More evidence that my theory isn’t a theory, but a law (here’s the link for reference). Scroll down a bit to read their CV’s.
ht to Ian Vaughan
More evidence that my theory isn’t a theory, but a law (here’s the link for reference). Scroll down a bit to read their CV’s.
ht to Ian Vaughan
Following up to my last post to Fred, I recommend the book “On Bullsh@t” by a certain Harry G. Frankfurt; Princeton University Press.
Seriously. I have a copy in my hand right now. Buy it; read it; is it analysis or BS or Performance Art?
Fred R.- There’s also far too much intellectual heft ascribed to a lot of university degree’s. It’s the old “He has a degree, so he must be smart!” thing going on. I ran into that way back in high school. Went to a tiny rural school for nine years, where very basic 3R learning was paramount. Our education was basic but thorough- may God bless Mrs. Berg and Mrs. Turnbull. When I got to high school amongst so-called academic achievers, something profound occurred. Us small-town hicks, who couldn’t (and still can’t) identify a dangling participle, could stand in front of a class and read Shakespeare or Stalag 17 aloud, with all the proper inflections and sometimes even accents. We read long passages of “To Kill a Mockingbird”. Meanwhile, the so-called academics struggled with that kind of stuff. Many of them were simply and completely unable to read aloud.
While we often struggled with advanced math, many of us were able to do a great deal of it in ur heads, as the basic math skills you use all your life had been drilled deep into our little brains.
Readin’, ‘ritin’, and ‘rithmetic were pounded into us, and as a result they are skill sets that us students of Elsie Berg and Esther Turnbull use every day.
I digress. My point is that the academic achievers were often thought of as being smarter than they actually were, because they got good grades in courses geared towards going on to university, yet they weren’t really any smarter than the rest of us. Less, in fact. They had little ability to grasp esoteric theories or concepts, such as how the intake port of a V8 engine can see the exhaust event of an adjacent cylinder, let alone the really complex stuff such as de Tocqueville’s writings and their impact on the presidencies of Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan.
I maintain that intellect is of a dual nature- it is both natural and acquired, and that even the less bright can choose to acquire a broad base of knowledge simply by reading, and reading, and reading.
And yes, Fred, you got it. Early on in the air war over Britain, it was observed that lefties had a higher survival rate than righties in aerial combat. At first, it was thought that they were simply better fliers. More careful observation (i.e. statistical analysis) determined that when a lefty met a righty in the air (and of course the Third Reich favored righties), the lefty had an advantage if the righty was on his tail, because he could simply out-turn to the right and gain the advantage, and when two fliers met head to head and then had to come around for another pass, the lefty would naturally swing right and come at the opponent from the opposite direction from which he would be expected to be seen.
Let’s not forget that the task of philosophy is to give man a comprehensive view of existence. Its branches are metaphysics (dealing with the nature of existence), epistemology (knowledge), ethics (man’s actions), politics (government), and esthetics (art).
Philosophy is the intellectual discipline that underlies all others. All bogus theories in other fields like sociology stem from false philosophies like Marxism. Ayn Rand covered it all nicely in “For The New Intellectual”, as well as her other philosophical works.
BG, your ideas have merit. If few fences are placed around the thoughts of children, they can string together profound truths. Also, the lack of emphasis and respect towards technical schools is a huge loss to the country. A large proportion of our population appears to be talented in the trades which are now being inundated by illegals. The arts are important but you still need the engineers to design the structures in which they’re housed and the construction workers to plan the progress and erect the buildings.
BG and Mazzu are both closer to the right answer. However, It would clarify the whole arguement for me if the degrees in question are BA’s and not conveniently lumped with the technical BS, MS, and PHD degrees. I know many have applied the BS meaning (Bulls…) to all the degrees. It is the BAs that are the problem.
Next, the liberal idea of “few fences” has a technical description of “working outside the box.” Don’t confuse this admirable quality with driving the 3 ‘rs, as above, into the little ones heads. Until they can do the math instinctively through iteration, they will be just useless liberals. Also, don’t confuse the skills of tuning an intake for a V8 with the skills of the engineer that DERIVED and GAVE you the equation with which to do it. However, you are still head and shoulders above the liberal waste as the subject of this thread describes.
Finbally, I think the dismal science (economics for you educated BAers) is a true probabilistic science that deserves our respect. It is when it is subverted for PC or social reasons that it becomes fuel for the politicians and grifters.
Country Boy- you’re dead right. A better way to say what I’ve been saying is that a broad base of knowledge is vital to anyone who wishes to master one particular field of knowledge in particular.