Moderated Is belief itself dangerous for your brain? (A rethink is in order)

[The Norseman]

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/sA6PAz9.jpg[/qimg]

What nonsense.

I have not mentioned anywhere, that my degree was of the online aligned nature.


FOOTNOTE:
A degree in computer science from the university of the West Indies, is not that difficult to attain.

Again you misunderstand. I never said you "obtained" that degree through an online curriculum. The only way one could get such a CS degree from that university is face-to-face. So, which campus did you "earn" your CS degree?

I needn't lie, regarding my uwi status.

Here is my student uwi email:
jordan.bennett@mymona.uwi.edu

Who cares about the email?

What would be RELEVANT and much more CONVINCING is if you post your transcripts — the classes you took and the grades you received. That should be easy enough as you have all that available online and it would make it easy to demonstrate to everyone here how your schooling is applicable to your so-called theories and "expertise."

Believing you're a god, because you can redefine God to mean 'person', is scientific and not based on belief because... word salad. Sure.

And about that degree, I don't see what others are seeing, what's the proof that it's fake?

There is no straightforward proof. The degree looks fake and even matches the sample one sold online as I linked to. There are no other indicators that he graduated from that school legitimately. His English is mangled and sad and no instructor/prof/teacher I ever knew would pass a single one if he wrote papers anything like as he writes here.

So no smoking gun, just a good chunk of circumstantial evidence.

I think The Norseman was preemptively addressing a possible counterclaim, that you earned the degree online and that is why the diploma looks like it came off the back of a box of breakfast cereal.

Yes, thank you, that's exactly why I mentioned it. Usually (but not always) universities with multiple campuses mention which campus the work was done at. I'm not willing to do more research to see if that's the case here with UWI, but I would bet good money that they do. Sort of like saying "UC- Berkeley" to distinguish it from other University of California campuses.

Telling us which campus the degree was earned would help establish the legitimacy of his CS degree; but even if it's true, it would only make me sad that UWI would actually grant a bachelor degree to someone who cannot properly express him or herself with the English language.

Agreed, and you are claiming no relevant expertise on the subject of CS. UWI's website does list Computer Science as a standalone program, too, at the St Augustine and Cave Hill schools (linked below).
http://apps.uwi.edu/programmes/

Strange I missed that. I stand corrected.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

There is no straightforward proof. The degree looks fake and even matches the sample one sold online as I linked to. There are no other indicators that he graduated from that school legitimately. His English is mangled and sad and no instructor/prof/teacher I ever knew would pass a single one if he wrote papers anything like as he writes here.

So no smoking gun, just a good chunk of circumstantial evidence.

That there are fake degrees for a sequence of real universities, does not suddenly invalidate my Computer Science degree via UWI Mona Campus.

Yes, thank you, that's exactly why I mentioned it. Usually (but not always) universities with multiple campuses mention which campus the work was done at. I'm not willing to do more research to see if that's the case here with UWI, but I would bet good money that they do. Sort of like saying "UC- Berkeley" to distinguish it from other University of California campuses.

Telling us which campus the degree was earned would help establish the legitimacy of his CS degree; but even if it's true, it would only make me sad that UWI would actually grant a bachelor degree to someone who cannot properly express him or herself with the English language.


Strange I missed that. I stand corrected.

Yes, your invalid expressions were incorrect.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Then don't claim any great expertise on the basis of one. As I said, you would be qualified to apply for a junior software developer position in my organization, but certainly not as any sort of scientist. And yes, I hire scientists -- I have two full-time physicists (PhD level) on my staff. The general-education classes you may have taken as part of a baccalaureate may have given you some rudimentary knowledge of various other sciences, and an introduction to scientific methodology. But it does not bestow any elevated qualification. You may safely assume that most if not all your critics here have at least a similar level of education.

Thirty years ago you could call computer science something of a science. The programs that arose out of mathematics departments required their graduates to understand a great deal of the theory that makes computing work. Conversely, the programs that arose out of engineering departments often required their graduates to complete the core engineering curriculum, which is intensely rigorous. While neither of these is especially congruent with the classic sciences such as physics, chemistry, or with the social sciences such as psychology and some forms of economics, they nevertheless required a substantial rigor of thought.

You can still get this in modern computer science curricula, but only at the graduate level from what I've seen. Most modern undergraduate computer science programs seem to have been diluted to little more than vocational training, which to me is a disappointment. I suspect there may be a reason for it, but it's still disappointing.

As I had prior expressed here, the CS program in UWI was but somewhat disappointing.

[IMGw=350]http://i.imgur.com/kHuXEPE.jpg[/IMGw]

However, I hadn't ended my education amidst UWI Mona's scope:

(1) I separately, independently studied some regime of quantum computing:

https://www.quora.com/How-does-quantum-computing-work/answer/Jordan-Bennett-9


(2) I separately, independently studied machine learning:

https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/SIMPLE-NEURAL-NETWORK
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/EJECTION-FRACTION-IRREGULARITY-DETECTION-MODEL
https://github.com/JordanMicahBennett/God



FOOTNOTE:

That belief opposes science, (the topic par the original post) is valid, regardless of my CS degree's status.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

No, not odd at all. You're proffering a questionable diploma as proof of expertise in an unrelated field. Computer science is not a science in the sense that it does not generally rely upon teaching and applying the scientific method. It used to be something of a science, but these days it seems to be little more than vocational training. Proffering a questionable and inapplicable credential suggests an irrational desire to be accepted as an expert. People who appear desperate to be seen as experts generally have the poorest claim to expertise. Facts have been presented which challenge your claim to whatever expertise you're claiming, for whatever reason. You did not explain those facts, so no, it's not at all odd to continue question your claim on the basis of evidence provided. Can you explain why your diploma resembles those that can be purchased online, right down to the snippets of poorly redacted signtures? If you're holding up a CS diploma as a special qualification in general science -- no. That's a non-starter. You got no more applicable scientific training than anyone else who also went to a college.



Nope.

I taught computer science classes at a major American university -- one of the first original Internet sites. You're using the word "encode" completely incorrectly. What you mean is that you code them. "Coding" is the practice of expressing an algorithm in an interpretable programming language. Encoding, in contrast, is the technique of representing higher-order information as bit patterns corresponding to computable units. Unicode, for example, is an encoding. A program that works on Unicode strings would be said to have been coded.

I went to GitHub and looked at the toy programs you have there. Sorry, not impressed. They're straightforward implementations of existing basic algorithms, at least some of them apparently contributed to by others. That does not make you a scientist. In my organization that would qualify you to apply for a junior programmer position, but for reasons all too apparent here I doubt you'd pass the interview. If you're trying to pass yourself off as a scientist apart from code-monkey practicum, don't bother. You are to a scientist as an apprentice carpenter is to an architect. Certainly not a basis from which to suggest we should accept your psychology navel-gazing as the product of an appropriately trained and tested author.

[IMGw=350]http://i.imgur.com/P9OKdTN.jpg[/IMGw]

(1)
I am a computer scientist, for I possess a degree in such a field, and I solve tasks by applying computer science.


(2)
On google's outcome, encode means to put information into some other form.


(3)
It is typical for scientists to utilize formulas established by prior scientists.


(4)
Regardless of your feelings, Computer Science is not surprisingly, a science.



(5)

[IMGw=500]http://i.imgur.com/xJZcIAu.png[/IMGw]

It is not typical for an undergraduate CS student to possess some range of detailed mathematical knowledge, regarding quantum computing.

https://www.quora.com/How-does-quantum-computing-work/answer/Jordan-Bennett-9





FOOTNOTE:

That belief opposes science, (the topic par the original post) is valid, regardless of my CS degree's status.

 

[Aridas]

As is evident, mythology is ancient science.

Except for the part where it's NOT evident in the first place and your attempt to push that claim is in complete contradiction with your evidence concern line of argument regarding belief. Sadly enough, this is a case where the evidence concern line of argument is somewhat relevant, unlike how you've been using it. The stories classified as mythological have no concern for evidence in the first place, after all, unlike the actual ancient sciences which had at least some.

That mythological components were purged from science, does not suddenly render mythology separate from ancient science.

That's not much of a counter for the fact that the stories that count as mythology weren't science in the first place. It's not that they would stop being science, it's that they were never science and that they cannot be retroactively called science because some science used elements from them.

Quite the invalid response, of yours.

See the cosmological argument (source).

By extension, that a model is semantically updatable, does not suddenly render the updating to be non-scientific.

To get this response, you entirely ignored what I said. Is attempting to take a part of a sentence out of the context provided by the full statement anything other than dishonest? Your reading comprehension is so terrible that it strains credibility. Enough so that I couldn't trust your assessment of any scientific paper.

 

[Aridas]

Simply, that belief may concern science, is not separate from its entire definition; that it is especially absent evidence.

Both beliefs and systems are expressible as plans or ideas.
https://www.google.com.jm/search?q=...0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=belief+synonym
https://www.google.com.jm/search?q=...0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=system+synonym

I see your assertion. I don't see any support for your assertions in what you've presented. Neither of your links suggest that either beliefs or systems are expressible as plans or ideas. Nor do I see how the assertion that you're making would validly allow you to call belief a system.

Don't you tire of expressing nonsense?

Projection is ever a sad thing to see.

No, evidence is not "entirely irrelevant", it is largely so, as expressed in the standard definition:

When it comes to determining whether something qualifies as a belief in the first place? It is entirely irrelevant. "Especially" does not mean exclusively, after all, and "exclusively" would be the inescapable requirement for your argument to have value. Indeed, most beliefs do not depend on valid evidence and the term is more frequently used to denote that subset. Beliefs that depend on valid evidence count as beliefs just as surely as beliefs that don't depend on valid evidence, though. When one is trying to categorically dismiss all beliefs, as you are, one cannot hide behind mostly, primarily, especially, or anything else of the sort to conveniently eliminate the parts that demonstrate one's claim to be indefensible.

Your argument is equivalent to arguing that most sand is not part of a sand castle (which is true), therefore the sand that is part of a sand castle is not actually sand (which is false).

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

If you followed the link, you would have found that anyone could buy that diploma OTC for a few bucks.

Now, it happens that I still have mine and they are replete with watermarks, embossing, wax seals, etc. Getting a little threadbare and worn after 30 years service but still the real deal. Not anything near a printed A4 page that one could simply cobble together. I cannot even scan mine, I don't own a scanner larger than A4.

Now, when I was challenged, on this very site, over my credentials some years back, I didn't post any fake diploma. What I posted was my full on membership of the Institute of Engineers, my membership number, and an open invitation to anyone to simply call the institute and verify with them that I was really a professional in the game.

I supplied no phone number for the institute intentionally, in order that others could look it up independently, not rely upon some number I provided.

How many folks do you think actually checked and verified? Guess.

Zero.

Simply stated, cranks are all noise and nothing else.

Rightio, then. On we go to the diploma in question. At the very least, Genuine UWI diplomas have as a bare minimum an embossed stamp. This is absent. UWI diplomas are regularly faked as evidenced above. I could easily lash together a diploma for "Porpoise of Life" in the field of "Behaviour of Pixies" should I be so motivated. Actually, that is tempting.

As for the so called evidence of attendance at UWI, all that tells us is that our protagonist obtained a user account. So what? It's easy to do so and means nothing. Even the janitor could have such.

(1)
The highlighted portion of your response is correct.
See the embossing in the image below:

[IMGw=600]http://i.imgur.com/1HGpWHL.jpg[/IMGw]



(2)
By extension, I invite others to call my institution to verify my receipt of the degree.
Here is my national id, containing valid elector registration number:
[IMGw=600]http://i.imgur.com/Zpwa4Nb.png[/IMGw]

 

[Loss Leader]

Why are you posting diplomas and driver's licenses?

Either your ideas are logically necessary or they're nonsense. Diplomas don't change that.

 

[JayUtah]

I am a computer scientist, for I possess a degree in such a field, and I solve tasks by applying computer science.

You solve them by writing programs. That is a vocation. If you want to demonstrate skill at problem analysis and creative solution, you will have to provide more than simply parroted algorithms on GitHub.

It is typical for scientists to utilize formulas established by prior scientists.

Yes, to build upon them and extend the science. You're merely implementing the work of others -- restating it, as it were. That does not make you a scientist.

Regardless of your feelings, Computer Science is not surprisingly, a science.

My "feelings" come from having taught the subject at the college level at a university far more respected than yours. I'll keep my own counsel on whether it constitutes a science such as would let you make the claims you're making on that basis.

It does not.

Is it not typical for an undergraduate CS student to possess some range of detailed mathematical knowledge, regarding quantum computing.

It is typical for an undergraduate CS student to have a rudimentary understanding of discrete mathematics and numerical methods. Set theory and formal logic used to be part of the field, but is no longer commonly taught. It is not common for such a student to have knowledge of subfields such as quantum computing. If you are claiming expertise in that field as the basis for your thesis, you will need to lay the appropriate foundation. A general CS diploma is not enough.

That belief opposes science...

I don't recognize you as an expert on science. I'll draw my own conclusions on whether your claims have scientific merit.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

I see your assertion. I don't see any support for your assertions in what you've presented. Neither of your links suggest that either beliefs or systems are expressible as plans or ideas. Nor do I see how the assertion that you're making would validly allow you to call belief a system.

That you fail to detect facts, does not suddenly render those facts in-existent:

When it comes to determining whether something qualifies as a belief in the first place? It is entirely irrelevant. "Especially" does not mean exclusively, after all, and "exclusively" would be the inescapable requirement for your argument to have value. Indeed, most beliefs do not depend on valid evidence and the term is more frequently used to denote them. Beliefs that depend on valid evidence count as beliefs just as surely as beliefs that don't depend on valid evidence, though.

Your argument is equivalent to arguing that most sand is not part of a sand castle, therefore the sand that is part of a sand castle is not actually sand.

There is a non-trivial degree of contradiction amidst your response.

The second highlighted portion of your response above, is as I had been long expressing, by the very definition of belief, belief is observed to occur especially absent evidence.

That belief has low concern for evidence, does not render that belief is exclusively absent evidence, as I had long mentioned. (See original post)

Albeit, by definition, that belief opposes science, is unavoidable; for science is not a construct that is especially absent evidence, but instead is evidence bound.

 

[John Jones]

[...]
I don't recognize you as an expert on science. I'll draw my own conclusions on whether your claims have scientific merit.

That seems to be about the consensus around these parts. That and an exceedingly poor command of English

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Except for the part where it's NOT evident in the first place and your attempt to push that claim is in complete contradiction with your evidence concern line of argument regarding belief. Sadly enough, this is a case where the evidence concern line of argument is somewhat relevant, unlike how you've been using it. The stories classified as mythological have no concern for evidence in the first place, after all, unlike the actual ancient sciences which had at least some.



That's not much of a counter for the fact that the stories that count as mythology weren't science in the first place. It's not that they would stop being science, it's that they were never science and that they cannot be retroactively called science because some science used elements from them.



To get this response, you entirely ignored what I said. Is attempting to take a part of a sentence out of the context provided by the full statement anything other than dishonest? Your reading comprehension is so terrible that it strains credibility. Enough so that I couldn't trust your assessment of any scientific paper.

A large regime of you responses, tend to be absent research. (Research doable in a matter of few minutes)

Mythology was ancient science, regardless of your feelings or ill-researched comments. [Aristotle, etc]

One shall recognize that humans had not always had modern science; for science was once embroiled in much nonsense.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

That seems to be about the consensus around these parts. That and an exceedingly poor command of English

Regardless of that of the feelings of the beings amidst this thread, I am a scientist, for I posses a modern CS degree, whence I typically apply computer science, such that computer science aligned problems are solved.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

If you followed the link, you would have found that anyone could buy that diploma OTC for a few bucks.

Now, it happens that I still have mine and they are replete with watermarks, embossing, wax seals, etc. Getting a little threadbare and worn after 30 years service but still the real deal. Not anything near a printed A4 page that one could simply cobble together. I cannot even scan mine, I don't own a scanner larger than A4.

Now, when I was challenged, on this very site, over my credentials some years back, I didn't post any fake diploma. What I posted was my full on membership of the Institute of Engineers, my membership number, and an open invitation to anyone to simply call the institute and verify with them that I was really a professional in the game.

I supplied no phone number for the institute intentionally, in order that others could look it up independently, not rely upon some number I provided.

How many folks do you think actually checked and verified? Guess.

Zero.

Simply stated, cranks are all noise and nothing else.

Rightio, then. On we go to the diploma in question. At the very least, Genuine UWI diplomas have as a bare minimum an embossed stamp. This is absent. UWI diplomas are regularly faked as evidenced above. I could easily lash together a diploma for "Porpoise of Life" in the field of "Behaviour of Pixies" should I be so motivated. Actually, that is tempting.

As for the so called evidence of attendance at UWI, all that tells us is that our protagonist obtained a user account. So what? It's easy to do so and means nothing. Even the janitor could have such.

That there are fake degrees for a sequence of real universities, does not suddenly invalidate my Computer Science degree via UWI Mona Campus.

FOOTNOTE:

That belief opposes science, (the topic par the original post) is valid, regardless of my CS degree's status.

 

[Aridas]

That you fail to detect facts, does not suddenly render those facts in-existent:

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/iCgHF5W.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/vHcu7cs.png[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/9G9z31q.png[/qimg]

Hmm. Those didn't come up for me... but you're really, really pushing things past credibility here. Synonyms are not perfectly the same, especially when you're dealing with words that have multiple meanings, and by chaining together synonyms, you can fairly certainly get from red to elephant, which by your logic here would mean that red and elephant are the same thing. Even past that, belief, for example, is ALSO synonyms with words like hypothesis and conclusion that are quite important terms to science. I wasn't aware that system was considered a synonym with attack, though, and I wonder a little about how that's supposed to work.

There is a non-trivial degree of contradiction amidst your response.

The second highlighted portion of your response above, is as I had been long expressing, by the very definition of belief, belief is observed to occur especially absent evidence.

That belief has low concern for evidence, does not render that belief is exclusively absent evidence, as I had long mentioned. (See original post)

Albeit, by definition, that belief opposes science, is unavoidable; for science is not a construct that is especially absent evidence, but instead is evidence bound.

Your logic is still as faulty as ever, though. On top of that, internally contradictory when we get to the part where you're trying to claim that mythological tales, which have no concern for the evidence, qualify as science, which you claim to be evidence bound.

 

[JayUtah]

Regardless of that of the feelings of the beings amidst this thread, I am a scientist, for I posses a modern CS degree, whence I typically apply computer science, such that computer science aligned problems are solved.

Computer science is a science the same way library science is a science. "Science" is a very misused word today. You're not a scientist in the way the word is commonly understood. A scientist can demonstrate a mode of critical thought that, based on your arguments here, completely escapes you. You have been given basic training in a vocation that employs technical tools. You are not a scientist.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Why are you posting diplomas and driver's licenses?

Either your ideas are logically necessary or they're nonsense. Diplomas don't change that.

Precisely.

I simply had to respond to the Norsemans and the BStrongs, in relation to my CS degree's status.

As I had prior mentioned:

FOOTNOTE:

That belief opposes science, (the topic par the original post) is valid, regardless of my CS degree's status.

 

[Aridas]

A large regime of you responses, tend to be absent research. (Research doable in a matter of few minutes)

Mythology was ancient science, regardless of your feelings or ill-researched comments. [Aristotle, etc]

One shall recognize that humans had not always had modern science; for science was once embroiled in much nonsense.

So, are we to accept that Harry Potter would have counted as science, if only it was told in classical times?

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

Hmm. Those didn't come up for me... but you're really, really pushing things past credibility here. Synonyms are not perfectly the same, especially when you're dealing with words that have multiple meanings, and by chaining together synonyms, you can fairly certainly get from red to elephant, which by your logic here would mean that red and elephant are the same thing. Even past that, belief, for example, is ALSO synonyms with words like hypothesis and conclusion that are quite important terms to science. I wasn't aware that system was considered a synonym with attack, though, and I wonder a little about how that's supposed to work.

Don't you tire of expressing nonsense?

Synonyms, are, rather than opposing, quite similar, or the same.

You had long expressed falsely, of the supposed opposing nature betwixt belief/system, amidst response 253 and beyond:

A fallacious claim remains a fallacious claim, whether it's looked at once or a thousand times. The first line in your self-quote is simply false assertion. The most damning fault there is that belief is not a system, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Your logic is still as faulty as ever, though. On top of that, internally contradictory when we get to the part where you're trying to claim that mythological tales, which have no concern for the evidence, qualify as science, which you claim to be evidence bound.

No such contradiction persists.

Note my usage of the word "was" below:

Mythology was ancient science, regardless of your feelings or ill-researched comments. [Aristotle, etc]

One shall recognize that humans had not always had modern science; for science was once embroiled in much nonsense.

 

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

So, are we to accept that Harry Potter would have counted as science, if only it was told in classical times?

Quite the inconsequential response.

See the cosmological argument (source).

ADVICE:
You need avoid silly, irrelevant anecdotes.