:
Philosophy is not the IMMEDIATE cause of computers. It is, however, the ULTIMATE cause, which is to say that were it not for philosophy, they would not exist. The early intellectuals WERE philosophers, period. Science is, after all, "Natural Philosophy," if you recall. They started the ball rolling on rational thought and taught proper patterns of reasoning. Children are not taught it nowadays because it has been built on so heavily that it's considered better to teach the extensions and leave the root alone. This is because people are largely stupid, or at least so it seems, that they object to classes devoted entirely to critical thinking and analysis skills.
Also note that philosophy, even on a university level, is not just people BSing about happiness and the meaning of it all. If that is the extent of every course you have ever taken on the subject, it just goes to show weaknesses in your school's program. Philosophy is a system or process, and, combined to some extent with theology, forms the root of meaningful societal change. Actions have to start with ideas, y'know...Locke, Hobbes, Nietzsche who I personally despise but let's not go there, and so forth. There's also the fact that the true geniuses of our times have demonstrated an ability to examine their beliefs, find which ones do not work, and think outside of them, as in Einstein's case. Philosophy does, or should, teach FLEXIBLE THINKING. Careful and systematic response to intellectual challenges. The closest substitute we have for it nowadays is the absolute dung you find in the self-help sections of bookstores. The people whose response to everything is to babble about being proactive. We don't have many good philosophers nowadays because true philosophy is discouraged; IMO this just means it is more important than ever to focus on an absolute determination to find truth, now that the word "truth" is becoming largely unfashionable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
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. |
What about your biases and preferences coloring your views of this subject?
I'm pretty amazed how much you can continually contort your argument, though. It's so flexible, it's almost as if it has no backbone. 
quote:
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. |
Hint to the philosophers: A wink smilie tends to indictate jest.
quote:
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. |
You obviously don't understand much of what computer science is, you get it confused with a codemonkey.
Come back when you understand problem solving and the skills needed for it. If all you had to do was learn a bunch of rules, anyone could do it. It'd be like economics, history, or any other social science. The fact is, it takes a lot of strong logic skills, inductive skills, reasoning, creativity, elegance, and yes, math understanding. If you've even done basic discrete math, which is the tip of the iceburg for a lot of my courses, you'd understand just how little is based on rules. That's why it's such a b*tch. You need to simply think about things, there's no algorithm you can use to solve the problems. The algorithm is up to you to design, which is something 99% of people on this planet never have to do. People give them a rules and procedures handbook and they memorize, or they read history and make conjectures. None of it is the same.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Okay, I've been at a meeting, but taking up the pseudo-cross again:
Philosophy is not the IMMEDIATE cause of computers. It is, however, the ULTIMATE cause, which is to say that were it not for philosophy, they would not exist. |
quote:
The early intellectuals WERE philosophers, period. Science is, after all, "Natural Philosophy," if you recall. |
Just can this argument -- I understand early philosophy was useful. If you've bothered to read the thread, you'd have figured that one out. Early philosphers are what we'd call scientists and mathematicians now, but back then those fields never existed. NOW they do, and so I ask you -- why does 3,000 years ago MATTER? It doesn't. So why do people keep trying that same trite argument every time?
Situations are different now than they were 3,000 years ago. Philosophy was useful then, now it's too generalized and abtract to be useful in the slightest.
quote:
Also note that philosophy, even on a university level, is not just people BSing about happiness and the meaning of it all. If that is the extent of every course you have ever taken on the subject, it just goes to show weaknesses in your school's program. |
Blaming it on the school is a cop-out. The program I took is a syndicated one used across many schools, developed at (and used by) Stanford. Hell, our quizes were even sent to Stanford to be marked. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
For Asher:
1. Why must philosophy be useful |
Because it'd taking taxpayer's money at public universities (I don't care what private ones do). People pay taxes that subsidize the universities heavily because it's to give back to the society, to benefit society. When something is taking money but has no use or no benefit, it's a waste of money.
quote:
2. Disinterested inquiry by definition does not aim at practical use but at knowledge for it's own sake. |
Then it has no place, whatsoever, at a public university with people's tax money. "Disinterested inquiry", the study of socks' odor on the sexual drive in field mice, and similar wastes of money can be funded by donations or private instutitions if they want.
quote:
3. The primary function of universities (which you will find in almost every university charter) is the fostering of disinterested inquiry - i.e. the pursuit of knowledge for it's own sake. |
The primary function of public universities is to educate the people so that they can give back to society. It's not a money black hole for "disinterested inquiry". Further, why do you need to be a fulltime paid philosopher to participate in "disinterested inquiry"?
quote:
4. Philosophy is the pursuit of knowledge for it's own sake par excellence. |
Redundant.
quote:
5. Therefore, philosophy is either itself or coequal with the most essential discpline(s) fostered by a university. |
Philosophy is the most essentially discipline at a university.
quote:
Strange that you have spent some years at a university and still haven't managed to realise what they are for. |
I realize what they're for, I also realize you're communist and probably have no qualms with assloads of money being poured into monetary black holes. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Elok
|
|
Land of Ramen Dragons
Mar 2003
time: 00:30
|
|
Well, to turn the question on its head, why should the three thousand intervening years matter? Has ancient Greek human nature become obsolete and been upgraded to Modernman 2.5? Do we have none of the same hopes, fears, or doubts as our distant ancestors? What's changed that makes truth then into lies now?
As for overgeneralization, well, that simply makes it more readily applicable to everyday life. I know I've found philosophy to be incredibly useful. You ever try Socratic reasoning on a kid or a teenager? They have so little defense against it, it's pathetic. Sarcasm bounces off of reasonable and calm questioning like a tennis ball off a brick wall. They try a few lame half-arguments, find that they only meet more questions, and give in rather than face the lecture and the process of having to rework every ideal they have. The stonewalling you can get away with here doesn't work worth squat in real life. It's wonderful, really.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
Well, to turn the question on its head, why should the three thousand intervening years matter? Has ancient Greek human nature become obsolete and been upgraded to Modernman 2.5? Do we have none of the same hopes, fears, or doubts as our distant ancestors? |
You're off on the wrong tangent -- the problem isn't how much man has changed (which is actually quite a lot, anyway), but how much the structure of our education and knowledge has changed.
And it's almost completely different since 3,000 years ago. Philosophy is outdated and replaced by more useful, specific fields.
The excuse that philosophy exists for disinterested inquiry is also a bunch of bull, just about every field out there participates in "disinterested inquiry" as well as part of abstract research.
Philosophy as a department is simply redundant. Redundancy = waste of money. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:30
|
|
Well, I've decided that you are either completely ignorant or just grasping at whatever straws you can.
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
Because it'd taking taxpayer's money at public universities (I don't care what private ones do). People pay taxes that subsidize the universities heavily because it's to give back to the society, to benefit society. When something is taking money but has no use or no benefit, it's a waste of money. |
Wrong.
People subsidise universities for many reasons. One is that discoveries made by universities help society. But those who fund universities are also by and large people who desire knowledge for its own sake (Aristotle argued that this attribute was essential to being human ). People enjoy acquiring knowledge - that's why bookshops do so well (look at all the weird books people like MtG read). Universities are part of the system for supporting this fundamental human need (since the regular market tends to fail at providing it).
Read my lips: people like knowledge. They will go to great pains to acquire it for the simple satisfaction of doing so. What possible use is knowledge about obscure mediaeval battles, or World War II, or the Roman Empire? No practical use, it seems, but people just like knowing stuff.
quote:
Then it has no place, whatsoever, at a public university with people's tax money. "Disinterested inquiry", the study of socks' odor on the sexual drive in field mice, and similar wastes of money can be funded by donations or private instutitions if they want. |
Same mistake as the first quote. What you are talking about is a "Technical Institute", not a University. Universities are there to foster the pursuit of disinterested inquiry in the same way hospitals are there to provide healthcare. If you don't like what they are for, then argue for the abolition of universities, but don't try to pretend they are something that they aren't.
quote:
The primary function of public universities is to educate the people so that they can give back to society. |
Why are you repeating the same worthless claim three times?
Why is it the fault of other posters in this thread that you don't know what a university is for, despite attending one for a few years. You must be pretty dense not to have got it by now.
Game set and match to the philosophers it seems.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Wrong. |
Oh! Okay! Well that settles it then.
quote:
People subsidise universities for many reasons. One is that discoveries made by universities help society. |
Indeed. But curiously, no one can come up with any ones for Philosophy in the past fifty years.
quote:
People enjoy acquiring knowledge - that's why bookshops do so well (look at all the weird books people like MtG read). Universities are part of the system for supporting this fundamental human need (since the regular market tends to fail at providing it).
Read my lips: people like knowledge. They will go to great pains to acquire it for the simple satisfaction of doing so. What possible use is knowledge about obscure mediaeval battles, or World War II, or the Roman Empire? No practical use, it seems, but people just like knowing stuff. |
Hey, that's just great! People can learn all they want. But rather than my money going to pay people like you, I'd rather it be sent on cancer research or something more useful to more people.
If people want to gain knowledge, they have:
The internet
Public libraries
Private universities and colleges
Friends
Public universities are not the only way to gain knowledge. Is it so wrong for me not to want taxpayer money to be thrown willy-nilly at obviously incompetent people to discuss "what is happiness?"
quote:
Same mistake as the first quote. What you are talking about is a "Technical Institute" |
No, I'm not -- technical instutites don't have history, polisci, psychology, etc.
The only faculty I wanna get rid of is yours, Agathon. And a university minus philosphy is not a technical instutite. Your department is not that important anymore, get over it.
quote:
Why are you repeating the same worthless claim three times? |
Because evidently philosophers are slow on the pick-up.
quote:
Why is it the fault of other posters in this thread that you don't know what a university is for, despite attending one for a few years. You must be pretty dense not to have got it by now. |
Public universities are subsidized to help society in some way. Throwing money into monetary black holes that have obviously done diddly squat for the past fifty years does not benefit society, and takes funding away from noble causes such as cancer research.
quote:
Game set and match to the philosophers it seems. |
Right, considering that:
1) You have all resorted to the same old "but 3000 years ago it was useful!" tactic.
2) None of you have provided any actual contributions philosophy departments have made over the past 50 years.
3) All of you stick to sweeping generalizations about how it spurs general knowledge and inquiry, without addressing why that can't be (and why it IS) dealt with by the more specific fields themselves?
Game set and match to me, the philosophers are knee-deep in their own **** and they like it. They don't wanna see how it is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Here's a clear case of someone not addressing the argument at hand.
Are you claiming that most people don't value knowledge for its own sake? |
You're damn right, that is a perfect example of not addressing the argument at hand.
quote:
Are you claiming that public universities should not engage in disinterested inquiry? If so you've just shown that you don't understand what universities are there for. Look for yourself, it's in their charters. |
No, I'm claiming that public universities should not fund philosophy departments since they only engage in frivilous, disinterested inquiry. All faculties engage in disinterested inquiry (I've said this a couple of times now!) but Philosophy is so vague and general that its usefulness is now virtually gone, replaced by a larger amount of specific fields which are more apt to do the "disinterested inquiry" since they, frankly, know what the hell they're doing.
quote:
Your childish bluster won't wash here. Give some evidence that you know what you're talking about or give it up. |
Still waiting on the effects of Philosophy research on the past 50 years, Agathon.
Disinterested inquiry in the other fields have turned up tons of useful things for society, but none come to mind for Philosophy. Why is that?
And why won't any of you answer that question adequately? If you can't answer that question, you simply have no case -- people doing general "disinterested inquiry" with zero results are a waste of money. Period.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
|
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Asher
You're damn right, that is a perfect example of not addressing the argument at hand. |
You still don't get it since you have come up with the same retarded argument and failed to understand the point again.
quote:
No, I'm claiming that public universities should not fund philosophy departments since they only engage in frivilous, disinterested inquiry. All faculties engage in disinterested inquiry (I've said this a couple of times now!) but Philosophy is so vague and general that its usefulness is now virtually gone, replaced by a larger amount of specific fields which are more apt to do the "disinterested inquiry" since they, frankly, know what the hell they're doing.
Disinterested inquiry in the other fields have turned up tons of useful things for society, but none come to mind for Philosophy. Why is that? |
You really are ****ing stupid - now I have to make the same point again. The value of disinterested inquiry is independent of any useful things it may turn up for society (that's what "distinterested" means). It's about knowledge for its own sake.
As I said, people enjoy knowledge for its own sake. The benefit is simply a satisfied curiosity. You can harp on about "useful knowledge" all you like, but it's totally irrelevant to the point at issue since "usefulness" is only one thing we human beings value.
Either argue that no one values knowledge for its own sake or admit you are wrong.
quote:
Still waiting on the effects of Philosophy research on the past 50 years, Agathon. |
Go through university textbooks in a number of disciplines - they'll reference philosophers (not always good ones though).
quote:
And why won't any of you answer that question adequately? If you can't answer that question, you simply have no case -- people doing general "disinterested inquiry" with zero results are a waste of money. Period. |
Zero results? The result of distinterested inquiry is that people come up with new ideas and discoveries which even if they don't prove useful in your sense, satisfy people's hunger to know. That's the result, a satisfied curiosity. That's why people value knowledge for its own sake. That's part of why we have universities.
Why is it my fault that you're too dumb to understand this elementary point?
I'm not going to bother with this until you actually address the argument at hand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
You really are ****ing stupid - now I have to make the same point again. The value of disinterested inquiry is independent of any useful things it may turn up for society (that's what "distinterested" means). It's about knowledge for its own sake.
As I said, people enjoy knowledge for its own sake. The benefit is simply a satisfied curiosity. You can harp on about "useful knowledge" all you like, but it's totally irrelevant to the point at issue since "usefulness" is only one thing we human beings value.
Either argue that no one values knowledge for its own sake or admit you are wrong. |
I'm arguing that public money shouldn't be paying for people to satisfy useless knowledge because they feel like it. They're welcome to pursue that crap with their own money, NOT mine.
It would be nice if you would actually address that rather than your constant stream of strawmen. You know, this is probably indicitative of why Philosophy in the univerisites are so useless: The philosophers themselves don't even know what they're arguing about, they just set up strawmen, tear them down, then celebrate by donning their berets and sipping champange.
quote:
Go through university textbooks in a number of disciplines - they'll reference philosophers (not always good ones though). |
I'll have a look through my CS textbooks and let you know if they have any. 
Zero results? The result of distinterested inquiry is that people come up with new ideas and discoveries which even if they don't prove useful in your sense, satisfy people's hunger to know. That's the result, a satisfied curiosity. That's why people value knowledge for its own sake. That's part of why we have universities.
quote:
Why is it my fault that you're too dumb to understand this elementary point? |
Public universities exist as a way to give back to the public. That's why the government funds them: it produces an educated society which helps the economy and people in general. When people are off spending that government money thinking about what color aliens penises are, or what size the basketballs are in a 7th dimension, it's a waste of taxpayer's money that's better spent otherwise.
I'm actually surprised you keep trying to tear down such an obvious point. Government don't fund for sh*ts and giggles (well, left-wing ones typically do).
quote:
I'm not going to bother with this until you actually address the argument at hand. |
It's funny, because I'm the one that put forth the argument, then you tried to refute it by attacking a strawman.
Then when I refuse to address your strawman, you tell me you're not going to bother with this until I address that argument.
Stunning.
Is this the kind of stuff you teach to your students?
Maybe I should be a philosophy teacher, too. I could explain to them my philosophy on philosophy.
There is a VERY simple way for you to convince me that philosophy departments are useful, Agathon:
Tell me one thing in the past fifty years, an idea or concept or ideology -- anything -- which has contributed positively to society due to philosophy departments at universities, and I'd concede they are useful.
Until you can do that, all of this rhetoric about learning for learning's sake doesn't mean **** to me. I don't like paying people to learn something that won't benefit anyone.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
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 02:47
|