maybe at your universityMacbeth wrote:
I don't agree with Dilbert but lets not exaggerate the other way and pretend that most professors spend 20 hours a day at work.
sick burn
the reason dilbert (and jay) think professors get the summers off, is because they LITERALLY think that the 20-30% of their responsibilities given over to teaching undergraduates is their 'main job'. for jay, that's excusable, because he really did go to a nowheresville college that specialises in tourism and giving ex-military a civilian career path. dilbert is more mystifying. his deep-seated hatred of academia is completely confounding, and completely contrary to reality. dilbert went to imperial college. it's probably better than your school for science subjects. so really it's nonplussing that he thinks professors do nothing. it's just a stupid petty resentment.Winston_Churchill wrote:
where does this deep-seated hatred of professors come from dilbert? academia has been doing most of the significant scientific and other research for the past few hundred years.
did you go to university? professors work well over 20 hours a week - most of the ones i know are in their office 8-6 every day and often stay for late nights in their labs. i bet 20 hours a day is closer to the truth than per week. clearly you didnt go to university or went to some backwards one and are resentful for unknown reasons
and to if universities get royalties - usually a prof signs off that the university owns his work so the majority of profits and rights go to the university for their profit
e: also summers off? lol. i have friends that work in labs here and the professors usually work longer hours then since theyre putting full effort into their research. plus they usually have a summer course or two to teach, PhD students to mentor, conferences to attend, etc
That's why, until he explains his hatred of them, I can see it as no more than a derailment tactic. Something he does when he wants to fall back into an old familiar argument.
i think he just has an irrational hatred of people who are perceived as a) "hipsters" (i.e. intellectuals with their big and complex ideas) or "wasters" (i.e. people he has encountered in life who, for whatever reason, he defines as not having asserted and achieved themselves as well as he; some contextual nuance is necessary here, comparing his own attainment to these so-called 'wasters'). in general i think he just exaggerates the STEM. vs humanities dichotomy. it doesn't even really exist, but dilbert evidently takes some pride in ignorance of the arts. he thinks the arts/philosophies/humanities are all "hipster" opinion, mostly because he doesn't decline to take any active interest in them, or to educate himself to even the most basic level. this is a schoolboy level mental technique: relegate and dismiss that which you don't understand. it's almost like it personally wounds him to admit that there's a large part of life he's not really interested in. it's all part of his raging egotism, at root: the inability to admit that anyone with different interests could also be doing something worthwhile, or meritorious, or difficult. instead, it's not engineering, it's not dilbert's interests, therefore it's "hipster".
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-28 13:45:50)
http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechn … 130328.htm
And there's a chance a comet may collide with Mars next year.Crunching data on conventional computers requires electrons. But scientists have been working toward biological computers that can store, retrieve and process data using chemical reactions.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2013-03-28 13:36:02)
I'll see your metallic sphere and raise you one Roc18Jaekus wrote:
I found this interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=ZMByI4s-D-Y#!
http://sciencealert-stage.com/index.php … ;width=600
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-03-29 00:21:11)
Fuck Israel
I don't have a hatred of anyone really, except people who puff themselves up to the point of absurdity at the same time as ridiculing anyone who disagrees with their narrow, indoctrinated groupthink.-Whiteroom- wrote:
That's why, until he explains his hatred of them, I can see it as no more than a derailment tactic. Something he does when he wants to fall back into an old familiar argument.
It used to be the case in academia that having an open and enquiring mind and contributing to the store of human knowledge - while often being wrong (thats an inevitable and normal part part of the process - closing off dead-ends helps everyone get to a better answer quicker) - were laudable objectives.
Now regurgitating the same accepted twaddle over and over - however contrived and ridiculous it is, splurging enough verbiage to meet your annual citation score - however repetitious and unchallenging, and ritually flaying and casting out anyone who expresses an original thought which differs from the liberal-left herd seem to be what academia is about.
And I'm not just referring to English Literature by any stretch, its the case in many subjects that playing the academic game is more important than getting productive work done.
Em no. Its this kind of perversion which has crept into academia and seems to be the problem, modern academia being so far removed from the Socratic method it bears no relation, maybe this misconception is where all the ridicule and insults come from.the socratic method ... was developed to convince uneducated interlocutors that they know nothing
I somehow doubt Socrates screamed insults and hurled excrement at his fellow Athenians as part of his strategy to win every debate or crush into silence anyone who held a differing opinion by insulting their education or intellect.
Enlightening eh? Isn't enlightenment what academia should be about?Wiki wrote:
A Socratic Circle (also known as a Socratic Seminar)
is a pedagogical approach based on the Socratic method and uses a dialogic approach to understand information in a text. Its systematic procedure is used to examine a text through questions and answers founded on the beliefs that all new knowledge is connected to prior knowledge, that all thinking comes from asking questions, and that asking one question should lead to asking further questions. A Socratic Circle is not a debate. The goal of this activity is to have participants work together to construct meaning and arrive at an answer, not for one student or one group to "win the argument".
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-03-29 00:17:49)
Fuck Israel
Several of my lecturers literally do not go home at night. There are mattresses with offices in them because they have to be up at 4am regularly to do data analysis. 14 hour working days on average are pretty common.
TL;dr the suggestion that academics mostly slack off is pure nonsense.
TL;dr the suggestion that academics mostly slack off is pure nonsense.
Last edited by Spark (2013-03-29 00:43:01)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Jesus spark how have you not yet graduated?
hes doing honors or some shitAussieReaper wrote:
Jesus spark how have you not yet graduated?
yep. still a year to go. and then it's probably straight back into postgrad.
Last edited by Spark (2013-03-29 01:32:37)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
your hecs is gonna be ridiculous.
he won't have to pay it back unless he makes good money xDAussieReaper wrote:
your hecs is gonna be ridiculous.
lol dilbert i was clearly being facetious when i told you the "socratic method is used to tell ignorant people they are wrong". but, if you read almost every single example of it being used in the writings of plato or aristotle, it is normally there as a narrative foil in order to help explain and expound on a knotty part of their philosophy to an uneducated interlocutor. hence i compared it to our style of 'debate', where you engage in some wild-eyed ranting about how "academia isn't how it used to be, asgagtathjaewnra", and then get patiently corrected by about 4 different people who are currently directly engaged and experienced with academia. please, tell me some more how it's nowhere near as good as it was back in your day. sounds a lot like you are one of those "puffed up" people recycling "absurdities" to me. now you've left university, you somehow can't admit that many people are there doing good work, with good aims. strange that. how the world changes in 20 years! oh no, wait, it's just you plying the oldest grumble in the book of aged old-fucks: 'it was better in my day'... how intellectual.
and yes, you've clearly read some examples of the socratic method, like i said. not at all the first paragraph of wikipedia. which is about as deep as your knowledge/basis for dismissal goes on any of these topics. lol. read a fucking book. please.
oh and pulling the "calling people names technique shows you have no point" line is just terrible. you open all of these 'debates' about academia on the most hostile, aggressive terms possible. you antagonize the debates continually with your idiotic recourse to "hipster" insults, inferring that everyone on the side of arts/philosophy is somehow a "snobby elitist". you draw lines of demarcation that are both desultory and insulting. so let's not even go there. at least we make evidenced, hard points alongside all of our vocalized frustration. you just clutch at straws.
and yes, you've clearly read some examples of the socratic method, like i said. not at all the first paragraph of wikipedia. which is about as deep as your knowledge/basis for dismissal goes on any of these topics. lol. read a fucking book. please.
oh and pulling the "calling people names technique shows you have no point" line is just terrible. you open all of these 'debates' about academia on the most hostile, aggressive terms possible. you antagonize the debates continually with your idiotic recourse to "hipster" insults, inferring that everyone on the side of arts/philosophy is somehow a "snobby elitist". you draw lines of demarcation that are both desultory and insulting. so let's not even go there. at least we make evidenced, hard points alongside all of our vocalized frustration. you just clutch at straws.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-29 04:40:11)
sciences are heavily subsidised, bro. and i get a scholarship for honours.AussieReaper wrote:
your hecs is gonna be ridiculous.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
aren't science degrees at like 3k a year?
national priority band, so max of $4.5k - a tiny bit less for me (about $4.1k)
Last edited by Spark (2013-03-30 03:44:46)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
lol Uzique - How were you clearly being facetious? More likely you were just being wrong.
I wasn't really thinking of 'my day' at all, its been a steady downward slide, more so in the US.
Spark had a stab at 'correcting' me because he knows a couple of people who work long hours - which I know many people do, your attempt fell very flat.
IMO There are too many people in academia doing too little, and in many cases in unproductive areas.
I wasn't really thinking of 'my day' at all, its been a steady downward slide, more so in the US.
Spark had a stab at 'correcting' me because he knows a couple of people who work long hours - which I know many people do, your attempt fell very flat.
IMO There are too many people in academia doing too little, and in many cases in unproductive areas.
Fuck Israel
what is that based on? give me evidence. your 'proof' is completely not based in any fact, reality, or experience. you say that academics only work "20 hour weeks", which is patently false and incorrect in just about every single way. you say that "they do too little" - can't you qualify this? what does that mean, exactly? we have already summarized an academics' main job responsibilities for you. it is quite evident that they are entrusted to do actually quite a lot, not very little. the problem is that you 'don't see the point' in most academics' research. does this mean they "do little", or does it mean that your ignorant self doesn't consider what they do to actually be worth something? there's a huge difference, there. that difference is ultimately this: the "IMO" part of your post. which nobody gives a fuck about. you aren't in academia. your "IMO" means about as much as if The Sun asked a white van driver 'oi mate, what do you think of academics?'. the basic problem is that you're arrogant enough to consider your pig-headed and baseless opinion as some sort of reality-determining force.
and yes, of course, my explanation of the socratic method as "people convincing the interlocutor they are wrong" was just "plain wrong" please, go read a few examples of it in, you know, THE ACTUAL FUCKING TEXTS, and then you will immediately see the joke. it's funny, i.e. i was being facetious. that's because almost every single socratic dialogue involves a philosopher (or more probably a sophist) saying things along the lines of "oh? you believe that do you? you take this to be true? well, what if...?" (which forms a thesis and consequent antithesis of the other person's beliefs) and then the person is slowly shown through a dialectic rhetoric that his original position was in error/bad judgement. that's why it becomes a form of instruction and a key method in the early philosophic schools (i.e. pre-textual). 'enlightenment' normally translates in those texts into a wise old philosopher showing an errant young man or ideologue why their beliefs are built in sand. normally 'enlightenment', in ancient greece, 500BC, you know, BEFORE THE ENLIGHTENMENT (which is what you are thinking of in that sense of the word, where it basically means 'rational objective truth') normally it means 'seeing the bad faith involved in thought'. i.e. a figurative enlightenment, rather than a literal enlightenment, based on a definition of the term that, uh, DIDN'T ORIGINATE for another thousand years.
but yes, please read some more wikipedia and tell me 'i'm wrong' and 'not making a joke'. the problem is you don't get the obvious tongue-in-cheek humour because YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH with the basic philosophical concept to appreciate it. so don't say i'm wrong. you are just way out of your depth. AS USUAL.
and yes, of course, my explanation of the socratic method as "people convincing the interlocutor they are wrong" was just "plain wrong" please, go read a few examples of it in, you know, THE ACTUAL FUCKING TEXTS, and then you will immediately see the joke. it's funny, i.e. i was being facetious. that's because almost every single socratic dialogue involves a philosopher (or more probably a sophist) saying things along the lines of "oh? you believe that do you? you take this to be true? well, what if...?" (which forms a thesis and consequent antithesis of the other person's beliefs) and then the person is slowly shown through a dialectic rhetoric that his original position was in error/bad judgement. that's why it becomes a form of instruction and a key method in the early philosophic schools (i.e. pre-textual). 'enlightenment' normally translates in those texts into a wise old philosopher showing an errant young man or ideologue why their beliefs are built in sand. normally 'enlightenment', in ancient greece, 500BC, you know, BEFORE THE ENLIGHTENMENT (which is what you are thinking of in that sense of the word, where it basically means 'rational objective truth') normally it means 'seeing the bad faith involved in thought'. i.e. a figurative enlightenment, rather than a literal enlightenment, based on a definition of the term that, uh, DIDN'T ORIGINATE for another thousand years.
but yes, please read some more wikipedia and tell me 'i'm wrong' and 'not making a joke'. the problem is you don't get the obvious tongue-in-cheek humour because YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR ENOUGH with the basic philosophical concept to appreciate it. so don't say i'm wrong. you are just way out of your depth. AS USUAL.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-30 06:15:51)
Uzique wrote:
the socratic method ... was developed to convince uneducated interlocutors that they know nothing
^ Those sentence aren't really the same now are they? And neither really decribe the Socratic method do they?Uzique wrote:
the socratic method [is] "people convincing the interlocutor they are wrong"
You seem to see argument as a means to put down people you perceive as being uneducated (the horror) or ignorant, whereas most intellectual debators would see it as a means of helping people find enlightenment.
I suspect this is the nub of your problem and where your various personal issues stem from.
You were being 'facetious'..... I think not, you're just trying to dig yourself out of a hole.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-03-30 06:23:17)
Fuck Israel
lol jesus christ. except when i made the reference, i was talking about our style of discussion, which is clearly "the uneducated and pig ignorant" (i.e. you) being bludgeoned to death with fact and reasoned argument. not finding any sort of "enlightenment", just being a priggish idiot that slows the entire forum down, and drags out 10-page discussions in the science thread about "what do academics do, anyway?" i would hardly say you engage in the true spirit of a socratic dialogue. hahaha. you more commonly represent the young greek youths who feature as foils in plato's dialogues, who are mostly young and inexperienced, or tempestuous and prone to wild opinion (like in the dialogue on love). in that case the socratic dialogue is less a technique used by two equals, and more like a wise old man using a dialectical rhetoric to get the young kid to 'work out loud' his thought-process... and inevitably end up arriving at the wise old man's conclusion. go read some. you may actually enjoy some high-minded humanities. just a suggestion though-- the reading, i mean. i know reading something before telling someone else they are categorically 'wrong' and 'digging a hole' on the matter may be a wild idea to you.
Interesting, you've deleted another post where you've tripped yourself up, and we were discussing Socrates not Plato.
Is the Socratic method to attempt to 'bludgeon to death' the 'uneducated and pig ignorant'? I hardly think so, you're projecting again.
If not then why did you bring it up when you meant Plato?
I was really looking at your own contradictory statements, not wiki expecially, in relation to the 'digging a hole' comment.
Why is it so hard to admit you've made a mistake?
Is the Socratic method to attempt to 'bludgeon to death' the 'uneducated and pig ignorant'? I hardly think so, you're projecting again.
If not then why did you bring it up when you meant Plato?
I was really looking at your own contradictory statements, not wiki expecially, in relation to the 'digging a hole' comment.
Why is it so hard to admit you've made a mistake?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-03-31 05:12:14)
Fuck Israel
dilbert, this was a very general insult!Dilbert_X wrote:
I'll see your metallic sphere and raise you one Roc18Jaekus wrote:
I found this interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=ZMByI4s-D-Y#!
http://sciencealert-stage.com/index.php … ;width=600
