|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 20, 2010 18:48:06 GMT 1
Please don't misrepresent me!
I said that it was useless if people thought it would give then a 'working knowledge' of the subject (a phrase used by someone else, not by me). It is also fairly useless if they think that by watching such programs, they could gain enough of an insight to be able to argue for or against the validity of various scientific hypothesis from a theoretical point of view (which is not quite the same as being able to discuss the experimental support for various hypotheses, or what future experiments hoped to be able to discover).
It is of course very useful in that such programs can inspire people to get interested in the subject, encourage them to read more, perhaps do some proper study.
But the technical knowledge that can be gained form such programs is often over-estimated, as was shown by the use of the phrase 'working knowledge'................
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 20, 2010 18:48:52 GMT 1
Ah, well, you see Barnes Wallis was a real scientist because he had to live in the practical as well as theoretical world.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 20, 2010 18:56:40 GMT 1
Please don't misrepresent me! I said that it was useless if people thought it would give then a 'working knowledge' of the subject (a phrase used by someone else, not by me). It is also fairly useless if they think that by watching such programs, they could gain enough of an insight to be able to argue for or against the validity of various scientific hypothesis from a theoretical point of view (which is not quite the same as being able to discuss the experimental support for various hypotheses, or what future experiments hoped to be able to discover). It is of course very useful in that such programs can inspire people to get interested in the subject, encourage them to read more, perhaps do some proper study. But the technical knowledge that can be gained form such programs is often over-estimated, as was shown by the use of the phrase 'working knowledge'................ All I can say is that you seem to have a pretty low opinion of people's intelligence if you think they are incapable of asking intelligent questions based on their (admittedly) limited knowledge. It is not so much that knowledge is important (although it is of course) but the ability to think and ask pertinent questions about a subject. I bet there are plenty of post graduates who, having gained their degree, just give up examining their subject critically. Do not confuse IQ with knowledge STA.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 21, 2010 12:48:02 GMT 1
Sorry, you obviously have a rather odd definition of 'working knowledge' if it just means the ability to ask interesting questions -- any reasonably intelligent person can do that, even with no knowledge.
Of course, being able to0 ask interesting questions doesn't mean that you will in any way be able to understand the answers, which is more my definition of working knowledge..........
Why are some people so afraid to admit that? Do you really, seriously believe that someone should be able to give a comprehensible answer to any question you can pose? Can't you see that in some cases, the comprehensible answer will be such a distorted and simplified version of the real answer? Yet some people won't admit that, and assume they can reason about the actual science based on the seriously-simplified answer they have been given. That is what some people seem to think they can gain from asking questions, that seems to be what some mean by 'working knowledge', and its an incorrect assumption.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 21, 2010 13:49:32 GMT 1
Sorry, you obviously have a rather odd definition of 'working knowledge' if it just means the ability to ask interesting questions -- any reasonably intelligent person can do that, even with no knowledge. Of course, being able to0 ask interesting questions doesn't mean that you will in any way be able to understand the answers, which is more my definition of working knowledge.......... Why are some people so afraid to admit that? Do you really, seriously believe that someone should be able to give a comprehensible answer to any question you can pose? Can't you see that in some cases, the comprehensible answer will be such a distorted and simplified version of the real answer? Yet some people won't admit that, and assume they can reason about the actual science based on the seriously-simplified answer they have been given. That is what some people seem to think they can gain from asking questions, that seems to be what some mean by 'working knowledge', and its an incorrect assumption. Sorry, STA, but the more you post on this point the more it seems to me that you regard knowledge as a kind of private reserve of those who wish to shroud it in mystique and only accessible to a privileged few who form an elite or 'club'. Now, this only seems to happen with you because such knowledge is easily obtainable from books, periodicals or, to some extent, online. So, why do you pretend people other than undergraduates have no hope of understanding the main ideas? If I was asked a question about a subject I knew well I would only be too glad to try to put over the main ideas in a way that an average person could assimilate and if not then I would attempt to change my approach. Of course, if some people wanted a more detailed answer then, again, I would try to oblige so far as it was in my power, but you never seem to do this for some reason which leads me to think that the main purpose you post here is to demonstrate how much you know and how little others know. That is not in the spirit of MB's like this, so why do it? Of course, the other possibility is that you lack the ability to communicate ideas to people other than undergraduates which, if true, means you should not make posts here because they will be rather pointless. There is a third possibility. You tend to shy away of discussing subjects in depth because you fear that your personal views will be challenged and threatened, which could undermine your self-confidence so what information you are prepared to impart is intentionally obscured in jargon and unclear explanations. Am I right STA?
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 21, 2010 14:21:14 GMT 1
I suspect it is trait typical of hermeticists.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 21, 2010 14:42:50 GMT 1
I suspect it is trait typical of hermeticists. Yes it almost becomes like a religious cult where only the 'initiated' are permitted to look at the 'sacred' writings.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 21, 2010 15:02:14 GMT 1
Social élitism, where the laity have to pay for the privilege of being pissed on . But you can gain some level of advancement, by degrees, if you pay them to accredit you.
Nothing seems to have changed since mediaevel times; apparently they haven't caught up with Bacon yet.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 21, 2010 16:09:18 GMT 1
Because they don't, once we get beyond the most basic and slightly misleading analogies.
So, let's take cosmology as an example.
The universe is expanding. Why? Because just as an ambulance siren changes pitch as it moves away from us, so light from distant galaxies has changed pitch, hence we can conclude that galaxies are all rushing away from us.
Then you bring in the balloon picture, with dots getting further apart on the surface of an expanding balloon. Except this gives the misleading impression that the Big Bang was at the point where the balloon was zero size, and that the universe is expanding INTO something.
Except now we get a bit stuck, because to take it beyond this, you have to go from extrinsic to intrinsic curvature, and say -- imagine the expanding balloon, but without the inside or the outside.........Most people don't get past this point.
Most people can only understand at a very basic, or analogical level, but the analogies for cosmology just don't work that well, or mislead. Or lead to people (based on their understanding based on analogies) claiming that some of the basic ideas just don't make sense (such as the fact that the universe isn't expanding INTO anything, or that there is no extra dimension in which spacetime does its curving).
Most people don't have the ability to go from the intuitive concepts that work pretty well for many everyday things, to the more abstract, mathematical concepts necessary to understand WHY the universe isn't expanding into anything.
This isn't saying that people are stupid, just that most people can't make that leap of abstraction that they need to make to understand the basic concepts.
It's not a pretence or an assumption, its an observation from many science boards, that most people can't do it. An empirical observation.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 21, 2010 16:12:40 GMT 1
No, even better --- intellectual elitism. Where I think you'll find that even payment doesn't guarantee a first-class degree.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 21, 2010 17:12:59 GMT 1
@sta#54 Bullshit. www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/sep/10/higher-education-universityfundingA few excerpts .... "The system, under which students have their work marked by two examiners from their university then a third from another, has been criticised after accusations that the external examiners are unregulated and often based on tutors' personal contacts. "Last month the innovation, universities, science and skills parliamentary select committee issued a stinging attack on vice-chancellors, accusing them of "defensive complacency" over standards and being unwilling to answer straightforward questions about why, over the last two decades, the proportion of degrees awarded a first or 2:1 had rocketed."The proportion of degrees awarded a first rose from 7.7% in 1997 to 13.3% in 2008. Today, the Times Higher Education magazine reported that several universities had been found to be awarding 10% of marks if students attend all their lectures and seminars. Smith said he had taught courses assessed in a similar way. "You don't want to be in the situation where people pass a seminar-based course without attending," he said. All on borrowed money, too!
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 21, 2010 17:18:30 GMT 1
Trouble is, mathematical concepts are just a provisional model of reality based on observational evidence so far obtained. Such evidence is liable to be modified in the future so you can't really blame people for preferring a more 'commonsense' view.
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Oct 21, 2010 18:51:28 GMT 1
Accept that this is the case with ANY scientific theory. And if you think you can build a quantitative scientific theory without using maths, go ahead!
This trying to make out that science is always provisional, hence unreliable, is just bollocks. Take Bells theorem and tests of them -- these show that reality is quantum, and hence inherently non-intuitive. That is not something that is going to be modified in the future, given the wealth of experimental evidence we already have that is totally counter-intuitive.
The real problem is people who can't make the leap beyond the intuitive, and rather than admitting their own limitations, instead come up with the idea that it is all some kind of confidence trick being run by scientists. That all this jargon and maths is just a barrier put there to keep them out of understanding it. That if scientists REALLY understood anything worth understanding, then they could explain it to the rest of us. But they won't (or can't), and instead prefer to pretend it is arcane knowledge, not understandable by the great unwashed, who are just plain stoopid.
Which isn't the case. The real stupidity is those who can't admit that they have limitations, that some people might actually understand more than they do, and the refusal to admit that there really is more to be understood than things which can be understood intuitively.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Oct 21, 2010 20:18:53 GMT 1
I don't know why you have to be so aggressive.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Oct 21, 2010 20:54:51 GMT 1
Abacus, you are right about the idea that the mathematical models are tools, rather like the scaffolding which is necessary to build, yet is not the building.
Anyway, STA clearly does not share Popper's view of the provisional nature of scientific 'truths'. Or perhaps even Goedel's idea that in any systems based on axioms, there will be paradox.
One gets the feeling that she wishes that Physics was over and settled, so she can get on and teach it. Maybe this low tolerance of ambiguity is behind her aggression.
And that, given the umbrage in her last two paragraphs, is really amusing, n'est-ce pas?
|
|