Have you considered that he is probably right? Google was an innovator ten years ago, but the philosophy of don't fix what isn't broken means that eventually they are going to get a fat layer of crust.
Yes, Google products work, I don't remember him saying that they don't, that's not part of the conversation. His point is that Google's technologies are aging and that there's better stuff now, is it really inconceivable that technology has advanced in the last 10 years? Just take his word and move along, there isn't much to discuss here.
Once you start asking for money from the public purse, people get justified wondering why what you're doing is worth their money.
So in the end it's always about money uh?
Well drawing something positive from your post it seems that at least you implicated, by omission, that it academical interests ARE fine as long as you don't pay for it. The money problem solves itself in that while purely theoretical work takes a while to find practical applications when they are achieved they are plain awesome, (graphene any?) but you at least are no enemy at the *concept* of academic work.
Your comparison isn't adequate because arts are subjective and there really isn't a "right" way of doing it.
It would be better to compare homeopathic medicine against actual medicine. This is not about getting paid or not, it's about fixing things with brains versus guts, and I sure rather be diagnosed by Dr. Hibbert than Nick Riviera.
The point of the question, whether there is an anti-intellectual current or not depends on whether you blame the failures of intellectuals in their individual incompetence or rather in the very concept of education and rational analysis.
The way you respond makes it hard to accuse you of anti-intellectualism, and honestly I don't think there is an anti-intellectualism current among the geeks either. In fact I don't even think there is a movement against the current set Academic institutions among geeks, even though they are the first to know what is wrong in these institutions and how make them better.
I would argue however that there IS an anti-intellectual current going on among the working class of the bible belt region.
Yes it is annoying, specially because it has no meaning. Some people here seem to think the fact that KDE and Gnome (and GNU) also did it means that you can't complaint about Apple, when in fact it only means you can complaint about others too.
For the record, KDE and Gnome stopped doing it years ago.
For reference please be civil and answer me plainly: Age? Because you sound so childish and noobish I'd swear you are a kid. Unless senility is kicking in. Either way it would be nice to know for future reference.
Does that fact that he wasn't a successful theologist change the fact that he was one?
Did I say so? No I didn't.
What I found amusing is how he singled out "alchemist" while including "theologist" up there with the other legitimate sciences he is known for. He could have as well said:
OK, he was also an theologist. But he was probably a better statistician than you.
You are asking me to get into details which the parent poster did not get into.
He criticized "academia" without singling out specific institutions or specific practices within those institutions or academia as a whole so I could only respond in kind.
Also notice I did allow for the claim that current institutions are not following formal practices with enough rigor, but he wasn't making that claim, his claim was that it was "ivory tower nonsense" which seems a cry against formal education itself (specially of the purely theoretical not immediately practical kind.)
And while colleges and universities are not the only providers of formal education, any other equivalent institution is just academia by another name.
Please, let me emphasize that I'm talking about "formal practice" as in "research as methodical, disciplined and absent of emotion or bias as humanly possible"; not "formal institutions" as in "accredited institutions" or "reputable institutions", though it is often the case that institutions that try to practice science formally become reputable.
While you are right that universities don't follow formal process with 100% correctness all the time is correct, it is just childish bickering, as is the claim that any mistake (of very undefined natures) ever committed by any institution that (claims to) follow formal practices of research invalidates the practice of formal research and analysis itself. The choggobbles of wrong ideas mankind accumulated and continues to accumulate based on informal, and down right mystical experience suffices as counter example.
But that is besides the point, that is not important. My claim is that you are being anti-intellectual, your commentary that "nor do formal processes 100% correctly embody knowledge" boils it down neatly. Yeah sure you claim to not reject knowledge itself, but you reject formal and disciplined research in favor of what? Scarce anecdotal evidence and gut feelings? How is that not Anti-intellectual?
Also your commentary of "the foundational error of all civilisations which have fallen in the history of the world" seems nothing short of delusional. To give you the benefit of the doubt, what civilizations have ever fallen because of too much formalized education?
My understanding of intellectual is one who uses his intellect to work.
Being intellectual doesn't mean you "look down on the unwashed masses", but doing so doesn't mean you aren't. Being an intellectual doesn't men you are "removed from the real world by dwelling in the pillared halls of academia". That is unbelievably silly and childish nonsense!
Academia is not an alternate dimension where your every need is tended and you are sheltered from the world, people there are no more sheltered than their wealth allow them, which varies form person to person. Some of them struggle to make it to the next month.
And while it's true that some field within academia do not seem to have immediate practical benefits, neither does Twilight, or Big Brother, or the Thor movie. If it is legitimate to spend one's own time considering the best recons to Batmans' timeline, why can't some one spend their time trying to find out predictive experiments out of string theory?
Because not everybody enjoys learning. There is a difference between claiming education is useless and claiming that some people don't derive enough good from it.
Oh yes, Newton the theologist, Christians always bring that up, sad thing that they can't name any advances in theology or useful models or theories of Christianity he left behind.
I'd have to concede the point to the parent poster, "anti academia" *it's* intellectualism.
Academia is the formal practice of generating and passing on knowledge, to be against formal education is to be against the scientific method that develop it and informs it.
A point could be made that the institutions are filled with corrupted and/or clueless bureaucrats but you are arguing from the point of view that it is "pseudo-intellectual ivory tower nonsense".
Your need to create makes you an artist or just creative person in general, but it's the will and capability to analyze it formally what makes you an intellectual.
Since the those people aren't likely to know that Firefox is an actual animal, let a lone a panda, not a fox, they are still installing software with nonsensical names. Plus nothing say media player better than "pod" or spreadsheets better than Excell.
You say refuse to eat genetically modified food? Guess what. Every single thing you have ever eaten and every living thing you have ever seen including every single person you have ever met or even just read about is genetically modified.
Not only are every one of us, the result of a genetic experiment to make a close with mixed DNA from two different individuals, every one of us carries hundreds of mutations introducing new genes that are in neither of your parents.
But that's OK isn't it, genetic experiments and experimental genes are a-O-K when they are done by nature, but if it's done by those filthy humans? No THAT is not OK.
What are you talking about? Some disciplines are a subset of others, that is an unavoidable fact. Now it can happen that an specialist can have better insight about his specialty than a generalist, this is not the case of the lesser disciple being better, equal nor even different than the greater discipline, it is still a subset of what the generalist should know, It is not the fault of the greater discipline that some specific adherents aren't up to date with it.
Actually if you buy into public elections, what is the problem of electing dual citizenship governors?
Yes, they may take decisions that benefit another country in your detriment, but that is the will of the people.
What is the problem with a governor from, say, Haiti, redirecting relief funds there? The people who elected him did so knowing he was from Haiti. In fact the people who elected him probably have family there and that's why they elected him.
The problem is when the representative does NOT represent the electorate which is what I mean to amend.
The thing I don't like about that is lack of accountability.
Like, imagine bad laws get passed and who's to blame? So I want a way for the guys running the system to have some supervision, and what better way than random selection?
Wow it's sooooo wrong for me to be quoting the fucking Bible but:
- Matthew 9:12. On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. - Matthew 9:13. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." - Mark 2:17. On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." - Luke 5:32. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
RMS can go to Israel later just not on the Palestinians' money. The nerve from the Israelite organizer for criticizing RMS while refusing to pay for this travel.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you considered that he is probably right? Google was an innovator ten years ago, but the philosophy of don't fix what isn't broken means that eventually they are going to get a fat layer of crust.
Yes, Google products work, I don't remember him saying that they don't, that's not part of the conversation. His point is that Google's technologies are aging and that there's better stuff now, is it really inconceivable that technology has advanced in the last 10 years? Just take his word and move along, there isn't much to discuss here.
Once you start asking for money from the public purse, people get justified wondering why what you're doing is worth their money.
So in the end it's always about money uh?
Well drawing something positive from your post it seems that at least you implicated, by omission, that it academical interests ARE fine as long as you don't pay for it. The money problem solves itself in that while purely theoretical work takes a while to find practical applications when they are achieved they are plain awesome, (graphene any?) but you at least are no enemy at the *concept* of academic work.
Your comparison isn't adequate because arts are subjective and there really isn't a "right" way of doing it.
It would be better to compare homeopathic medicine against actual medicine. This is not about getting paid or not, it's about fixing things with brains versus guts, and I sure rather be diagnosed by Dr. Hibbert than Nick Riviera.
The point of the question, whether there is an anti-intellectual current or not depends on whether you blame the failures of intellectuals in their individual incompetence or rather in the very concept of education and rational analysis.
The way you respond makes it hard to accuse you of anti-intellectualism, and honestly I don't think there is an anti-intellectualism current among the geeks either. In fact I don't even think there is a movement against the current set Academic institutions among geeks, even though they are the first to know what is wrong in these institutions and how make them better.
I would argue however that there IS an anti-intellectual current going on among the working class of the bible belt region.
Yes it is annoying, specially because it has no meaning. Some people here seem to think the fact that KDE and Gnome (and GNU) also did it means that you can't complaint about Apple, when in fact it only means you can complaint about others too.
For the record, KDE and Gnome stopped doing it years ago.
For reference please be civil and answer me plainly: Age? Because you sound so childish and noobish I'd swear you are a kid. Unless senility is kicking in. Either way it would be nice to know for future reference.
So long as they take a formal approach to education yes.
Offtopic, damn it, Slashdot javascript is completely broken.
Does that fact that he wasn't a successful theologist change the fact that he was one?
Did I say so? No I didn't.
What I found amusing is how he singled out "alchemist" while including "theologist" up there with the other legitimate sciences he is known for. He could have as well said:
OK, he was also an theologist. But he was probably a better statistician than you.
You are asking me to get into details which the parent poster did not get into.
He criticized "academia" without singling out specific institutions or specific practices within those institutions or academia as a whole so I could only respond in kind.
Also notice I did allow for the claim that current institutions are not following formal practices with enough rigor, but he wasn't making that claim, his claim was that it was "ivory tower nonsense" which seems a cry against formal education itself (specially of the purely theoretical not immediately practical kind.)
And while colleges and universities are not the only providers of formal education, any other equivalent institution is just academia by another name.
Please, let me emphasize that I'm talking about "formal practice" as in "research as methodical, disciplined and absent of emotion or bias as humanly possible"; not "formal institutions" as in "accredited institutions" or "reputable institutions", though it is often the case that institutions that try to practice science formally become reputable.
While you are right that universities don't follow formal process with 100% correctness all the time is correct, it is just childish bickering, as is the claim that any mistake (of very undefined natures) ever committed by any institution that (claims to) follow formal practices of research invalidates the practice of formal research and analysis itself. The choggobbles of wrong ideas mankind accumulated and continues to accumulate based on informal, and down right mystical experience suffices as counter example.
But that is besides the point, that is not important. My claim is that you are being anti-intellectual, your commentary that "nor do formal processes 100% correctly embody knowledge" boils it down neatly. Yeah sure you claim to not reject knowledge itself, but you reject formal and disciplined research in favor of what? Scarce anecdotal evidence and gut feelings? How is that not Anti-intellectual?
Also your commentary of "the foundational error of all civilisations which have fallen in the history of the world" seems nothing short of delusional. To give you the benefit of the doubt, what civilizations have ever fallen because of too much formalized education?
Goodluck, he's behind sevan proxys.
My understanding of intellectual is one who uses his intellect to work.
Being intellectual doesn't mean you "look down on the unwashed masses", but doing so doesn't mean you aren't. Being an intellectual doesn't men you are "removed from the real world by dwelling in the pillared halls of academia". That is unbelievably silly and childish nonsense!
Academia is not an alternate dimension where your every need is tended and you are sheltered from the world, people there are no more sheltered than their wealth allow them, which varies form person to person. Some of them struggle to make it to the next month.
And while it's true that some field within academia do not seem to have immediate practical benefits, neither does Twilight, or Big Brother, or the Thor movie. If it is legitimate to spend one's own time considering the best recons to Batmans' timeline, why can't some one spend their time trying to find out predictive experiments out of string theory?
Because not everybody enjoys learning. There is a difference between claiming education is useless and claiming that some people don't derive enough good from it.
Oh yes, Newton the theologist, Christians always bring that up, sad thing that they can't name any advances in theology or useful models or theories of Christianity he left behind.
I'd have to concede the point to the parent poster, "anti academia" *it's* intellectualism.
Academia is the formal practice of generating and passing on knowledge, to be against formal education is to be against the scientific method that develop it and informs it.
A point could be made that the institutions are filled with corrupted and/or clueless bureaucrats but you are arguing from the point of view that it is "pseudo-intellectual ivory tower nonsense".
Your need to create makes you an artist or just creative person in general, but it's the will and capability to analyze it formally what makes you an intellectual.
All the more reason for me to get in as soon as possible.
Which is why I advocate sortition, actually I'll just paste my old post: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2189040&cid=36258788
Geeks on my marriage?
*cue*
Since the those people aren't likely to know that Firefox is an actual animal, let a lone a panda, not a fox, they are still installing software with nonsensical names. Plus nothing say media player better than "pod" or spreadsheets better than Excell.
Having fun down modding me aren't you? I feel the love.
That's like 50 times more than I could ever handle.
You know? You are a racist.
You say refuse to eat genetically modified food? Guess what. Every single thing you have ever eaten and every living thing you have ever seen including every single person you have ever met or even just read about is genetically modified.
Not only are every one of us, the result of a genetic experiment to make a close with mixed DNA from two different individuals, every one of us carries hundreds of mutations introducing new genes that are in neither of your parents.
But that's OK isn't it, genetic experiments and experimental genes are a-O-K when they are done by nature, but if it's done by those filthy humans? No THAT is not OK.
That is racism.
What are you talking about? Some disciplines are a subset of others, that is an unavoidable fact. Now it can happen that an specialist can have better insight about his specialty than a generalist, this is not the case of the lesser disciple being better, equal nor even different than the greater discipline, it is still a subset of what the generalist should know, It is not the fault of the greater discipline that some specific adherents aren't up to date with it.
Actually if you buy into public elections, what is the problem of electing dual citizenship governors?
Yes, they may take decisions that benefit another country in your detriment, but that is the will of the people.
What is the problem with a governor from, say, Haiti, redirecting relief funds there? The people who elected him did so knowing he was from Haiti. In fact the people who elected him probably have family there and that's why they elected him.
The problem is when the representative does NOT represent the electorate which is what I mean to amend.
The thing I don't like about that is lack of accountability.
Like, imagine bad laws get passed and who's to blame? So I want a way for the guys running the system to have some supervision, and what better way than random selection?
Wow it's sooooo wrong for me to be quoting the fucking Bible but:
- Matthew 9:12. On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.
- Matthew 9:13. But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
- Mark 2:17. On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
- Luke 5:32. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
RMS can go to Israel later just not on the Palestinians' money. The nerve from the Israelite organizer for criticizing RMS while refusing to pay for this travel.
Cue antisemitism accusations in 3...