It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
smart (v.) O.E. smeortan "be painful," from W.Gmc. *smert- (cf. M.Du. smerten, Du. smarten, O.H.G. smerzan, Ger. schmerzen "to pain," originally "to bite"), from PIE *(s)merd-, from root *(s)mer- "to rub, pound" (cf. Gk. smerdnos "terrible, dreadful," Skt. mardayati "grinds, rubs, crushes," L. mordere to bite").
smart (adj.) late O.E. smeart "sharp, severe, stinging," related to smeortan (see smart (v.)). Meaning "quick, active, clever" is attested from c.1300, probably from the notion of "cutting" wit, words, etc.; meaning "trim in attire" first attested 1718, "ascending from the kitchen to the drawing-room c.1880." [Weekley] In ref. to devices, "behaving as though guided by intelligence" (e.g. smart bomb) first attested 1972. Smarts "good sense, intelligence," is first recorded 1968. Smart cookie is from 1948; smarty-pants first attested 1941.
empiric (adj.) c.1600, from L. empiricus "a physician guided by experience," from Gk. empeirikos "experienced," from empeiria "experience," from empeiros "skilled," from en "in" (see en- (2)) + peira "trial, experiment," from PIE *per- "to try, risk." Originally a school of ancient physicians who based their practice on experience rather than theory. Earlier as a noun (1540s) in reference to the sect, and earliest (1520s) in a sense "quack doctor" which was in frequent use 16c.-19c.
Originally posted by abeverage
If I have learned anything it is that I know nothing...
Originally posted by getreadyalready
Geeee, I wonder if they informed the LSAT people or the MCAT people? All those math problems, logic puzzles, chemistry, and biology questions, they sould be givin gthe law school and medical scholarships to the people failing those tests?
What a bunch of hooey.
I can't believe some people jump to the conclusion that $0.10 plus $1.10 equals $1.10? People really got that wrong? I mean the first thing that came to my mind was, "at least I know it isn't a dollar and a dollar-ten." Then, without creating a formula or writing anything down, I just started couting backwards from 10 cents. If the ball is 9, the total is 1.18, if the ball is 7, the total is 1.15, if the ball is 6, if the ball is 5, EUREKA! Took all of 10 seconds.
These researchers need to quit trying to reinvent the wheel.
Sure. The bat could be 1.05 and the ball .05. That is one possibility.
1 dollar and 10 cents would be another possiblity.
I might being reading the question incorrectly in some way.
Originally posted by PurpleChiten
Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by FortAnthem
This is a definition of a pseudoskeptic. Most hardline skeptics have huge blind spots because they think they already know. I think most people in my area of study, Theoretical Physics, tend to be more open minded because all we do is think outside the box.
It always amazes me when you debate people who think they know everything
That seems to be an excellent summation of it.
It has occured to me at times that those who are unfamiliar with physics (perhaps even abhor it due to not understanding) are often the most adamant in their pseudoskepticism. They wish to think of themselves as intelligent but don't wish to put the effort into actually being intelligent, hence, things of this nature are discussed in other academic areas to try to comprehend instead of just gaining an understanding of what it is that intimidates them.
Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Germanicus
Did the OP make the distinction between "smart people" and "people who think they are smart?"
I would agree that the majority of people I meet who think they are smart are actually extremely misinformed or just full of lots of incorrect assumptions.
The way I read the OP though, they were talking about pepole who actually are smart, and in that case the research in the OP is just silly.