Give autodidacts and independent learners a chance

[realpaladin]

Yes, that is the point I was trying to make.
That the value of certificates varies around the world.

I want education and certification of it overseen by a government whose objective is a well educated population.

Yep, so we agree. Sorry if that was not clear

But I have decided to start a collection of photo's of 'great certificates from India'

 

[Toke]

Yep, so we agree. Sorry if that was not clear

But I have decided to start a collection of photo's of 'great certificates from India'

I would love to see that.

 

[Holler Hoojer]

.... I also think that there are many learning styles so it doesn't make sense to declare certain styles to be more effective than others without testing them and judging by results. ....

The convergence of fields at many levels have given older licensing laws very different and negative meaning today. Nanotech labs are at a severe disadvantage now if they don't have scientists who can legally use the J.D. and/or M.D. title.

Many of us who teach adults allow for different learning styles. But, are you perhaps criticizing teaching styles? That's a different story and not necessarily open to the student to dictate.

What nanotech lab has any use for JD scientists? A PhD in engineering or material science is generally the best credential. You can always hire lawyers and physicians as needed. Can you please provide some specifics?

 

[Holler Hoojer]

That's not hard to do once you find the context of the article and quote. Give me any historical article on US History and most on Medieval Europe. Let's see what I can do with it. I bet I can top your "historian" by providing a more disinterested contextual view.

OK, here's a link

http://books.google.com/books?id=R6LcpZiSy50C&pg=PA263&dq=lesley+iron+manufacturers

Based on the data in this book, a decent industrial historian can quickly show the geographical inevitability of the steel industry development following the civil war. What was the key?

 

[drkitten]

That's not hard to do once you find the context of the article and quote. Give me any historical article on US History and most on Medieval Europe. Let's see what I can do with it. I bet I can top your "historian" by providing a more disinterested contextual view.

This from someone who has already claimed to be universally expert in all fields of science.

Do you have any weaknesses at all, lightfire, or is Kryptonite the full list?

 

[lightfire22000]

This from someone who has already claimed to be universally expert in all fields of science.

Do you have any weaknesses at all, lightfire, or is Kryptonite the full list?

Oh yes. I'm terrible at visual arts and at social skills. I'm not universally expert in all fields of science by any measure. I simply made that challenge because I estimated the poster's knowledge off the top of his head to be limited. Also, even if I got a question wrong, I felt that I could still prove one of my points that autodidacts and unconventional learners can have a better understanding of material than mainstream professors.

However, at history, mathematics up until the high end, and basic sciences I'm quite knowledgeable. I know where I have gaps and weaknesses, and I'm confident that more self and non traditional teaching can remedy that situation. I've achieved more results that way than I have learning traditionally. I have a feeling that others could too.

 

[lightfire22000]

That is prove of the opposite of what lightfire2000 is saying.

The certificates here mean nothing and you can have a million of them. Even university means nothing.

It proves that you need a really stringent body overseeing the whole testing system.

The certificates mean nothing with or without a stringent body. After all, who or what is to make a body stringent? As a pragmatist, I contend that the only way we can define value is ultimately by function. The certificates can only hold value if they represent ability to achieve results and function. Only the market and nature can determine which results are good and which are bad. A man made government cannot rewrite the laws of Physics. They can only construct their laws to affirm those laws.

 

[realpaladin]

lightfire22000, you have you forfeited the challenge with drkitten, do you just plain suck at it, or was your boast an unsubstantiated holler to brag people into submission.

AFAICS you have 'FAILED'. And this was at a test not set up by a government.

 

[realpaladin]

A man made government cannot rewrite the laws of Physics. They can only construct their laws to affirm those laws.

Say come again? If a government were so inclined they could just as easily ignore the laws of Physics.

Man can construct any and all laws they want. Then they can blissfully ignore any inconsistencies that might exist with reality.

Not strong on social studies either, huh?

 

[lightfire22000]

Say come again? If a government were so inclined they could just as easily ignore the laws of Physics.

No, they couldn't. Congress cannot outlaw gravity. If they passed a law that outlawed the Earth's motion around the Sun, the Earth would still move around the Sun. Natural laws are the only absolute laws and governments are constrained to them.

 

[Cavemonster]

Lightfire,
I'd still like a response to this post if it isn't too much trouble.

 

[lightfire22000]

Lightfire,
I'd still like a response to this post if it isn't too much trouble.

Sure, give me a minute.

 

[realpaladin]

No, they couldn't. Congress cannot outlaw gravity. If they passed a law that outlawed the Earth's motion around the Sun, the Earth would still move around the Sun. Natural laws are the only absolute laws and governments are constrained to them.

Yes they can! They would have a lot of perpetrators on their hands, but hey, that is 'law-keeping' problem.

You seem under the illusion that the human construct 'law' has anything to do with the scientific word 'law'.

Let me help you; they are not connected. Human 'laws' are about human behaviour and they can say anything we want.
Sensible or not, workable or not, human law can be constructed to outlaw the use of gravity.

The physical objects called human beings adhere to the physics principles we call 'laws of physics' because the word 'law' stuck in people's minds.

But there is no such thing as a real 'law of physics', there are models which have been strengthed over time by evidence and we have yet to find proof to the contrary for them.

These things we call 'laws of physics'. But they are by no means and in any sense 'laws'.

 

[lightfire22000]

How are those problems the result of government oversight of mechanics?

Since most people I know still have problems finding a mechanic they can trust, what is stopping those referral agencies from existing right now?
Why are car problems not "recorded and traced" right now?

They are existing, and they will continue to come into existence. However, government certifications hinder their prominence because people often think that government regulations are a definite seal of approval. Also, since people have to pay taxes for the enforcement of those regulations, they aren't likely to pay additional costs for private referral agencies. This is from market research that I, and many others, have conducted. Our government is not an insurmountable obstacle usually, but it isn't necessarily a friend.

The mentality of government regulators is built on satisficing, or doing the bare minimum. They will do whatever is necessary to keep their job without getting fired, including making it needlessly complicated for prospective replacements to do. They will not regulate because they think it is best for the product and the consumer, businessmen will regulate for market advantage. They will go beyond the bare minimum.

 

[realpaladin]

This is from market research that I, and many others, have conducted.

Pound out the data!

The mentality of government regulators is built on satisficing, or doing the bare minimum. They will do whatever is necessary to keep their job without getting fired, including making it needlessly complicated for prospective replacements to do. They will not regulate because they think it is best for the product and the consumer, businessmen will regulate for market advantage. They will go beyond the bare minimum.

And the current economic crisis is a case in point for you?

 

[lightfire22000]

Pound out the data!

...
And the current economic crisis is a case in point for you?

I can't give you formal data right now because I'm not allowed to share company information. I don't own the data. I just find it.

The current economic crisis was caused by too much government regulation indeed.

 

[realpaladin]

I can't give you formal data right now because I'm not allowed to share company information. I don't own the data. I just find it.

Good one! Though a big bag of B.S. you can always point to earlier research that has been 'declassified'.

Almost on par with Joseph Smiths 'I can not show you the golden plates'.

The current economic crisis was caused by too much government regulation indeed.

 

[lightfire22000]

Let me help you; they are not connected. Human 'laws' are about human behaviour and they can say anything we want.
Sensible or not, workable or not, human law can be constructed to outlaw the use of gravity.

Semantics is now a factor, but your premise here is still flawed. Humans are natural creations. To say that the laws of science do not apply to laws concerning human behavior is to deny the entire field of Organic Chemistry. Since Wohler reacted ammonium cyanate to form urea, the "vital" force theory of life has been largely pseudoscientific, save Erwin Schrodinger's physical understanding of life as a natural development due to entropy. Organic molecules arise from reactions with inorganic molecules. Therefore, laws governing human behavior cannot be any different from laws governing the outside world.

 

[realpaladin]

Semantics is now a factor, but your premise here is still flawed. Humans are natural creations. To say that the laws of science do not apply to laws concerning human behavior is to deny the entire field of Organic Chemistry. Since Wohler reacted ammonium cyanate to form urea, the "vital" force theory of life has been largely pseudoscientific, save Erwin Schrodinger's physical understanding of life as a natural development due to entropy. Organic molecules arise from reactions with inorganic molecules. Therefore, laws governing human behavior cannot be any different from laws governing the outside world.

Huh? You haven't understood it, right?

Laws and the whole word law, and whatever humans want to impose upon each other are wholly human constructs.

That we can not enforce them has *nothing* to do with the fact that we can construct them.

And the namedropping does not help either, because none of them as ever, ever (no scientist in fact) found a 'law' of physics.

All they have ever done is construct a 'most probable theory that fits with experiments and previously worked out theories'.

The whole word 'law' has just stuck in the mind of people because it describes the 'we have not yet found anything that does not behave different and given all things being equal, the next thing will behave in such and so manner'.

If the word 'rapuctor' had been in fashion and people would have thought it carried the same implicit information as the word 'law' then people would have used the word 'rapuctor'.

I hope you are not displaying the law of 'how autodidacts think the world is working', although you do resemble a certain Mr. McCoin (MacM) in your style of reasoning.

 

[lightfire22000]

Huh? You haven't understood it, right?

Laws and the whole word law, and whatever humans want to impose upon each other are wholly human constructs.

That we can not enforce them has *nothing* to do with the fact that we can construct them.

And the namedropping does not help either, because none of them as ever, ever (no scientist in fact) found a 'law' of physics.

All they have ever done is construct a 'most probable theory that fits with experiments and previously worked out theories'.

You're understanding of Tychism is flawed as well. We are constrained to the assumption that infallible laws exist since we research to find them. However, any law that we articulate is flawed! It is not the law that is flawed, the flaw is in our understanding of the law. There are laws, we just can't determine the correct ones.

The "most probable theory" argument is weak and inconsistent. If one determines what a "most probable theory" is, they have to use laws of probability! However, those supposed laws of probability are ultimately flawed as well. So by your logic, one would deal with probabilities of probabilities of probabilities, to an infinite level.

Things are defined by their functioned. If a law is not enforced, it is certainly no law.