4merper4mer Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 you remove the academics and you're playing checkers under kerosene lights rather than posting about communism at college. Nobody is talking about removing academics. It is the academics that want to remove everyone else and/or tell everyone else what to do. Life doesn't work that way and when you try to make it work that way it still doesn't work that way.
birdog1960 Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Because Edison's light bulb was the product of Federally funded research at the highest levels of acedmia because edison didn't invent the electric light. the first one was produced by volta, a professor. edison built on the basic science knowledge gained by academics.
DC Tom Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 because edison didn't invent the electric light. the first one was produced by volta, a professor. edison built on the basic science knowledge gained by academics. Volta "invented" the battery and the capacitor. Not the electric light. About a dozen different people "invented" the electric light, Edison merely invented a commercially viable electric light. And most of the people whose work Edison built on weren't "academics."
Azalin Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 because edison didn't invent the electric light. the first one was produced by volta, a professor. edison built on the basic science knowledge gained by academics. you're actually doing a good job of making the counter argument with that example. Edison (your own words) built on the basic knowledge gained by academics. in other words, he took a proven theory and vastly improved upon it's results. sure, he needed his education to have the fundamentals and background necessary to do what he did, but it was his own personal drive and initiative that provided the results he eventually obtained, it sounds like you're defending education, when education is not what's being criticized. it's when those in academia begin to theorize, especially when it pertains to how a society should be run, that people become critical of them, and that's a perfectly normal, sensible thing to do. it's one thing to design a system or method for dealing with things, but too often people forget that before these things can be determined to be successful, they need to be put into practice to see if it will work or not. empirical evidence is required before something, no matter how smart it sounds, can be proven to be successful.
DC Tom Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 you might want to check the spelling of his first name on that wiki page. jt6p - any reference to any academic as an appeal to authority is wasted here. the cons here have no idea that pure (as opposed to applied) science, effects much of their everyday 'modern" lives. schrodinger and einstein were just some egghead professors with no connection to real life Yeah, I'm a published physicist who has no appreciation for pure science. You're an idiot. it sounds like you're defending education, when education is not what's being criticized. it's when those in academia begin to theorize, More so when they begin to theorize in a vacuum. Chomsky's a friggin' navel-gazer not based in reality.
truth on hold Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) Yeah, I'm a published physicist who has no appreciation for pure science. Lol probably a nitwit posting on Limbaugh's forum how man's co2 emissions aren't contributing to global warming, that its all a liberal hoax Edited August 25, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack
FireChan Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Yeah, I'm a published physicist who has no appreciation for pure science. You're an idiot. More so when they begin to theorize in a vacuum. Chomsky's a friggin' navel-gazer not based in reality. What'd you publish? I'm in the review stages myself.
birdog1960 Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) you're actually doing a good job of making the counter argument with that example. Edison (your own words) built on the basic knowledge gained by academics. in other words, he took a proven theory and vastly improved upon it's results. sure, he needed his education to have the fundamentals and background necessary to do what he did, but it was his own personal drive and initiative that provided the results he eventually obtained, it sounds like you're defending education, when education is not what's being criticized. it's when those in academia begin to theorize, especially when it pertains to how a society should be run, that people become critical of them, and that's a perfectly normal, sensible thing to do. it's one thing to design a system or method for dealing with things, but too often people forget that before these things can be determined to be successful, they need to be put into practice to see if it will work or not. empirical evidence is required before something, no matter how smart it sounds, can be proven to be successful. hypothesis is the starting point for discovery in pure research. hypothesis is theory. without it there is no pure research innovation. and without basic, pure research, there is no applied research. today, almost all pure research is done at universities (by academics). why? cuz there's little money in it in our economic system. therefore, to trivialize or disregard academics on the basis of perceived lack of value to society is ridiclous but is frequently done here. Edited August 25, 2014 by birdog1960
DC Tom Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 hypothesis is the starting point for discovery in pure research. hypothesis is theory. without it there is no pure research innovation. and without basic, pure research, there is no applied research. today, almost all pure research is done at universities (by academics). why? cuz there's little money in it in our economic system. therefore, to trivialize or disregard academics on the basis of perceived lack of value to society is ridiclous but is frequently done here. Hypothesis is hypothesis. Theory is tested hypothesis conforming to observation and predicting with some reliability future observation. Hypothesis is not theory. For example: I have a hypothesis that you know ****-all about this topic. You then post what you posted, demonstrating that you know ****-all about this topic. My hypothesis is now a theory . Based on that theory, I can now predict that your response to this will further demonstrate that you know ****-all about this topic.
Azalin Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 therefore, to trivialize or disregard academics on the basis of perceived lack of value to society is ridiclous but is frequently done here. I didn't trivialize it. I'm just trying to point out that to actually create, invent, build, or otherwise get anything done, you need to put down the books and get up off your @ss. training and knowledge is a requisite fundamental, but achievement requires vision, action, and persistence to transform ideas and theory to reality. and come off the holier-than-thou BS. nobody is being critical of education's 'perceived lack of value to society'. we're being critical of those that place value on only the education and academic achievements (specifically those people who happen to espouse a political philosophy similar to your own, I might add) and worship the wisdom therein, while either ignoring or belittling anyone who places a more important emphasis on what you do with all that accrued knowledge once you get out into the real world.
truth on hold Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 you might want to check the spelling of his first name on that wiki page. jt6p - any reference to any academic as an appeal to authority is wasted here. the cons here have no idea that pure (as opposed to applied) science, effects much of their everyday 'modern" lives. schrodinger and einstein were just some egghead professors with no connection to real life I know so now being pro-Israeli radical right means being anti-intellectual too. Honestly, that much I will agree with them on
Azalin Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) schrodinger and einstein were just some egghead professors with no connection to real life I take it that you're unaware that Einstein bailed out of school to study physics on his own? he said that he did so because he felt the class moved too slowly and was bored with what he perceived as the limitations of the classroom. he eventually obtained a degree by taking what was essentially an equivalency exam, publishing the four papers that made him famous while working as a patent clerk. it wasn't his adherence to academic convention that led him to his professorship at Stanford, it was quite the opposite. he was offered the position as Israel's first president, which he turned down for health reasons. does his support of a strong Jewish state make him an ignorant right-winger worthy of your usual ridicule, or do you give him a pass for being an 'academic'? Edited August 26, 2014 by Azalin
Wacka Posted August 29, 2014 Posted August 29, 2014 I skipped about 70 pages for my sanity, Did NoJustice go up on the roof to watch the bombs?
birdog1960 Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 I take it that you're unaware that Einstein bailed out of school to study physics on his own? he said that he did so because he felt the class moved too slowly and was bored with what he perceived as the limitations of the classroom. he eventually obtained a degree by taking what was essentially an equivalency exam, publishing the four papers that made him famous while working as a patent clerk. it wasn't his adherence to academic convention that led him to his professorship at Stanford, it was quite the opposite. he was offered the position as Israel's first president, which he turned down for health reasons. does his support of a strong Jewish state make him an ignorant right-winger worthy of your usual ridicule, or do you give him a pass for being an 'academic'? this film speaks to einstein's status as an academic, the important, real world differences that sometimes separate pure and applied science and war. all appropriate to this thread. besides that it's simply an excellent piece well worth your time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BG2sDVjL1wg
DC Tom Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 this film speaks to einstein's status as an academic, the important, real world differences that sometimes separate pure and applied science and war. all appropriate to this thread. besides that it's simply an excellent piece well worth your time. https://www.youtube....h?v=BG2sDVjL1wg Just to be clear: you think your linking an HBO special makes you more knowledgeable about pure vs. applied sciences than my actual scientific publications make me. That is utterly !@#$ing hilarious.
/dev/null Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 Just to be clear: you think your linking an HBO special makes you more knowledgeable about pure vs. applied sciences than my actual scientific publications make me. That is utterly !@#$ing hilarious. Well duh. He saw it on TV
truth on hold Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 this film speaks to einstein's status as an academic, the important, real world differences that sometimes separate pure and applied science and war. all appropriate to this thread. besides that it's simply an excellent piece well worth your time. https://www.youtube....h?v=BG2sDVjL1wg @ 1:33:42 I'm afraid that video is at least 1:33:00 longer than the attention spans of the kooks on this board
Azalin Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 this film speaks to einstein's status as an academic, the important, real world differences that sometimes separate pure and applied science and war. all appropriate to this thread. besides that it's simply an excellent piece well worth your time. https://www.youtube....h?v=BG2sDVjL1wg thanks for the link. I'll make it a point to watch it. it looks like it may be interesting because I've never watched a drama based on Einstein. I'm already familiar with the method in which General Relativity and the bending of light by the sun's gravitational field was borne out by that experiment. I think that I may not have made myself clear. I'm not saying that Einstein was not an academic, but that a significant portion of his education was done on his own, outside the realm of conventional academia. he very well may not have had such an innovative or original way of looking at things had he stuck purely with convention. it was his ambition to answer his own questions, not accumulated classroom time, that led him to prove that Newtonian physics was incomplete. in fact, it was academia that adopted HIS way of thinking, not the other way around. @ 1:33:42 I'm afraid that video is at least 1:33:00 longer than the attention spans of the kooks on this board channeling Gator, are we?
Jim in Anchorage Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 you're actually doing a good job of making the counter argument with that example. Edison (your own words) built on the basic knowledge gained by academics. in other words, he took a proven theory and vastly improved upon it's results. sure, he needed his education to have the fundamentals and background necessary to do what he did, but it was his own personal drive and initiative that provided the results he eventually obtained, it sounds like you're defending education, when education is not what's being criticized. it's when those in academia begin to theorize, especially when it pertains to how a society should be run, that people become critical of them, and that's a perfectly normal, sensible thing to do. it's one thing to design a system or method for dealing with things, but too often people forget that before these things can be determined to be successful, they need to be put into practice to see if it will work or not. empirical evidence is required before something, no matter how smart it sounds, can be proven to be successful. Edison had all of 3 months formal education. Every thing he invented came from his own genius.
birdog1960 Posted August 30, 2014 Posted August 30, 2014 (edited) Just to be clear: you think your linking an HBO special makes you more knowledgeable about pure vs. applied sciences than my actual scientific publications make me. That is utterly !@#$ing hilarious. wow. are you so egocentric to believe it possible that no one else has ever published? rhetorical question. i know the answer. thanks for the link. I'll make it a point to watch it. it looks like it may be interesting because I've never watched a drama based on Einstein. I'm already familiar with the method in which General Relativity and the bending of light by the sun's gravitational field was borne out by that experiment. I think that I may not have made myself clear. I'm not saying that Einstein was not an academic, but that a significant portion of his education was done on his own, outside the realm of conventional academia. he very well may not have had such an innovative or original way of looking at things had he stuck purely with convention. it was his ambition to answer his own questions, not accumulated classroom time, that led him to prove that Newtonian physics was incomplete. in fact, it was academia that adopted HIS way of thinking, not the other way around. yes, einstein changed the way we all looked at life. he did it through the framework of academia. perhaps we need to start by defining academia. "answer his own questions" is a start. it really is, very often, about the quest for knowledge itself. and through this thread that idea seems to be regarded as wasteful idealism when in fact it's proven time and again to be practically necessary for progress to occur. Edited August 30, 2014 by birdog1960
Recommended Posts