What evidence is there that fluff courses "teach you how to think"? They do push people toward accepting a particular (pc) viewpoint, but how does that benefit society?
Then the scientific method is effectively shot,
not because it's invalid, but because it's not being followed, and it becomes no longer reasonable to believe researchers are following it
That is identical to:
People who don't do up their seatbelt buckles die.
Therefore, seat belts fail to protect people.
The fact that people are failing to apply the scientific method does not mean that the scientific method has failed, only that some people who call themselves "scientists" shouldn't.
AI assumes that you can take published facts, dump them in a black box, and assume that the output is going to be intelligent.
No, AI (in a CS sense) assumes that if you dump facts into an appropriate program, you may end up with something that is somewhat useful.
Only philosophers get a hard on about whether this can rightly be called "intelligence", a word that has never had a meaningful definition.
Exactly. What Kurzweil is proposing is an experiment. That's all. And like any experiment, there are three possible outcomes:
1. Complete and total failure: somewhat likely.
2. Complete and total success: vanishingly unlikely.
3. Somewhere in between 1. and 2. : very likely.
The result of which will be a somewhat better understanding of the problem. Which is OK, since Google is paying for it, and God knows they can afford it.
Of course Kurzweil will hype it to a laughable level. That is what he is famous for.
As the owner of an aging brain, things definitely seem to go faster as your brain slows down. It's the same as with a movie camera: if you speed it up ("cranking") the result will be a slow-motion film. If you slow it down, the result will be a time-lapse film.
The purpose of television isn't to inform or entertain. The purpose of television is to deliver eyes to advertisers. In that, Jersey Shore was much "better" than Firefly.
This is particularly true when the eyes are attached to a brain that is easily fooled.
Part of the problem lies in academic politics, which places (for example) both experimental psychology and sociology in the same faculty, namely Social Sciences. Experimental psychology and Physical Anthropology should considered specializations of Biology, and thus part of the Faculty of Science.
The idea of judging whether a recent development (say within the last 25 years) constituted a "paradigm shift" is silly. Our grandchildren will be able to judge whether the internet was a paradigm shift: we can't.
Contrary to the author's suggestion, I have never met a physicist, chemist or geologist who didn't think of biology as a valid, rigorous science.
The author is a twit for suggesting otherwise.
It's obvious to anyone without a mental disorder that the social sciences are scientific. They do, after all, apply the same methods as other sciences (with testable hypotheses and experiments and everything!).
Part of the problem is that the phrase "social sciences" covers such a vast range of subjects, making blanket statements like this meaningless.
Some people who work in social science departments - such as experimental psychologists - do indeed stick to rigorous scientific methods. Others - such as sociologists, anthropologists, and economists - not so much.
Slashdot Mirror
Liar, Liar!
What evidence is there that fluff courses "teach you how to think"? They do push people toward accepting a particular (pc) viewpoint, but how does that benefit society?
Maybe a push to show the "hoi poloi" are perfectly capable of replicating the results researchers have observed would advance the cause of science?
How many of the "hoi poloi" would have any idea what the paper is even trying to demonstrate? Or how to test it?
Then the scientific method is effectively shot, not because it's invalid, but because it's not being followed, and it becomes no longer reasonable to believe researchers are following it
That is identical to:
People who don't do up their seatbelt buckles die.
Therefore, seat belts fail to protect people.
The fact that people are failing to apply the scientific method does not mean that the scientific method has failed, only that some people who call themselves "scientists" shouldn't.
Too bad slogans have nothing to do with knowledge. Or wisdom. Or common sense.
AI itself is fundamentally flawed.
AI assumes that you can take published facts, dump them in a black box, and assume that the output is going to be intelligent.
No, AI (in a CS sense) assumes that if you dump facts into an appropriate program, you may end up with something that is somewhat useful.
Only philosophers get a hard on about whether this can rightly be called "intelligence", a word that has never had a meaningful definition.
Exactly. What Kurzweil is proposing is an experiment. That's all. And like any experiment, there are three possible outcomes:
1. Complete and total failure: somewhat likely.
2. Complete and total success: vanishingly unlikely.
3. Somewhere in between 1. and 2. : very likely.
The result of which will be a somewhat better understanding of the problem. Which is OK, since Google is paying for it, and God knows they can afford it.
Of course Kurzweil will hype it to a laughable level. That is what he is famous for.
As the owner of an aging brain, things definitely seem to go faster as your brain slows down.
It's the same as with a movie camera: if you speed it up ("cranking") the result will be a slow-motion film. If you slow it down, the result will be a time-lapse film.
Or /. readers.
No, but I hear they make bank in late November.
Do we really? The only natural limits are the size of the planet. With a controlled population level there could be enough room for everyone.
And who gets to control the population?
The problem is that people aren't satisfied with having all they need, they want to have more than the other guy.
FTFY.
Almost everybody in the world, no matter how much they have, believes that they deserve more.
The purpose of television isn't to inform or entertain. The purpose of television is to deliver eyes to advertisers. In that, Jersey Shore was much "better" than Firefly.
This is particularly true when the eyes are attached to a brain that is easily fooled.
Also, color laser printers are more expensive to buy than inkjets, but cost much less to use over the long run.
Logitech: the hardware choice of slobs.
So which of these, if any, counts as a revolution? Or do all of them together add up to a revolution?
Our grandchildren will be able to judge that. We can't.
Part of the problem lies in academic politics, which places (for example) both experimental psychology and sociology in the same faculty, namely Social Sciences.
Experimental psychology and Physical Anthropology should considered specializations of Biology, and thus part of the Faculty of Science.
Albert Einstein until his death was fully opposed to QM .
Horseshit. He merely disagreed with Bohr regarding certain aspects of the correct interpretation of QM.
The idea of judging whether a recent development (say within the last 25 years) constituted a "paradigm shift" is silly. Our grandchildren will be able to judge whether the internet was a paradigm shift: we can't.
Contrary to the author's suggestion, I have never met a physicist, chemist or geologist who didn't think of biology as a valid, rigorous science.
The author is a twit for suggesting otherwise.
It's obvious to anyone without a mental disorder that the social sciences are scientific. They do, after all, apply the same methods as other sciences (with testable hypotheses and experiments and everything!).
Part of the problem is that the phrase "social sciences" covers such a vast range of subjects, making blanket statements like this meaningless.
Some people who work in social science departments - such as experimental psychologists - do indeed stick to rigorous scientific methods. Others - such as sociologists, anthropologists, and economists - not so much.
Lots of "social" though.
Corporations have one ethical and legal imperative - create profit for the shareholders.
The same could be said of La Cosa Nostra - just substitute "family" for "shareholders".
That imperative trumps all others.
Even obeying the law?
Every Dane I ever met spoke excellent English, so it wouldn't matter to them. Better than most Americans, for that matter.
Adobe bought Autodesk.