1895 school exam, are we dumb?

[SirJosephPorter]

You are right - that is your opinion. I was taking a more scientific approach to the subject by questioning what the possibilities for shortening that time cycle might be if things were focused a bit more clearly at the outset. Isn't "exploring the possiblities" allowed in the scientific world? (I always thought it was encouraged, actually)

You might consider approaching Harper with your ideas, countryboy. If you can convince him that you can reduce a three year research project to one year by using a focused approach, I am sure he will hire you on as a consultant at a fat salary.

 

[countryboy]

Science is not a tool, a scientist does not worry about whether what he is studying will benefit people. Thus when he studies Carnot cycle, he couldn’t care less about internal combustion engine. To him it is just an exercise in thermodynamics.

Which says something about the value to society.

Science involves studying the various underlying principles, the underlying variables. A scientist is a seeker after knowledge, he is not in the business of bettering the lives of the people.

Yes, you've certainly made that point clear.

That is the job of an engineer or a technologist. He may study the concepts developed by the scientist about Carnot cycle and from that may come up with internal combustion engine. There he asks the question, how can it benefit the mankind?

Well, at least there a few that have some human priorities.

.
As to imagination and creativity, you are right (about needs of the people you are wrong, science does not concern itself about needs of the people. What need of the people is satisfied by studying the String Theory?).

"Science does not concern itself about needs of the people?" Sounds like a great bunch, although perhaps a bit less than sociable.

I have my own unscientific but highly practical theory on String...if you give a person enough of it, they could hang themselves.

Many times imagination and creativity spark a scientific idea, or a technological concept which eventually leads to the betterment of humanity.

The way you're describing it reminds me of that old rule: "If you throw enough sh!t against the wall, some of it is bound to stick." And I did not learn that at university.

 

[countryboy]

You might consider approaching Harper with your ideas, countryboy. If you can convince him that you can reduce a three year research project to one year by using a focused approach, I am sure he will hire you on as a consultant at a fat salary.

Alas, that would be nice but for two things...

1. He's likely quite aware of that already, being the intelligent person that he is and...

2. The definition of a consultant is: A person who borrows your watch to tell you what time it is, and then charges you for it. I don't think I'm cut out for that type of work.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

It's one thing to multi-quote. Sometimes, in the process of the multi-quote, it's quoting more than you want. In that case, it's just easier to use another method to get one's point across. I have not read back to see what you are referring to. I just know that sometimes I have used the multi-quote only to find it's more than I want with deleting being more of a job than to just use something like bold print to emphasize what I want to say.

Also, sometimes the post becomes too big with the multi quote, you are responding to lot of things. I don't like overly big posts, so I prefer to break it into two or more posts, rather than multi quote (but I do use multi quote on occasion).

As to the thread being silly, what is wrong in having a passionate discussion about a subject? I don’t see anything wrong with that, as long as there is no name calling, no rancor.

 

[CDNBear]

Don't you think this is a silly thread at times?

Most threads where SJP is telling how super duper he is are silly.

Lots of nit picking going on.

That's his MO.

I received an email today. It said these words: I believe that two people can look at the exact same thing and see something different. That is very obvious here in this thread.

That's a fact of life. But it doesn't change the fact that someone proclaiming to be superior to most, if not all others, fails to grasp some of the most fundamentally simple options.

But what do I know, I'm just stupid and use legalese to look smart, right VI?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Which says something about the value to society.


Yes, you've certainly made that point clear.


Well, at least there a few that have some human priorities.



"Science does not concern itself about needs of the people?" Sounds like a great bunch, although perhaps a bit less than sociable.

I have my own unscientific but highly practical theory on String...if you give a person enough of it, they could hang themselves.



The way you're describing it reminds me of that old rule: "If you throw enough sh!t against the wall, some of it is bound to stick." And I did not learn that at university.

I see you were careful not to answer my question in all this post, countryboy. What need of the people is satisfied by studying the String Theory or the Big Bang Theory? How does the study of these theories (which is pure theoretical Physics) benefit humanity? The answer is, it doesn't, at least not directly.

 

[countryboy]

By George, you have got it, countryboy. There is no way one can measure value to society of scientific research. Scientific research is like groping in the dark. Many times you don’t achieve your objective, you may end up somewhere totally different. Sometimes you don’t get anywhere, the research may end in a dead end.

It has happened on occasion that a scientific concept lies gathering dust on a shelf for a long time before somebody sees the value in it, the practical application to it.

But think about it, what value is Big Bang Theory to the society? How is the society better because of Big Bang Theory, except in an abstract sense? It may be 10 years before somebody comes up with a practical application of it to benefit humanity, it may be 100 years, it may never happen.

Yet we have spend substantial amount of money to study the Big Bang Theory. Scientists study with the purpose of acquiring knowledge, benefiting humanity is not one of the aims of science. Technology achieves that, and there can be no technology without science. So you could say that indirectly science has benefited humanity tremendously. But science does not aim for that. Science is pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.

Yes, I know the definition of science and have for years. Being curious about stuff is all fine and dandy, but I have some trouble equating some scientists' "hobbies" with outlays of public money. And claiming that science is responsible for every good thing that has happened in the world (as we know it) is a bit over the top.

You are attempting to point out that science trumps everything else in life, and I disagree. It's just one of the components. It deserves to be questioned just as much as anything else.

You seem to have no problem crapping all over other peoples' thoughts and beliefs on everything from politics to religion/faith, so I feel quite justified in taking a critical and questioning view of the value of science in our society. What's wrong? Don't you think it can stand up to the scrutiny?

 

[VanIsle]

Also, sometimes the post becomes too big with the multi quote, you are responding to lot of things. I don't like overly big posts, so I prefer to break it into two or more posts, rather than multi quote (but I do use multi quote on occasion).

As to the thread being silly, what is wrong in having a passionate discussion about a subject? I don’t see anything wrong with that, as long as there is no name calling, no rancor.

There are places where you and some others are bordering on "rancor". The whole thread is not silly but some of it is. Some of it is you arguing for the sake of trying to be right. None of us can be right all the time. That is just being silly.

 

[CDNBear]

There are places where you and some others are bordering on "rancor". The whole thread is not silly but some of it is. Some of it is you arguing for the sake of trying to be right. None of us can be right all the time. That is just being silly.

VI, I do believe you've achieved some of my respect! ;-)

 

[countryboy]

I see you were careful not to answer my question in all this post, countryboy. What need of the people is satisfied by studying the String Theory or the Big Bang Theory? How does the study of these theories (which is pure theoretical Physics) benefit humanity? The answer is, it doesn't, at least not directly.

Yes I know...I was trying to be kind to you in not pointing out that - to the average person (who participate in the funding of it, apparently) - it is a useless pursuit. But you seem to want to draw attention to it.

 

[VanIsle]

Most threads where SJP is telling how super duper he is are silly.

That's his MO.

That's a fact of life. But it doesn't change the fact that someone proclaiming to be superior to most, if not all others, fails to grasp some of the most fundamentally simple options.

But what do I know, I'm just stupid and use legalese to look smart, right VI?

You should knock it off Bear. I'm not here to start a fight with you. Why do you always try to pick a fight with me? I made a comment and it was not against you in any way.

 

[countryboy]

There are places where you and some others are bordering on "rancor". The whole thread is not silly but some of it is. Some of it is you arguing for the sake of trying to be right. None of us can be right all the time. That is just being silly.

Actually, I thought a lot of interesting viewpoints were being surfaced in this thread. Sure, some of it gets a bit strongly-worded at times, but that's all part of a "passionate discourse", don't you think? At least it's proceeding on topic...that is, education (which includes science) and how it looks these days.

 

[CDNBear]

You should knock it off Bear. I'm not here to start a fight with you. Why do you always try to pick a fight with me? I made a comment and it was not against you in any way.

I'm not trying to pick a fight VI. Just sounding off about how you view me.

In fact, I just complimented you on your profound vision.

 

[mt_pockets1000]

WRONG, they are equally important, I just put the point across they were more important to counteract your assertion that the engineer/scientist was more important. The machine is of absolutely no value if it won't continue running.

I hear ya JLM.

I've been an electrical technologist and designer for 13 years. I work hand in hand with electrical, mechanical and structural engineers, as well as architects. At any one time I can be working on 5-6 projects with a different engineer overseeing each one. Not one boss but 6. It's a real challenge.

A technologist can now achieve a Registered Professional Technologist (RPT) designation which allows you to stamp and sign engineered drawings. Finally, the industry is recognizing our contributions. You're right. We do the same work as an engineer and more. Too many times I've seen an engineer take credit for work that he hardly touched while I burn the midnight oil to put the drawings in his hands. And all because of those little letters after his name.

 

[VanIsle]

I'm not trying to pick a fight VI. Just sounding off about how you view me.

In fact, I just complimented you on your profound vision.

I thank you for the compliment. I can say with all honesty - you really don't have any idea how I view you. You do seem to be off to a fresh start today.;-)

 

[VanIsle]

Actually, I thought a lot of interesting viewpoints were being surfaced in this thread. Sure, some of it gets a bit strongly-worded at times, but that's all part of a "passionate discourse", don't you think? At least it's proceeding on topic...that is, education (which includes science) and how it looks these days.

CB, for about 99% of what is being said here I agree with you and I guess all threads can get a little iffy at times. I congratulate all of you on disagreeing politely for the most part. It is a pleasure to read through and see simple disagreements where there is a little "rancor" rather than a bunch of stupid and immature insults.

 

[countryboy]

CB, for about 99% of what is being said here I agree with you and I guess all threads can get a little iffy at times. I congratulate all of you on disagreeing politely for the most part. It is a pleasure to read through and see simple disagreements where there is a little "rancor" rather than a bunch of stupid and immature insults.

Yeah, well I try but I'm only human. I sometimes am guilty of a "slip of the tongue" here and there, and I'm not proud of it when it happens.

Actually, I enjoy reading some of the "zingers" (insults) when they're directed at me as it shows the writer is losing control. And there is usually a reason for that - like, they're trying to divert attention away from their mistakes or worse, they might be changing their mind and that makes them upset with themselves.

Who has more fun that people, eh?

 

[L Gilbert]

Actually, I enjoy reading some of the "zingers" (insults) when they're directed at me as it shows the writer is losing control. And there is usually a reason for that - like, they're trying to divert attention away from their mistakes or worse, they might be changing their mind and that makes them upset with themselves.

.... or they could be just ribbing you for fun.

Who has more fun that people, eh?

Well, I read somewhere that pigs can orgasm for a half hour at a time. It depressed me. lol

 

[JLM]

"Well, I read somewhere that pigs can orgasm for a half hour at a time. It depressed me. lol"

I take it you were referring to the porcine species.........LOL

 

[countryboy]

.... or they could be just ribbing you for fun.

For sure, and that's good too.

Well, I read somewhere that pigs can orgasm for a half hour at a time. It depressed me. lol

Brings a whole new meaning to the term "piggin' out", doesn't it? :lol: Or, maybe I'm thinking of "makin' bacon."
(I always wondered why those sows had half-closed eyes all the time when I was a kid down on the farm)