Dividing the universe into "PhD" and "no-PhD" is your logical fallacy. One you still won't let go of!
WTF? The whole debate was around dividing the world into qualified enough to 'justly' tell everyone else to STFU. Which condition you say makes you qualified enough (PhD or PhD-minus-one-wall-hour or something else) is not really relevant. So you beat around the bush with phrases as "extensive education" like it's some sort of completely different condition. What, do you think that for example Poincare was not qualified enough to just tell Einstein to STFU or something?
Hm, maybe I should ask you about your qualifications. But then, you already 'misspelled' a few times. So, no, I don't really care what you think you know. And I won't even bother with a wiseass like this.
Your first clue should have been how it ultimately didn't matter to the point I was making.
In context of your parent and grand parent and seeing how you still feel there is something to be told, I still don't really get your point.
Your second clue would have been how I corrected myself in a later post.
So what? Every salesman does that.
You mean from your extremely poor reading comprehension and apparent ability to see only in binary.
Did you even read, what your parent and grand parent were arguing about when you dropped in? The whole point was revolving around a guy with a PhD telling the guy without one to STFU. So which point still stands? That no-PhD can tell to a PhD, that (s)he's wrong? Well, that was kind of your parents point.
As for the rest, thanks for the warm words, wild guesses and attempts at making my point for me. It was amusing.
How the hell should I know, that you didn't try to deceive on purpose? Because you claim you didn't? Yeah, that'll do it. You either don't check your facts beforehand, or you lie. For me, as a reader of your comment, it doesn't really matter.
And no, I won't discuss your point (which you've taken to an extreme) with you. At least, from your comment I conclude, that there are only people with a PhD (or students) and crackpots. Since I don't have a PhD (yet) I must be a crackpot. But if I would try to debate it with you, I would like to see some proof that you aren't a crackpot.
Actually, by the GP's logic, Albert Einstein's PHD in Physics made him qualified enough to question the established scientific thinking in the field of physics in a rigorous and meaningful way.
Yeah, but he had no PhD in physics when he questioned it! Maybe you should have checked your facts, before you write something.
Don't know about primary school, but they dropped out a lot in high school. It was already easy when I finished it. Since then they dropped at least cross product of two vectors (and with it 2x2 determinants, we didn't mention higher order determinants), AFAIK. How will they explain the force of magnetic field on moving charge in physics class for example, is beyond me.
And there is lots of weird stuff, like you learn about oscillations in physics class one year before you learn about trigonometric functions in math class. I think they were taught in math class first at some point.
We barley mentioned integrals at the end. We could do a lot more math in high school, I think. I could learn a lot more, if the system was better or the teachers would be interested.
Slashdot Mirror
Dividing the universe into "PhD" and "no-PhD" is your logical fallacy. One you still won't let go of!
WTF? The whole debate was around dividing the world into qualified enough to 'justly' tell everyone else to STFU. Which condition you say makes you qualified enough (PhD or PhD-minus-one-wall-hour or something else) is not really relevant. So you beat around the bush with phrases as "extensive education" like it's some sort of completely different condition. What, do you think that for example Poincare was not qualified enough to just tell Einstein to STFU or something?
Hm, maybe I should ask you about your qualifications. But then, you already 'misspelled' a few times. So, no, I don't really care what you think you know. And I won't even bother with a wiseass like this.
Your first clue should have been how it ultimately didn't matter to the point I was making.
In context of your parent and grand parent and seeing how you still feel there is something to be told, I still don't really get your point.
Your second clue would have been how I corrected myself in a later post.
So what? Every salesman does that.
You mean from your extremely poor reading comprehension and apparent ability to see only in binary.
Did you even read, what your parent and grand parent were arguing about when you dropped in? The whole point was revolving around a guy with a PhD telling the guy without one to STFU. So which point still stands? That no-PhD can tell to a PhD, that (s)he's wrong? Well, that was kind of your parents point.
As for the rest, thanks for the warm words, wild guesses and attempts at making my point for me. It was amusing.
How the hell should I know, that you didn't try to deceive on purpose? Because you claim you didn't? Yeah, that'll do it. You either don't check your facts beforehand, or you lie. For me, as a reader of your comment, it doesn't really matter.
And no, I won't discuss your point (which you've taken to an extreme) with you. At least, from your comment I conclude, that there are only people with a PhD (or students) and crackpots. Since I don't have a PhD (yet) I must be a crackpot. But if I would try to debate it with you, I would like to see some proof that you aren't a crackpot.
Yeah, as I pointed out in another post, he was really just a PHD student when he wrote SR.
So stop lying then.
Actually, by the GP's logic, Albert Einstein's PHD in Physics made him qualified enough to question the established scientific thinking in the field of physics in a rigorous and meaningful way.
Yeah, but he had no PhD in physics when he questioned it! Maybe you should have checked your facts, before you write something.
Don't know about primary school, but they dropped out a lot in high school. It was already easy when I finished it. Since then they dropped at least cross product of two vectors (and with it 2x2 determinants, we didn't mention higher order determinants), AFAIK. How will they explain the force of magnetic field on moving charge in physics class for example, is beyond me.
And there is lots of weird stuff, like you learn about oscillations in physics class one year before you learn about trigonometric functions in math class. I think they were taught in math class first at some point.
We barley mentioned integrals at the end. We could do a lot more math in high school, I think. I could learn a lot more, if the system was better or the teachers would be interested.
Why would charges be dropped? The law was broken, no matter what the new law says.