You've chastised the GP for taking an all-or-nothing approach, and chastised an unspecified entity for relying on anecdotal evidence. You've taken the all-or-nothing approach that anyone who would "go nutso" with exposure to violent video games would "go nutso with exposure to any violent activity. You've made this claim without even anecdotal evidence.
You began by saying that a scientific education would have a negative effect. Your sole "evidence" doesn't even qualify as evidence, and it supports the position you are trying to oppose. The user you are speaking of clearly does not have a understanding of the scientific method. Let us re-examine the proposed situation from two perspectives, the scientist and the lay person.
Lay Person
Windows crashed when I tried to print a document.
Windows did not crash when I was not printing a document.
Therefore, printing documents causes Windows to crash.
Scientist
Windows crashed at the same time I tried to print a document.
I hypothesize that there is a causal relationship.
Upon repeated trials, the effect has persisted. Every time I have tried to print, Windows has crashed.
Windows has not crashed at any time I have not tried to print.
There is evidence of a causal link between printing and crashing. I am unable to determine what this link could be.
A thorough scientific education would not fix everything, but it could help in many ways. Teaching people to challenge assumptions would rid us of many problems in the world today.
Even granting that science will often repeat experiments...
If the experiments are not repeated, it is not science. The scientific method requires repeated observations.
...at best, our "scientific" knowledge only proves the statistical likelihood of the result.
That is all science has ever done. We can never say that every electron in the universe carries a charge of -1.60218 E -19 C. However, every one of the multitude of electrons ever observed displays behavior consistent with that assumption. Therefore, it is likely (statistically speaking) that all electrons in the (local) universe carry this charge.
Long story short, provably determining what is real and what is merely imagined is far more difficult that applying the scientific method. However, applying the scientific method handily disposes of many impossibilities.
I don't know what you were expecting. Computing science is a sub-field of mathematics (a sub-program at many schools). Your complaint is similar to, "Don't go into theoretical physics if you like experiments." CS isn't about how to clean a computer, or how to use the disk defragmentation utility.
A graduate of a computing science program is (ideally) a scientist, not just a technician.
That may be, but this is the first Microsoft advertisement I've seen or read in at least six years that I didn't react to with a comment along the lines of, "Fuck you Microsoft."
Just for the record, I live in Canada (British Columbia), and I've never seen milk in a bag. I've heard that it exists, but I've never see it, or even a picture.
Ensuring that everyone is educated doesn't mean that everyone is educated equally. Some kids will want to learn math beyond their grade level, some history, and some won't want to exceed the requirements (which is perfectly acceptable). As dintech noted earlier, smaller class sizes greatly help this problem. In a small class, every child can get the help they need, and then the help they want.
I doubt that anyone on/. wants the students who are "significantly behind" to be abandoned; but neither do they want to abandon the children who are significantly ahead.
Education isn't a one-or-the-other situation.
Over 90% of the people think that their driving is above average. It's mathematically impossible. No it's not. I hear this type of statement in many places, but it is simply not true. Consider the set {15, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95,96, 97, 98}. The mean of the set is 86.1. 90% of the set is above the mean.
No matter what size the data set, it is not mathematically impossible for 9/10 of the data to be above the mean. It is statistically unlikely for normally distributed data, but even then, not impossible.
Try to understand what you're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
That was a lovely sentence. If I had mod points, I would use them to your benefit.
You've chastised the GP for taking an all-or-nothing approach, and chastised an unspecified entity for relying on anecdotal evidence. You've taken the all-or-nothing approach that anyone who would "go nutso" with exposure to violent video games would "go nutso with exposure to any violent activity. You've made this claim without even anecdotal evidence.
Bravo, sir. If I had mod points, they would be used to mod you insightful.
I don't make the rules, but I enjoy the power they bring.
I love Slashdot. You, sir, have validated your existence for the day.
The parent post is also a fine example of making grand claims about advanced science without providing a single reference.
it's not a techincal criteria
The singular form of 'criteria' is 'criterion'.
You began by saying that a scientific education would have a negative effect. Your sole "evidence" doesn't even qualify as evidence, and it supports the position you are trying to oppose. The user you are speaking of clearly does not have a understanding of the scientific method. Let us re-examine the proposed situation from two perspectives, the scientist and the lay person.
Lay Person
Scientist
A thorough scientific education would not fix everything, but it could help in many ways. Teaching people to challenge assumptions would rid us of many problems in the world today.
Even granting that science will often repeat experiments...
If the experiments are not repeated, it is not science. The scientific method requires repeated observations.
...at best, our "scientific" knowledge only proves the statistical likelihood of the result.
That is all science has ever done. We can never say that every electron in the universe carries a charge of -1.60218 E -19 C. However, every one of the multitude of electrons ever observed displays behavior consistent with that assumption. Therefore, it is likely (statistically speaking) that all electrons in the (local) universe carry this charge.
Long story short, provably determining what is real and what is merely imagined is far more difficult that applying the scientific method. However, applying the scientific method handily disposes of many impossibilities.
I don't know what you were expecting. Computing science is a sub-field of mathematics (a sub-program at many schools). Your complaint is similar to, "Don't go into theoretical physics if you like experiments." CS isn't about how to clean a computer, or how to use the disk defragmentation utility.
A graduate of a computing science program is (ideally) a scientist, not just a technician.
Turning? TurNing?!
Woe be to us, for all is certainly lost.
That may be, but this is the first Microsoft advertisement I've seen or read in at least six years that I didn't react to with a comment along the lines of, "Fuck you Microsoft."
Wow. Run-on sentence.
Lot's a fresh tomatoes. For medicinal use.
Just for the record, I live in Canada (British Columbia), and I've never seen milk in a bag. I've heard that it exists, but I've never see it, or even a picture.
Yes. You must be.
That may be, but this colour scheme should not exist in the first place.
Indeed. I've tried to have this conversation with several people, but few are willing to consider that free will may be a lie.
int addone(int a) {
return a+1;
}
int subone(int a) {
return a-1;
}
int add(int a, int b) {
if (b == 0) return a;
else if (b > 0) return(add(addone(a), subone(b)));
else return(add(subone(a), addone(b)));
}
int mult(int a, int b) {
if (b == 0) return(0);
else if (b > 0) return(add(a, mult(a, subone(b))));
else return(add(-a, mult(a, addone(b))));
}
#include
int main(int argc, char** argv) {
printf("Naked\n");
return(0);
}
I'm very disappointed in myself right now. I'm reading a discussion about Jack Thompson, but I read JT as Justin Timberlake.
Balls. I meant for that to be a reply to this comment: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=595227&cid=23941723
I wish I hadn't used my last mod point this morning. That was a very well written and thoughtful post. Thank you.
my '74 superbeetle was a time and a half that . . .
hawk
I wish I had a clue what you meant by that.Bleachers are the seats in a stadium of a gymnasium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleacher
Ensuring that everyone is educated doesn't mean that everyone is educated equally. Some kids will want to learn math beyond their grade level, some history, and some won't want to exceed the requirements (which is perfectly acceptable). As dintech noted earlier, smaller class sizes greatly help this problem. In a small class, every child can get the help they need, and then the help they want. I doubt that anyone on /. wants the students who are "significantly behind" to be abandoned; but neither do they want to abandon the children who are significantly ahead.
Education isn't a one-or-the-other situation.