OT: What the heck do they teach in college??

Page 4 of 7  

outside
You do not know what a deductive argument is. You should google.
Every action you take, from posting to this newsgroup to getting up in the morning, relies on deductive logic. That is, one works constantly from one or another general premises and applies these to specific situations, to come to a specific conclusion (or decision about what to do next). We _do_ things because we assume this or that consequence (in an if-then sequence), and then we use deductive logic to work from those generalized assumptions and so make our decisions, from avoiding touching obviously hot stoves to being nice to little old ladies to using appropriately descriptive language to get help diagnosing one's Honda. Rational people try to get what they want, and the only way to do this is through a largely deductive process: If I don't touch anything hot, I won't get hurt. This stove is hot, so I won't touch it. Therefore, I won't get hurt. If people are nice to each other, then we'll all get along better. Here's a little old lady (an "other"). I'll be nice to her, and therefore, we'll all get along better. (Not guaranteed, since the premise makes an assumption, but the reasoning is nonetheless deductive.) If I describe a problem I'm having as precisely as possible, then someone is more likely to diagnose it. Yada.
Your very participation in this forum relies on the assumption--the premise--that we exist. We can't prove we exist, but we do assume it. So we tarry over work and play.
I don't expect you to get this. You might, but I don't expect it. You need to read more on logic, argument, philosophy, epistemology. Maybe grow old around smart people. Truly smart people.
Of course, you'll still give good advice on Hondas, even if you don't know you're using mostly deductive logic to do so(!) ;-)

My "logic training" derives from dinner conversation (polemics, really) with my family as a youngster; skill in mathematics (through two masters degrees in engineering along with three licenses/certifications in same, so I'm way beyond calculus in my abilities); a course in philosophy that really polished my understanding of epistemology via reading and discussion of the ancient Greek philosophers but also more modern ones such as Bertrand Russell, at what some would call a "high-falutin'" college where the level of discussion was high; instructor of geometry for a few terms more recently for fun; years working as an engineer, particularly in naval nuclear engineering; extensive reading and study in U.S. law for a few decades.
None of that is meant to intimidate or, in the alternative, underwhelm. I don't credit "qualifications." I credit how a person addresses the argument at hand.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

I'll stick with the education I paid for, thanks. The internet is a good source of information but a better source for misinformation. Wikipedia has a fairly decent dictionary but the encyclopedia should bill itself as one of the largest sources of completely unvetted information on the 'net. Look up a subject you have in-depth knowledge of and you will see what I mean.

At least that isn't a deduction, since you came to your conclusion without any data. My "not so smart" associates collectively manage the IS infrastructure for a Fortune 500 company. AFAIK only one has nuclear engineering background (he's currently in charge of the voice-over-IP project), and the only actual "rocket scientist" we had has moved on, but we aren't as dumb as you suggest. Some of us can tie our own shoes. I also grew up with my older brother, who was valedictorian of his high school class a couple weeks after turning 16 (that beats me - I was almost 17 when I graduated and was only interviewed as a valedictory candidate). You also seem to assume I am unintelligent because I don't subscribe to your preconceived notions or because I fail to discard my formal education in favor of an education on the cyberstreets. I am one of those people who would rather lose my driver's license than my library card; public libraries often have more down-to-earth textbooks than college courses use. It may be a decade or more since my refresher foray into logic and statistics, but not much had changed.
But if you want, we could have some (geeky) fun with this. I propose a test. 36 years ago I encountered a question on the high school physics final that I couldn't answer, and I haven't found anybody who could answer it - including two physics professors who had no off-the-cuff answer. The test was one of those standardized ones and the original question had numerical values to reach a numerical answer, but I've forgotten the numbers and I'm only looking for the method. If you or your mates can come up with the solution, I will revere you as gods... er, really smart people. If not, ye be mere mortals. Here it is, with variables instead of values: ===============A pile driver is driving a pile into the earth. The pile has mass of P, the driver has mass of D, and the driver is lifted H height above the pile top with each stroke. The collision between the driver and the pile is inelastic. How far is the pile driven with each stroke? ===============The universal complaint is "there is no information about the soil resistance." That is exactly correct - the original question said nothing about the soil. The only clue we have is that the collision between driver and pile is inelastic. I am not certain the solution is not parametric (in spite of the original choices being numeric), but there is obviously a solution. It just makes my head swim to approach it.

I'll take the compliment - thanks!

That strikes me as odd that you have trouble identifying induction, because in the introduction to inductive logic the mathematical proof of the irrationality of the square root of 2 was the example we were given. It starts out right away with the assumption (which is illegal in deduction) that root 2 is rational, gives the definition of rational numbers, then leads the assumption up a blind alley and clubs it to death. Ironically, the final stage - identifying numbers that are not rational as irrational - is deductive, but whatcha gonna do?
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Same could be said of most (all?) encyclopedias.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Been following this thread but have not had much to add until now - and that's only my 2cents.
I am totally addiction to puzzles and IQ tests, and can't resists this one either. This one is just some basic high school physics and simple algebra, but the physics has been a while, so bear with me:
You first calculate velocity of the pile driver right before it hits the pile: v2 = u2 + 2as in where u = 0, a = 9.8 m/s2, s = h; v=sqt( 19.61 * H )
The momentum right before impact then is v * P
Since the impact is inelastic, we can say that the pile driver and pile have the same velocity after impact.
Momentum after impact = (P+D)V So, since before impact momentum = after impact momentum, we can say this: v*P = (P+D)V
So V = (v*P)/(P+D)
So the deceleration is: v2 = u2 + 2as in where v = 0, u = V, a = unknown, s = unknown;
The force that retards this movement is: F=MA given F=Unknown, M=P+D, A=unknown see above.
Resistance the sum of both the retardation force and pile-driver plus pile. R = F + P + D in which F is unknown.
I think one needs the R, so one can solve A, so one can solve s.
Maybe I am still mortal, huh? :) Remco
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Looks real good, Remco! I think I was too hung up on the test choices being numeric, while in my heart I always suspected we couldn't factor out the soil resistance. So it *was* indeterminate with the info supplied!
There is one little thing still picking at my brain (maybe it's a parasite!) As you point out, the "inelastic collision" is important in that it allows us to conclude the combined masses had identical velocity after impact. I had become hung up on the thought that it might allow us to look for the intersection of conservation of momentum with conservation of energy, so I was looking at the energy loss in the "impedance mismatch" of the differing masses, but I got lost in the wilderness trying to make that work for me. Unless you see anything in there that could conceivably resolve R for us, I'm going to go with your "cipherin'" and declare you "Da Man!"
(At least I didn't do badly on the test otherwise. I scored something in the mid-90s while second place was in the 70s. Dang. An unanswerable question... that jes' ain't right!)
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

Yup, it would appear so. One needs to know R - it can't be zero/ignored.

Wow -- Thank you. Do they have an award of sorts for this to hang on the fridge? :)
As A side note, I like hanging things like this on the fridge: My wife actually /admitted/ to being wrong we had and, during a weak moment, agreed to sign a post-it note declaration to that effect. I had this hanging on the fridge for /years/. Other people might show off their tool collection, sound system or car, but that post it note was my pride and joy when we had visitors. :) That is, until we moved and it magically disappeared, never to be seen again...
Remco
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Been following this thread but have not had much to add until now - and that's only my 2cents.
I am totally addiction to puzzles and IQ tests, and can't resists this one either. This one is just some basic high school physics and simple algebra, but the physics has been a while, so bear with me:
You first calculate velocity of the pile driver right before it hits the pile: v2 = u2 + 2as in where u = 0, a = 9.8 m/s2, s = h; v=sqt( 19.61 * H )
The momentum right before impact then is v * P
Since the impact is inelastic, we can say that the pile driver and pile have the same velocity after impact.
Momentum after impact = (P+D)V So, since before impact momentum = after impact momentum, we can say this: v*P = (P+D)V
So V = (v*P)/(P+D)
So the deceleration is: v2 = u2 + 2as in where v = 0, u = V, a = unknown, s = unknown;
The force that retards this movement is: F=MA given F=Unknown, M=P+D, A=unknown see above.
Resistance the sum of both the retardation force and pile-driver plus pile. R = F + P + D in which F is unknown.
I think one needs the R, so one can solve A, so one can solve s.
Maybe I am still mortal, huh? :) Remco
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One just cannot safely generalize like this.
It's easy to figure out what sources on the net are reliable and which are bunk.
I for one also access the same journals I might access at a university library, using the net.

of
up
I have yet to find anything terribly amiss on Wikipedia.

need
old
You're sure I haven't been reading your posts, huh?
Michael, again, I think you have much to offer this newsgroup by way of Honda advice. And good luck with whatever your religious beliefs are. Starting this year when I can, I oppose ID blah blah taught in science classes.
snip a lot of stuff that, logically speaking, just has no place here, for reasons I gave before.
Like I said, one cannot have a rational discussion with someone who insists on throwing deductive reasoning skills out the window on his whim.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

Yet you accept Wikipedia???????

I chose T1 theory, something I have done classes on, to do my confidence check. What a mess! It is like a student went to a class and tried to explain it from his notes without ever grasping the subject. For example, they cover the subject of line codes fairly well but barely mention timing recovery, which is the entire reason for BnZS line codes. It also misidentifies the limit of consecutive zeros for AMI as 7 (the author was apparently confused by the B8ZS coding issue) whereas the spec is actually "no more than 15" as illustrated by the suite of test patterns that include 14 or 15 consecutive zeros. They describe "robbed bit signaling" so badly the description is mostly misleading. The list goes on and on; I considered offering corrections but large areas need deep re-writes to correct the conceptual structure, and on reflection I decided there was no point in straightening up one subject in a source I would be a fool to trust anyway.

I'm sure you are not competent to discern my level of education in particular fields, nor the intelligence or education of my associates, from any of the posts. Only in the post that followed your assumption did I identify the nature of the people around me, and I see you ignore that. Very well - I can't compete with your bigotry. If you are as educated as you claim, you have turned your back on it to fumble in the darkness.
Never once have you addressed my central point, the one I have made so many times in this thread and that others have at least taken intelligent whacks at - the sudden appearance of deep abstract thought in spite of having no obvious mechanism under natural selection.

I also oppose it being taught in science classes, even though I am aware more flighty stuff is being taught. However, the question of how abstract thought has suddenly appeared *is* a science question - maybe not one for children, but certainly for research. Just because we don't have an answer doesn't mean it is not a valid question. Again, it has nothing whatsoever to do with my religious beliefs... why can't you grasp that? You must set aside your preconceptions sometime.

No, I have never "thrown out deductive reasoning skills" any more than you have thrown out inductive reasoning skills. I simply say you misunderstand the role of deduction. I point out and have illustrated that deduction is so limited that it can't extend our knowledge; that is its design. Deductive reasoning works within what we know and goes no farther because the rules of deduction prevent it. If you misunderstand that it is certainly not for my lack of trying.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

good
are
So far I have not seen an entry in Wikipedia that is any worse than a standard encyclopedia's entry.
Encyclopedia's are not supposed to contain every word possible about a subject, ya know. They're summaries.

one
Look
Never heard of it, so I can't say whether your analysis is right or wrong.
Does the World Book Encyclopedia cover T1 theory any better? Or at all?
If not, I'd wager it's one of those arcane topics that few care about and so if one wants an authoritative discussion on it, one had better dig a lot more. And, yup, just by virtue of the fact I'd never heard of it, I know I should go beyond Wikipedia to read up on it.

You're eager to show you know something "special," aren't you?

include
considered
anyway.
You said I hadn't any data for my conclusion. So are you saying I have or have not read your posts.
Reponses like the last one of yours above is, again, why I don't give you much credit in the reasoning department.
nor the intelligence or education of my associates, from

Very
Trying to reason with someone who is not strong in the reasoning department becomes too discouraging.
I did not have much incentive to try to separate your wheat from your chaff.
I mean, come on, throwing some high school physics problem into the fray? What's the point?
I'm a goddamn multi-degreed, multi-licensed, vastly experienced engineer, in both academia and what I'll call the real world. Textbook problems through the third year of college (never mind high school) are contrived and underwhelm. They're child's play and bear little relation to actual real life problems, except as alphabet building blocks or, ohmygod, to build deductive reasoning skills.

whacks
When do you claim "deep abstract thought" "suddenly appeared?

to
aside
so
of
The simple fact that you dismiss deductive reasoning as a significant part of the scientific process (or, for that matter, almost any process involving rational communications) tells me all I need to know about your reasoning skills.
Again, both deductive and inductive reasoning are vital to science's progress.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote

The first evidence of abstract thought appears as cave art, about 30K years old, in France. I will allow that other cave art may have been obliterated or may not have been discovered so that the initial appearance of abstract thinking ability may be as much as 100K years ago, 10K generations.
On the rest of this, I'm calling it quits. I saw your post on a different subject (Hondas - I remember those!) and felt uneasy. I don't want that. You are a valuable contributor and I don't want to see hard feelings develop between us. We are becoming increasingly unimpressed with each other's reasoning/analytical abilities, and that serves no useful purpose. This thread (particularly our part of it) has generated far more smoke than light. I don't see a brighter future anywhere in it, and I invite you to have the last word.
All the best to you.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
E wrote

years
Why is cave art the only way abstract thinking can occur?
Couldn't, say, people have danced out stories with abstract meanings?

Be accurate now: It's not the appearance of abstract thinking that was discovered. It was the _physical evidence_ of one form of abstract thinking that was discovered.
By the way, I hope you realize you're using deductive reasoning above to conclude that "deep abstract thought" suddenly appeared at a certain time. So the logic is sound, but the premise is flawed.

You
Likewise.
And may I say, FWIW, because I try to be honest, that your paragraph above does in fact show high intelligence on one level: The point of communications is to get along to promote a greater good. One should throw out one's ideas and critique others but be willing to move forward.
You have a lot of imagination and interests and maybe you just want to chatter and free associate about these. Lots of folks of course like such conversation. Me, I like to see a point. I go looking for Socratic exchanges or similar.
I appreciate that you agree ID theory (or was it creationism? or both?) shouldn't be taught in science classrooms.
I happen to feel that many of ID theories assertions are worthy fodder for discussion in philosophy, theology, etc. classes. Also, ID theory has some criticisms of evolution that of course have merit and should be addressed with scientific responses (or, really, the slow chiseling towards truths that scientific research constitutes). But bona fide scientists put forth these criticisms, first. No need to clothe them in ID theory, 'cause they don't belong to just ID theory.
The fact is not merely that science doesn't have all the answers, but as a deductive matter it can't have all the answers without a whole new paradigm for looking at existence--a paradigm that at the moment is imaginable only in a very abstract sense. Meaning its details cannot be described.
With enough queries of "Why?," eventually we find ourselves unable to respond. We just don't know.
So conjecture away. Even believe in god. That scientific studies in fact demonstrate that religious faith increases life expectancy is, by itself, one pithy an argument for believing in some sort of intelligent designer.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Good idea. I'm going with Calvin Klein. Or maybe Ralph Lauren, depending on which one gives me a longer life expectancy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve wrote:

Or if not longer life, at least a well-dressed life...
--
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0539-3, 09/30/2005
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, I was expecting to evolve into a better-dressed person, but it hasn't happened yet. Guess that's a point in favor of ID? Or maybe it's just gonna take my family another few thousand generations before we have matching socks?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am going to steal this notion and throw it in every ID theory proponent's face every change I get lol.
"Like hell we're going to teach Christian Dior in biology class! Those kids spend enough on clothes! There is nothing--nothing!--I tell you wrong with Wal-Mart blue jeans!"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We'd be a lot better off if we would just stop after the word "mystery" and simply admit we don't know. The fact that we don't know the answer implies nothing about what the answer might be. Anything following that is guesswork, to which we're all entitled, but which is meaningless in the absence of a testable hypothesis.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'll go for that. It sounds better than stumbling into each other in the darkness.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Pardee wrote:

Automatically equating reliieon with god(s) is a mistake in the first place anyway. Belief in a god or deity does not mean one is religious, and being religious CERTAINLY doesn't require a god(s) or deity(ies). For some, science itself is elevated to a religion.
--
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0539-2, 09/29/2005
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right - there are a lot of atheist religions.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.