Did Bush watch plane hit the first tower ?

[volatile]

PS: I just had a quick re-read over the last few pages and just wanted to add that even I, a doctoral philosophy student (and a post-structuralist philosophy student to boot!), can see that NB has no idea what he's talking about, and would also seemingly struggle to construct a coherent argument within the boundaries of his own discipline, let alone those of others.

I think you guys were a little harsh on arts students, philosophers and particularly post-modern philosophers - although I have to admit that people like NB don't really support our credibility (then again, Kurt Wise has a PhD in Geology from Harvard and is still a rabid anti-evolutionist, and Stephen Jones carries on spouting crap despite his PhD, so don't tar everyone in a discipline with the same brush).

NB - I love philosophy. And I think I even understand (kinda) where you're coming from, even though you're really debauching that education of yours. The point is - don't try and argue with people on topics you know absolutely nothing about. If I have cancer, I'm not going to ask a nuclear physicist how I should go about getting treated.

People who actually know about how and why buildings collapse have studied the 911 events, and none of them agree with you. You must have missed that point of your philosophy course where the boundaries of the "argument to authority" were discussed. Furthermore, I also suggest you don't understand how the scientific method (advanced, as it happens, through the philosophy of science) actually functions...

 

[Mr.D]

From Mr D -

Heck, I'd be satisfied with an explaination of how "nuance" changes inertia, gravity, kinematics, materials properties, thermodynamics, electromagnetism, the standard model of quantum mechanics, aerodynamics, finite element analysis, computer/information theory, nonlinear dynamics, or mathematics.

Wow all this sounds great. Where have you applied any of it in the question of global colalpse?

Dodge, blah blah ... (I fixed the quote for you)

Do you have any background in philosophy, logic, political theory, etc. Because all of those backgrounds are necessary to approach an event such as 9-11.

You first. Explain how you applied "political theory" to the collapse of the towers.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You mention that science can be built on the foundations of previous work, and I agree. But do you think it is unreasonable to ask for the evidence that these foundations exist? Do you believe it unreasonable to think that all science can be delineated in a gradient manner to students? Do you believe it reasonable to claim a hypothesis to be certain and inexplicable at the same time?

If you don't trust the foundations of scientific knowledge, then, by all means, reconstruct it from scratch. The information is out there.

 

[Horatius]

PS: I just had a quick re-read over the last few pages and just wanted to add that even I, a doctoral philosophy student (and a post-structuralist philosophy student to boot!), can see that NB has no idea what he's talking about, and would also seemingly struggle to construct a coherent argument within the boundaries of his own discipline, let alone those of others.

I think you guys were a little harsh on arts students, philosophers and particularly post-modern philosophers - although I have to admit that people like NB don't really support our credibility (then again, Kurt Wise has a PhD in Geology from Harvard and is still a rabid anti-evolutionist, and Stephen Jones carries on spouting crap despite his PhD, so don't tar everyone in a discipline with the same brush).

Well, part of that harshness was just the good old artsies vs geeks rivalry. We're smarter, but you guys never had morning classes or friday afternoon labs

However, part of it is also the Arts acting as a haven for people like NB. They learn how to string a lot of verbiage together, so that to the uninitiated, it sounds important and impressive, but in reality, it says nothing at all. If someone tries that with engineering, the bridge falls down, and everyone knows the guy screwed up.

It seems in a lot of cases, too many arts folk are willing to nod their heads, and say "Everyone's opinions are valid", when they should really be saying "Bollocks!"

 

[maccy]

I think you guys were a little harsh on arts students, philosophers and particularly post-modern philosophers - although I have to admit that people like NB don't really support our credibility (then again, Kurt Wise has a PhD in Geology from Harvard and is still a rabid anti-evolutionist, and Stephen Jones carries on spouting crap despite his PhD, so don't tar everyone in a discipline with the same brush).

Just to clarify, when, in a general defence of philosophy, I said this:

Philosophy can also, however, encourage a narrowness of thought and certain branches can be dauntingly abstract. Post-structuralism in particular can lead it's students into self-referential loops and an almost fetishistic elevation of the marginal in preference to the mainstream. Even if a philosopher isn't a post-structuralist (and in the UK, at least, such works are general regarded as nonsensical by Philosophy Departments and are generally championed by a subset of academics in English and Art departments, and sometimes under the new banner of Cultural Studies) they can have such a narrow specialisation, in such an abstract area, that they have little interest in, or knowledge of, much else. It is also a discipline well suited to individuals who are disinclined to participate in the non-intellectual world, with everybody else.

I wasn't trying to make out that all post-structualists are necessarily divorced from reality, but that rather that the study of the subject makes that a possibility: it's a risk of the endeavour, if you like. I wasn't trying to be harsh on post-modern philosophers and, to be honest, I don't know enough to make a judgment. So sorry if it came across like that.

I was just trying to explain how some philosophy (and literary criticism, art criticism and cultural studies) students can end up ignoring what is rather obvious to engineer, say, because their rather focussed area of study has taken them off a something of a tangent.

 

[Mr.D]

Calculus serves as an example because you can have a conceptual understanding, as well as, the applicable computational understanding. These are two different frameworks that describe the same phenomenon.

I suspect this translates to something like ... "I didn't understand calculus at all until someone explained it to me with pretty pictures. Now I think I understand calculus concepts, but don't ask me to calculate anything."

 

[maccy]

Well, part of that harshness was just the good old artsies vs geeks rivalry. We're smarter, but you guys never had morning classes or friday afternoon labs

However, part of it is also the Arts acting as a haven for people like NB. They learn how to string a lot of verbiage together, so that to the uninitiated, it sounds important and impressive, but in reality, it says nothing at all. If someone tries that with engineering, the bridge falls down, and everyone knows the guy screwed up.

It seems in a lot of cases, too many arts folk are willing to nod their heads, and say "Everyone's opinions are valid", when they should really be saying "Bollocks!"

Non-believer wouldn't have lasted five minutes in a philosophy seminar with the posts he's made so far. Philosophy is pretty exacting. With English you have a little more leeway, but you still get called on BS.

The only tactic that works (and it works well enough to get an average mark at degree level) is regurgitation. It's hard, in an exam situation, to prove that somebody understands what they're saying. This is where science and engineering subjects have an advantage - the solution to a problem is either right or wrong, and to get it right you have to understand it.

If you study Literature or Philosophy in good faith, though, it's tough.

 

[volatile]

Dodge, blah blah ... (I fixed the quote for you)

You first. Explain how you applied "political theory" to the collapse of the towers.

Well, part of that harshness was just the good old artsies vs geeks rivalry. We're smarter, but you guys never had morning classes or friday afternoon labs

We can be geeks too! Heh. You're right about the labs though.

I don't think "smarter" is really fair - it's just your intellect is more applicable to different types of thinking.

However, part of it is also the Arts acting as a haven for people like NB. They learn how to string a lot of verbiage together, so that to the uninitiated, it sounds important and impressive, but in reality, it says nothing at all. If someone tries that with engineering, the bridge falls down, and everyone knows the guy screwed up.

Yeah, that's fair. But believe me, that guy wouldn't last five minutes in a real debate with real philosophers (did I just use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Damnit!). I often have discussions if this sort with my science PhD colleagues - remember, they all sign up to a pre-existing research project, crunch the numbers, then report. Us arts PhDs have to develop our own project, justify its originality and utility (yes, I said utility!) and produce an original contribution. Just as I couldn't get a chemistry PhD, I don't think the science PhD students I know could get one in philosophy. Its different training, different mindsets, and different ways of thinking. Its not just chucking loads of random crap together, much as NB might seem to illustrate that that might be so! If it was, my life would be a hell of a lot easier, trust me!

It seems in a lot of cases, too many arts folk are willing to nod their heads, and say "Everyone's opinions are valid", when they should really be saying "Bollocks!"

The whole of humanities discourse is based on people pointing out what other people said is bollocks, more or less. I don't know where you get the idea that "everyone's ideas are valid" - if that were the case, all of the humanities disciplines would cease to exist.

I think the crucial difference (and it relates to your point) in that, unlike scientists, artists don't claim objective truth. Maybe that's what you mean by "everyone's opinions are valid" - because we're not claiming "proof" then our opinions don't count?

Philosophy provides models of understanding - often metaphorical - that never claim scientific objectivity. It enhances, and doesn't contradict, the scientific process. Its an abstraction, but that's not to diminish its beauty.

In my field, for example, I'm dealing with phenomenology - how people experience their bodies "from within". Science can, and does, interject on phenomenological questions, and I (as well as most other materialist philosophers) understand quite well that lived experience is produced by biochemical interactions in the brain. Nevertheless, phenomenological philosophy lets us present ways in which these biochemical interactions can be understood in a level above the biochemical. Does that make sense?

I accept that that is frustrating to a scientist's mind that we don't reach final, objective conclusions, but that's not what we set out to do in the first place. That, however, is quite a different thing from saying "everyone's right"...

 

[maccy]

Non-believer wouldn't have lasted five minutes in a philosophy seminar with the posts he's made so far.

Yeah, that's fair. But believe me, that guy wouldn't last five minutes in a real debate with real philosophers (did I just use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy? Damnit!).

Snap!

 

[volatile]

I was just trying to explain how some philosophy (and literary criticism, art criticism and cultural studies) students can end up ignoring what is rather obvious to engineer, say, because their rather focussed area of study has taken them off a something of a tangent.

I think that's true of all PhDs though - they are all, by their very nature, focussed obsessively on the minutiae of a particular subset of their field. That goes for science as well as art...

I've never met a graduate level philosopher who was actually so divorced from reality that they'd ignore opinions on engineering from an engineer.

These CT nutters are obstinate, foolish and misguided. This doesn't arise from their humanities training, per se. In fact, philosophy, critical theory and cultural studies would try and explain why these crazies will ignore such overwhelming evidence!

 

[maccy]

I think that's true of all PhDs though - they are all, by their very nature, focussed obsessively on the minutiae of a particular subset of their field. That goes for science as well as art...

I've never met a graduate level philosopher who was actually so divorced from reality that they'd ignore opinions on engineering from an engineer.

These CT nutters are obstinate, foolish and misguided. This doesn't arise from their humanities training, per se. In fact, philosophy, critical theory and cultural studies would try and explain why these crazies will ignore such overwhelming evidence!

You're absolutely right, I withdraw my speculations. I was trying to explain the likes of Fetzer in terms of their training when, in fact, he is the way he is despite his training.

 

[volatile]

You're absolutely right, I withdraw my speculations. I was trying to explain the likes of Fetzer in terms of their training when, in fact, he is the way he is despite his training.

The greatest, saddest and most tragic version of this tale is the very depressing case of Dr. Kurt Wise, told by Richard Dawkins in a poignant article.

Wise was a massively promising geologist, and got a PhD from Harvard under one of the greatest geologists of all time. Sadly, he was also a fundamentalist young earth creationist, and he actually sat down and cut out, with scissors, every passage of his beloved bible from Genesis to Revelation which his geologist training told him could not be true.

With his Bible in ribbons, he had a choice - reject the science, or reject the word of God.

Guess which side he picked.

 

[Mr.D]

I think that's true of all PhDs though - they are all, by their very nature, focussed obsessively on the minutiae of a particular subset of their field. That goes for science as well as art...

I've never met a graduate level philosopher who was actually so divorced from reality that they'd ignore opinions on engineering from an engineer.

Thank you for following up and posting that. I for one have no problems with the arts folks per se. My best friend is a painter and I'm actually a published poet (two short poems in a publication of no consequense - the point is that I wrote and submitted them).

In fact, I think it is just as depressing when the woo-types misapply "arts vocabulary" as when they misapply "science vocabulary." It not only gives them an air of credibility to those with poor skeptical skills but really does a disservice to those whose expertise they abuse.

 

[Horatius]

We can be geeks too! Heh. You're right about the labs though.

I don't think "smarter" is really fair - it's just your intellect is more applicable to different types of thinking.

You don't seem to get the spirit of artsie-bashing.....You're supposed to come back with a crack about me not getting chicks, or something.

As for the rest, I agree that when done right, philosophy and arts can be rigourous, it just seems that in too many cases, it isn't. That may be more a function of undergrad vs. grad level studies, however.

 

[volatile]

You don't seem to get the spirit of artsie-bashing.....You're supposed to come back with a crack about me not getting chicks, or something.

If I knew what a pocket protector was, I'd have deployed that as an insult... I have seen Revenge of the Nerds, you know!

As for the rest, I agree that when done right, philosophy and arts can be rigourous, it just seems that in too many cases, it isn't. That may be more a function of undergrad vs. grad level studies, however.

I think you're right, definitely (but then again, my undergrad degree wasn't in philosophy, so I can't comment on the general level of philosophy undergrad studies). I get the impression, though, that U/G degrees across all disciplines are actually much less rigorous than those who hold them would have us believe, and I suspect this applies as much to maths and physics as it does to humanities.

That said, part of the problem is probably something to do with what Maccy pointed out - seeing as there is no quantifiable "right answer" in most humanities studies, rigour can slip a little easier. You don't necessarily judge an arts PhD on his answer so much as on the quality and rigour of his argument (and this is where it's quite obvious how we must judge NonBeliever and his ilk!).

 

[maccy]

You don't seem to get the spirit of artsie-bashing.....You're supposed to come back with a crack about me not getting chicks, or something.

As for the rest, I agree that when done right, philosophy and arts can be rigourous, it just seems that in too many cases, it isn't. That may be more a function of undergrad vs. grad level studies, however.

I think it's better to say that it's harder to enforce the rigour in arts subjects, especially at undergrad level. In my experience, the people who put together degree courses try their best to make them rigorous and students are unlikely to make it to further study without working hard.

An example of an attempt to do this: in my English final exam on the core course (Victorians to the Present Day), every year they would make the questions as left-field and unusual as possible in order to force people to think on their feet and show an understanding of the subject. The questions were also worded so that they would be hard to decipher without some understanding. When you have four essays to write in three hours this can be quite daunting.

Despite this, the subject isn't clear cut enough to be able to assess in terms of the correct solutions to a problem. It means that people can "get by", to an extant, by rote learning and a bit of bluffing - they rarely get high marks doing this, though.

 

[JonnyFive]

And yet, so many of them use languge so badly! It's like being attacked by a 13-year old who just bought nunchucks. He hits himself more often than his target.

This is true.

Note that I used the qualifier "believe".

 

[maccy]

I now work in computers - Network Engineering to be more precise (Cisco Routers and the like). When I was working for one of the large UK ISPs we'd often have people with computer science degrees starting in technical support (which is where I also started). These people seemed to be as generally useless or brilliant as those who didn't have any relevant degree. It was the people that had taken a genuine interest in the subject and were willing to learn new things who were brilliant. Others, who may well have worked hard in a structured environment and learned and understood all the things they needed to pass the exams, were completely useless in a practical environment.

 

[Brainache]

The greatest, saddest and most tragic version of this tale is the very depressing case of Dr. Kurt Wise, told by Richard Dawkins in a poignant article.

Wise was a massively promising geologist, and got a PhD from Harvard under one of the greatest geologists of all time. Sadly, he was also a fundamentalist young earth creationist, and he actually sat down and cut out, with scissors, every passage of his beloved bible from Genesis to Revelation which his geologist training told him could not be true.

With his Bible in ribbons, he had a choice - reject the science, or reject the word of God.

Guess which side he picked.

I didn't read the Dawkins article, but did Kurt Wise think that the bible was a geology text? What a strange man. Did he ever try using a dictionary to solve maths problems or a recipe book to learn chemistry?

ETA I just read the Dawkins article and am now as puzzled as him about Dr "Wise".

 

[chran]

... no, Bush didn't see the first plane impact the World Trade Center on a TV outside the classroom in Florida