Give autodidacts and independent learners a chance

[Cavemonster]

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.
.

Once again, how does government regulation specifically lead to those problems with mechanics?

If taxes cripple us so much that we couldn't afford to support good referral agencies for mechanics, something that many people need, how much more money would we need to pay for them? Since we still have ice cream, and vacations and car bras and iphones obviously we're not all completely destitute from taxes. So how much more money would we need?

 

[realpaladin]

You're understanding of Tychism is flawed as well.

Now philosophy comes peeking around the corner? Where did I ever mention Peirce?

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.

That is soooo quoting without understanding!

The coolest thing is, that science makes the ultimate proviso that there are no laws at all and that what we witness is 'just a nice consistent string of events'.

But, it basically states what I have said, but uses the word 'law'.

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!

Not really. Newton's work happily co-exists with Einsteins', depending on what it is you are trying to do.

The "most probable" pertains to "all experiments we have done sustain this, but it might still be possible that we get a result that disproves it."
Hence, "most probable". Not a single number in sight, and still the most probable.

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.

See above, and then go back to school. Please.

Things are defined by their functioned.

A rock in a box and a ball-bearing in a box. Both inert... now what?

If a law is not enforced, it is certainly no law.

Yes it is. A good and real world example is the Dutch Soft-Drugs law.
It is most definitely a law, but is not enforced. It could be enforced when deemed necessary, but it is chosen to not enforce it.
We can get more examples if you want to.

And again, you intermingle the science definition of law with the sociological construct law. Apples & Pears.

Come up with real arguments. And eh... you still are failing at the DrKitten challenge.

 

[lightfire22000]

Now philosophy comes peeking around the corner? Where did I ever mention Peirce?

You described Tychism. You must agree with that. A philosophy is a philosophy no matter who comes up with it.

That is soooo quoting without understanding!

The coolest thing is, that science makes the ultimate proviso that there are no laws at all and that what we witness is 'just a nice consistent string of events'.

But, it basically states what I have said, but uses the word 'law'.

It comes down to the definition of a law. A true law must describe how things behave. If it doesn't, it cannot be a law. We experiment and conduct research to find laws, so we have to assume that they exist. Even if those laws are stated as probabilities, they still have to be laws, though that is admittedly confusing.
Not really. Newton's work happily co-exists with Einsteins', depending on what it is you are trying to do.

The "depending on what it is you are trying to do" part is pretty important.
I cannot speak for Newton and my history of science is not all that great, but I imagine that Newton wouldn't have envisioned that his laws had limitations in situations such as the "Black Body catastrophe."

The "most probable" pertains to "all experiments we have done sustain this, but it might still be possible that we get a result that disproves it."
Hence, "most probable". Not a single number in sight, and still the most probable.

Fair enough. Good point here. However, it's still limited. The results reported might not be the real results. Your logic implies that it has to be taken on faith. Since there is only a probability of an experiment's results matching the reported results, then one still has to deal with probabilities of probabilities to an infinite degree. I'll admit that sometimes this is far fetched.

See above, and then go back to school. Please.

I still go to an accredited university. I just don't think its accreditation is necessary. I would attend it when I thought I could benefit from it.

Yes it is. A good and real world example is the Dutch Soft-Drugs law.
It is most definitely a law, but is not enforced. It could be enforced when deemed necessary, but it is chosen to not enforce it.

Here comes some semantic disagreement. If someone can get away with openly smoking marijuana in Holland without getting arrested, then I would contend that there is in fact no law against pot in Holland. I consider the documents, congress/parliament, and government that declare pot smoking illegal to be erroneous.
We can get more examples if you want to.

And again, you intermingle the science definition of law with the sociological construct law. Apples & Pears.

Since the "sociological construct" has to arise by scientific means, I think the definitions must be the same ultimately. Sociology is a "soft" science after all.

Come up with real arguments. And eh... you still are failing at the DrKitten challenge.

What is the drkitten challenge? I might have missed his specific challenge.

 

[lightfire22000]

Once again, how does government regulation specifically lead to those problems with mechanics?

If taxes cripple us so much that we couldn't afford to support good referral agencies for mechanics, something that many people need, how much more money would we need to pay for them? Since we still have ice cream, and vacations and car bras and iphones obviously we're not all completely destitute from taxes. So how much more money would we need?

Ah, because overall our government is still pretty good. We still have a lot of freedom. Also, government encompasses many things that are good even though the idea the it is absolute is bad. Just because socialized medicine might not be a great idea, doesn't make hospitals bad. Just because bailing out GM is a terrible idea, doesn't belittle automobiles.

Psychology also factors. If people think the government is perfect, then they think that doing the bare minimum to obey it is fine.

 

[Cavemonster]

Ah, because overall our government is still pretty good. We still have a lot of freedom. Also, government encompasses many things that are good even though the idea the it is absolute is bad. Just because socialized medicine might not be a great idea, doesn't make hospitals bad. Just because bailing out GM is a terrible idea, doesn't belittle automobiles.

Psychology also factors. If people think the government is perfect, then they think that doing the bare minimum to obey it is fine.

Once again, I pointed out various problems with mechanics, you said they were the result of government. Please specify how.

 

[realpaladin]

lightfire22000, reading the rest of the thread, I can see where you are coming from.

Let's get a few things clear here.

1) I do have a University degree, in fact, two. MS in Artificial Intelligence and a BSc in Computer Sciences.
2) Most of what I know about programming does not come from University but has been autodidact. From the humble beginnings with a Z80 to the current multi-core CPU's.
3) Yes, that makes me old in IT
4) I hire a lot of programmers for my companies. And I usually do not have a need for any certification on their resume's. In fact, the best coders I have got are autodidact and I have hired them for their will to research things and their curiosity. (remember this bit, it will have relevance on you later on).
5) However, when I need to hire young guns to work on clusters with a couple of thousand of CPU's, I *need* to know that they have had experience working with them. Not a few CPU's in a pretty li'll Beowulf cluster or a pirated VMWare 'cloud' environment. Large scaling makes it necessary you *know* what is going on at each level of the system under load, up to the voltages in the wires.
Universities have that kind of setup, and few autodidacts at home have. They might have gleaned the theory from the Net, but they do not have the skills and intuiton from working with them. Like learning to be a F1 driver by playing a videogame.

So when I need to hire guys with experience and I have a deadline I do not trust a guy that says 'I know how to do it, I have the 1337 skillz'.

Next, don't get arrogant, because that is how you are sounding.
No matter what amount of knowledge you garner from self-learning, there will always be an old hare that can beat you with half of your knowledge.

And let me give you a good tip; your current attitude only gets you a cubicle in life later on. But for your curiosity, I would hire you. You would not get a high-paid job though.

Because next to the two degrees, I have a wallet that says they were worth the time.

 

[realpaladin]

You described Tychism. You must agree with that. A philosophy is a philosophy no matter who comes up with it.

That is soooo quoting without understanding!

This is just plain teenager talk. No argument, just sitting there with a coke on a bench. I just need to hear the 'dude', after it.
And besides, it makes me call strawman on your argument.

The "depending on what it is you are trying to do" part is pretty important.
I cannot speak for Newton and my history of science is not all that great, but I imagine that Newton wouldn't have envisioned that his laws had limitations in situations such as the "Black Body catastrophe."

Take a class in reading, it will help.

It 'depends on what you are trying to do, which "laws" you pick'.

You can take "laws" that conflict with each other when put in each others context, but which are pretty valid in their own.

Fair enough. Good point here. However, it's still limited. The results reported might not be the real results. Your logic implies that it has to be taken on faith. Since there is only a probability of an experiment's results matching the reported results, then one still has to deal with probabilities of probabilities to an infinite degree. I'll admit that sometimes this is far fetched.

I recommend you read this book http://www.flipkart.com/truth-science-roger-g-newton/8130909170-su23f92srt
It is called 'The Truth Of Science' by Roger Newton.

It will explain to you what I mean. Slowly. So you can comprehend.

I still go to an accredited university. I just don't think its accreditation is necessary. I would attend it when I thought I could benefit from it.

See my post above.

Here comes some semantic disagreement. If someone can get away with openly smoking marijuana in Holland without getting arrested, then I would contend that there is in fact no law against pot in Holland.
I consider the documents, congress/parliament, and government that declare pot smoking illegal to be erroneous.

And there is where you are wrong.
The reason it *is* a law, but the enforcement policy is NOT to arrest someone is that the stick is there if the need arises.
Like a lady keeping Mace in her handbag; she does not need to spray every macho guy she sees, but she could if she is not satisfied with the situation.

And you 'consider' and 'declare'. Cool. But based on what?

Since the "sociological construct" has to arise by scientific means, I think the definitions must be the same ultimately. Sociology is a "soft" science after all.

Do you live in an alternate reality or what?

If three friends agree that their treehut is the worlds best 'no-girl' zone, then that is a sociological construct. No science there.

And sociology is not a "soft" science because it uses science to create human behaviour, but it is called a "soft" science BECAUSE humans do not have to behave according to science and therefore models can not be strict.

Man, did you make these definitions up yourself or what?

What is the drkitten challenge? I might have missed his specific challenge.

My big bad; it was Holler Hoojer Just liked the DrKitten response on Kryptonite.

 

[lightfire22000]

Once again, I pointed out various problems with mechanics, you said they were the result of government. Please specify how.

I owe you an explanation with interest. In short, mechanics often rely to much on algorithms that they're taught and use them when they don't apply. There is a much longer and better explanation. I will give it to you in a few hours. Right now, I'm going to go back to work.

 

[realpaladin]

I owe you an explanation with interest. In short, mechanics often rely to much on algorithms that they're taught and use them when they don't apply. There is a much longer and better explanation. I will give it to you in a few hours. Right now, I'm going to go back to work.

What he is getting at is the "When all you have got is a hammer, then all the world is a nail" paradigm.

Based on his own experience and prejudice is my guess.

 

[lightfire22000]

realpaladin,

You misquoted me. I didn't say "sooooo". You did. The "teenager" talk came from you.

Science must apply to human behavior also. If humans are arrangements of atoms with no exceptional vital force, which contemporary science supports, then scientific laws for all arrangements of atoms must apply to humans.

What he is getting at is the "When all you have got is a hammer, then all the world is a nail" paradigm.

Based on his own experience and prejudice is my guess.

That is part of it yes. BTW, for those that are unfamiliar with comp sci, the expression that paladin uses is describing how people sometime think that there's only one way to solve a problem. That is a big part of it. Another part of it is that sometimes that "one way" to solve a problem doesn't suffice at all. We don't have a theory of everything after all.

Your guess is largely accurate, except for a couple of problems. They aren't just my experiences, there also many vicarious anecdotes of mine from mechanics. If I'm prejudiced, I'm sorry, but everyone is a little prejudiced. It's unavoidable even though it's wrong.

 

[realpaladin]

realpaladin,

You misquoted me. I didn't say "sooooo". You did. The "teenager" talk came from you.

Science must apply to human behavior also. If humans are arrangements of atoms with no exceptional vital force, which contemporary science supports, then scientific laws for all arrangements of atoms must apply to humans.

I merely press the quote button and I find a repeat of my own sentence.

Either the user-interface of this board is too complex for you, or you are rushing things. That would be minus point in your evaluation.

As to your argument. I see an "if", care to elaborate? I.e. how to arrive at that certainty? Because contemporary science makes no claim specificaly about the vital force. Just that it has not been found yet.
Don't jump the gun there.

And you have fallen into a logical fallacy as well; you use an "if A->B then A->C" without explaining why "B->C".

Let me give you an example, you seem to need them a lot;
Water is liquid, so it can flow nicely. Ice is composed of water, therefore it should also flow nicely?

 

[lightfire22000]

I merely press the quote button and I find a repeat of my own sentence.

Either the user-interface of this board is too complex for you, or you are rushing things. That would be minus point in your evaluation.

I don't know what you're getting at here. Should I have quoted your use of "soooo"?

Let me give you an example, you seem to need them a lot;
Water is liquid, so it can flow nicely. Ice is composed of water, therefore it should also flow nicely?

That example is flawed. Ice is not composed of water. Water is the liquid form of H2O. Ice is the solid form of H2O. Ice, a solid, is not composed of a liquid.

 

[lightfire22000]

As to your argument. I see an "if", care to elaborate? I.e. how to arrive at that certainty? Because contemporary science makes no claim specificaly about the vital force. Just that it has not been found yet.
Don't jump the gun there.

And you have fallen into a logical fallacy as well; you use an "if A->B then A->C" without explaining why "B->C".

Since reactions involving inorganic reagents yield organic products, a unique "vital" force is impossible unless there is a flaw in the reaction's classification.

Let me give you an example, you seem to need them a lot;

What's wrong with that?

 

[realpaladin]

I don't know what you're getting at here. Should I have quoted your use of "soooo"?

You are 1337, you tell me

That example is flawed. Ice is not composed of water. Water is the liquid form of H2O. Ice is the solid form of H2O. Ice, a solid, is not composed of a liquid.

Good catch. But did you understand what I asked of you? Or are you hell-bent on living your own world.

Because if you can not quickly grasp reality, I am going to apply for the MDC by predicting your future;

"You will be used by others to further their fortune. Your means of accruing funds will be limited to building websites for 'the next greatest thing on the Internet' and you think you have a reputation because everyone at Slashdot knows your nick."

 

[lightfire22000]

Cavemonster,
I know I promised you long explanations and I'll give them to you, but it might not be until later this week. Right now, I'm to busy to write thorough defenses.

 

[arthwollipot]

I agree with Soccergirl.

 

[SezMe]

BTW, for those that are unfamiliar with comp sci, the expression that paladin uses is describing how people sometime think that there's only one way to solve a problem.

That's funny. You think the hammer/nail saying comes from comp sci? You're 14, right?

 

[realpaladin]

That's funny. You think the hammer/nail saying comes from comp sci? You're 14, right?

The cutest thing; he needs to educate us all. Keeps quoting and regurgitating. Not a single original thought in his mind yet.

 

[lightfire22000]

The cutest thing; he needs to educate us all. Keeps quoting and regurgitating. Not a single original thought in his mind yet.

Nor in yours.

The only time I had ever heard the hammer/nail saying before was in comp-sci, I think it was Jonathan Schwartz, but I'm not sure.

 

[lightfire22000]

Nor in yours.

The only time I had ever heard the hammer/nail saying before was in comp-sci, I think it was Jonathan Schwartz, but I'm not sure.

When did I ever claim originality? The main ideas aren't mine.