I agree. I played all Khan lessons in my bedroom hoping that, as I slept, I'd have a grasp of all topics. I was not impressed at all. You have to pay attention, and even try to apply it if you really want to learn anything.
I don't live in the US, and because of that I don't understand everything in your post.
I understand "credit history" is checked to see if you are a reliable loaner. Why would they turn you down if you don't have a credit history? I'd think that someone without a history of loaning is very eager to pay back. Or am I misunderstanding what credit history is? Can you have a loan somewhere without it turning up in your history?
The report goes into quite a lot of detail as to why these people didn't or couldn't check the raw data. Now, I'm not defending anything, but the explanations are that Stapel was quite an authoritarian mentor. These PhD-students learned about what it's like to be a scientist from him. They designed the studies together, and then Stapel conducted the research with assistants. In fact, he simply made up the data. The PhD-candidates were then provided with a dataset. As far as they knew, this is what getting a PhD is like. According to the report, some candidates protested. These candidates got into heavy arguments. Being a PhD-candidate can make you quite dependent of your promotor. This dependency is also mentioned as a serious flaw in the science system.
The committee evaluating Stapel's fraud has concluded that the PhD candidates had no knowledge of the fraud. They recommend to not revoke any titles and possibly have the university provide them with a letter stating they are innocent of any allegations.
The PhD-title as a mark of hard work is not invalid. The PhD-title as a mark of contribution to science probably is.
Psychology is rather broad. The committee that evaluatued Stapel's fraud did conclude that the science system failed for social psychology. In particular that research in social psychology is almost never replicated.
All definitions really. You could start with the first hit on Google ("define: life"). You'd find: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
Or maybe wikipedia, where you can find: Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.
But really, any definition you can find of "life", even whatever defintion you deem "philosophical", incorporates reproduction. At some point, many organisms prefer reproduction over other needs, such as food or a body remaining attached to one's own head.
Such an insightful reply ending with the pseudo-science of Myers-Briggs. Why is that such bad psychology in this case? Instead of appreciating that traits are normally distributed, MB-types assume a bimodal distribution. Such black-and-white reasoning is much worse than your own reasoning in this post.
GNU's not Unix Image Manipulation Program Toolkit is the foundation fro the GNU's not Unix Network Object Model Environment. So getting that wrong isn't really your fault.
It's not nearly the same. In WordPerfect the codes would display as if HTML under your text, in a half of the screen called the "underwater screen". And everything was there, all formatting codes.
To call an inability to forget "smart" is a display of misunderstanding what learning actually is. Forgetting comes in many flavours, and while intuitively believe some forgetting may be related to "making more room", extinction learning is a rather finely-tuned mechanism of filtering relevant input from irrelevant input. Making that filter wider is hardly smart.
No, I meant nothing as complicatied as QM. What I mean is that reality is complex. When using a limited amount of markers on DNA, there's always a possibility of false outcomes. Without statistics, we'd know just that: there's a possibility. With statistics, we can say something about the magnitude.
So the problem is that reality, which we understand through sampling, is complex. The samples are inherently not the same as reality itself. This discrepancy can be quantified with statistics.
Either a particular genetic sample came from a specific suspect, or it did not.
For example, this sentence is true, obviously. But we can't test the reality of the genetic sample with the reality of the suspect's DNA. We test samples of both. So we introduce possibilities of error. This always happens, because that is how reality comes to us, in samples and abstractions.
Tongue-in-cheek aside, the real problem with statistics is that it only deals in probabilities. As such, It can never describe something conclusive. It can only tell you something is probable. (or very, very probable) It can never identify an answer/solution/event as certain. Thus, it can never tell you the absolute truth. It can only give you the most probable occurrence.
In my opinion, that is not the problem with statistics, that is the problem with reality. Statistics are just the way to quantify that, so that we may still make somewhat informed decision. So statistics (meaning math, not numbers) are actually a solution to your problem.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I played all Khan lessons in my bedroom hoping that, as I slept, I'd have a grasp of all topics. I was not impressed at all. You have to pay attention, and even try to apply it if you really want to learn anything.
F. Would not try again.
I don't live in the US, and because of that I don't understand everything in your post.
I understand "credit history" is checked to see if you are a reliable loaner. Why would they turn you down if you don't have a credit history? I'd think that someone without a history of loaning is very eager to pay back. Or am I misunderstanding what credit history is? Can you have a loan somewhere without it turning up in your history?
I agree. I don't think it's fair, but I think it's true.
The report goes into quite a lot of detail as to why these people didn't or couldn't check the raw data. Now, I'm not defending anything, but the explanations are that Stapel was quite an authoritarian mentor. These PhD-students learned about what it's like to be a scientist from him. They designed the studies together, and then Stapel conducted the research with assistants. In fact, he simply made up the data. The PhD-candidates were then provided with a dataset. As far as they knew, this is what getting a PhD is like. According to the report, some candidates protested. These candidates got into heavy arguments. Being a PhD-candidate can make you quite dependent of your promotor. This dependency is also mentioned as a serious flaw in the science system.
The committee evaluating Stapel's fraud has concluded that the PhD candidates had no knowledge of the fraud. They recommend to not revoke any titles and possibly have the university provide them with a letter stating they are innocent of any allegations.
The PhD-title as a mark of hard work is not invalid. The PhD-title as a mark of contribution to science probably is.
Psychology is rather broad. The committee that evaluatued Stapel's fraud did conclude that the science system failed for social psychology. In particular that research in social psychology is almost never replicated.
Philosophy guarantees long term functionality in this case.
And it's different for everybody.
They're Lynch plugs, not Harkonnen plugs!
I use my iPod about once a year and can never figure out how to turn it on or off. I feel like a n00b.
All definitions really. You could start with the first hit on Google ("define: life"). You'd find:
The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
Or maybe wikipedia, where you can find:
Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations.
But really, any definition you can find of "life", even whatever defintion you deem "philosophical", incorporates reproduction. At some point, many organisms prefer reproduction over other needs, such as food or a body remaining attached to one's own head.
I'd say ever since the beginning of life.
It's even right there in the definition of "life".
Such an insightful reply ending with the pseudo-science of Myers-Briggs. Why is that such bad psychology in this case? Instead of appreciating that traits are normally distributed, MB-types assume a bimodal distribution. Such black-and-white reasoning is much worse than your own reasoning in this post.
GNU's not Unix Image Manipulation Program Toolkit is the foundation fro the GNU's not Unix Network Object Model Environment. So getting that wrong isn't really your fault.
Medical expert systems exist and often outperform individual doctors. Usually they are used to support human decision making and not to replace it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_decision_support_system.
Maybe, but certainly not in the philosophy of science.
No, it's not scientific because it can't be falsified.
Forsan et haec olim meminisse juvabit
This is from Dante's Inferno.
And paste it into a search & replace command! ...I miss wp51...
It's not nearly the same. In WordPerfect the codes would display as if HTML under your text, in a half of the screen called the "underwater screen". And everything was there, all formatting codes.
Many people aren't omnipotent.
(ever since there's a good treatment available)
150 crystals AND 150 gas.
To call an inability to forget "smart" is a display of misunderstanding what learning actually is. Forgetting comes in many flavours, and while intuitively believe some forgetting may be related to "making more room", extinction learning is a rather finely-tuned mechanism of filtering relevant input from irrelevant input. Making that filter wider is hardly smart.
No, I meant nothing as complicatied as QM. What I mean is that reality is complex. When using a limited amount of markers on DNA, there's always a possibility of false outcomes. Without statistics, we'd know just that: there's a possibility. With statistics, we can say something about the magnitude.
So the problem is that reality, which we understand through sampling, is complex. The samples are inherently not the same as reality itself. This discrepancy can be quantified with statistics.
Either a particular genetic sample came from a specific suspect, or it did not.
For example, this sentence is true, obviously. But we can't test the reality of the genetic sample with the reality of the suspect's DNA. We test samples of both. So we introduce possibilities of error. This always happens, because that is how reality comes to us, in samples and abstractions.
Tongue-in-cheek aside, the real problem with statistics is that it only deals in probabilities. As such, It can never describe something conclusive. It can only tell you something is probable. (or very, very probable) It can never identify an answer/solution/event as certain. Thus, it can never tell you the absolute truth. It can only give you the most probable occurrence.
In my opinion, that is not the problem with statistics, that is the problem with reality. Statistics are just the way to quantify that, so that we may still make somewhat informed decision. So statistics (meaning math, not numbers) are actually a solution to your problem.