Cut and Paste arguements an ATS epidemic

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I hear you. I am married to a catholic and even being more of a deist I may as well be an atheist. Not that she is a nutter just I don't believe in the bible in terms of anything but a collection of stories some having historical context.

a reply to: luthier

Yes, if someone isn't understanding me, I will try a different approach. It's just that many aren't capable of changing their descriptions enough to be helpful in explaining themselves.

Think about it like this. Colleges seem to think that if you become knowledgeable enough in a field, you should be able to teach it. Except, anyone has been to college has come across more than one professor who couldn't teach a fish how to swim.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No I get that. I am referring more of cut and pasting technical info then not being able to explain what it really means. There are some who never try and change their approach just keep posting charts and graphs the don't even understand trying to be smart. When the technical details are not understood they just get insulting.

My son goes to a karate school. Once you reach a certain belt you have to teach the younger belts. For many reasons. Funny how that's not utilized in school more (unless you are training to be a teacher).


When I was studying Indian classical music I found it pretty cool that the highest honor (pandit) or (ustad) actually refers to your mastery as a teacher. They leave the highest title to mean master teacher as well as maestro.

a reply to: luthier

It happens because people want instant gratification and they don't like to be wrong...and if they should happen to actually be wrong, they want anonymity. Throwing out little nasty, petulant jabs from the safety of their computer screen. They turn everything into a contest, keep score. Gone are the days when intelligent discussions are sparked for sharing ideas, opinions and theories. When people actually cared about what other people think and feel. Valued the input of others.

The never-ending stream of information that we have at our disposal may on the surface seem beneficial, but in a lot of ways it cripples us as a society; when people don't talk to each other because they can just Google instead in a fraction of the time it would take to ask another person a question, or people value typed words on a screen more so than the voice or insight of an experienced fellow human being. It would be unthinkable to most people now if we suddenly lost the convenient ability to gain instant expertise on a given subject. I mean, imagine...people would have to actually problem-solve. Actually learn things. Actually interact with other people. And actually have to run the risk of being wrong about things, in front of everyone. Oh, the horror!

We think we are an advanced race of beings, but take away the electronic toys and gadgets, the instant solutions to everything, stop indulging the frenetic "fast-food" mentality...I think we'd discover that we've actually regressed rather than progressed. We don't talk much anymore, nor do we really listen. And yes, I think it has definitely infected the rest of society. It's a pandemic.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Two anecdotal stories.

My wife is an academic (why she married a glorified carpenter and musician I will never know). I just went to a lecture at her college where the topic was the loss of critical thinking. You don't need to even try and figure things out anymore you can google it. Turns out its great for the hive mind and terrible for research (critical and creative thinking). People are getting great at following directions and terrible at coming up with ideas.

Second the public school here allowes students to bring their own devices. They have had to start making no technology days because the kids are not talking to each other at recess or lunch anymore. Scary and sad.

I actually find all of it very interesting. Especially the facet that "expert testimony" will frequently be eschewed by some random link.

It's ironic to me.. I initially began studying math and science so that I could more clearly explain complex thoughts and ideas. In a traditional sense, this has been successful.

However, I find myself struggling even greater to explain things in ways nearly everyone can understand. I have my own saying of encouragement, and that is 'simplicity is the truest form of genius.' I use this because I feel if I am incapable of communicating even the core of my ideas with simplicity and clarity, that I have much further to go in my own understandings.

In the end, I think a lot of it is an adjustment to newer technologies and tools. We don't really know how to use them to their fullest potential, and tend to just use it to justify a lack of personal progress and growth.

I would strongly hesitate to single out ATS though. I really don't see it as any different from a plethora of other message boards, or even social sites in general.

I think one of the sources is a conflict between our cultural story and the advancement of technology. It takes a while to fully realize the extent of repercussions. And while we focus strongly on advancing technology, there is little effort put into how best to utilize that tech beyond trial and error on a mass scale.

a reply to: luthier

Just because they don't explain themselves adequately doesn't mean they don't understand the material they are posting. I know I will post external content in cases where the external content does a better job of explaining the material than I could. I usually read the material first, then decide on the best parts to past into the thread that highlight what I'm trying to get across. Though I have to actually understand that material first before I do that.

originally posted by: olaru12
It always astonishes me that some members will use the Bible as corroborating evidence to back up their social, cultural, scientific or political bias.

Well, it is a fairly authoritative source if you hold to its beliefs.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I politely disagree with you. I am not sure that having a complete understanding does not entail knowing enough to teach it on the most basic level. Bad teachers in college is usually a lack of effort and care not understanding.

You definitely won't get better at teaching or explaining if you don't continue to try and make mistakes. Conversation is big part of the whole topic. I also state that there is nothing wrong with proof or evidence and that there is a certain type of poster.

If you are saying this happens every so often I understand. If its normal you have to post sources to communicate there is a certain function of the topic you don't understand. That's how to communicate your understanding which is an important facet of knowledge.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Maybe though the reason you can't explain things to the common person is because you stopped studying things in a more holistic way. Meaning studying how to teach and communicate. Not insulting you or accusing just pointing out maybe the focus of your teaching became to technical and you let the social aspect go.

Not to bring up my study of music again but my teacher gave me this story once.

"when I would watch my teacher perform raga after the show everybody would say to him thank you so much for that music in such an obviously emotional way....at the time I was transcribing African thumb piano to the piano and composing pieces from what I learned. After my concerts everybody kept saying that was very interesting or very cool. It really puzzled me why the reactions were so different. Then I realized the intent of the music was very different from the performers and some howe the audience picked up on that."

a reply to: luthier

Exactly, it's the loss of critical thinking. I would have loved to have been able to sit in on that lecture. As far as the school thing, I had no idea it was getting that bad until I babysat my friend's kiddos and all three of them had tablets, and the oldest one, 9yrs old, has an iPhone. HE. HAS. AN. IPHONE. /facepalm

She asked me if they had "behaved themselves". Really?? If they had been any more aloof and detached, they'd be dead. I don't think any of them even blinked the entire time. Just sat in one place, pushing buttons. Like little Stepford kids. VERY scary and unsettling indeed.

a reply to: chr0naut

But mixing metaphysics with science doesn't work. You can hold your belief or evangelize but, ultimately it isn't a valid argument. Not because of belief but because yo still have to use reason to argue. You can't just use scripture to debate and even the prophets and mystics in the bible mostly use reason to argue. If you bring up a point a person from the bible uses that has reason and truth within it that's different.

a reply to: luthier

I find that often the metaphors we use are the source of many misunderstandings in science (particularly Physics).

When it comes down to it, the mathematical descriptions are 'stripped bare of adornment' and are often, therefore, the most valid way of conveying an understanding.

Conversely, there are a lot of 'equations' (sic) available on the Internet, which bamboozle because they appear scientific, but are actually meaningless (and may not balance or equate, either!). Even seasoned physicists can be left scratching their heads trying to understand such stuff.

Also human reason itself is based upon experience. If one comes across something that is largely outside of human experience, then it is logical that reason will not give us any useful answers.

a reply to: chr0naut

The last part of your statement can't be true by empirical evidence. If we were not capable of reason beyond our current expirence how would we then do anything new? How are we not still in loin clothes in caves? Reason is what allows us to transcend our expirence. Or else it really isn't reason.

The first part of your statement I can partly agree with. But its not what I meant by the op. Why would you debate complex math equations on ATS and expect to get your point across, have people understand you, or insult people and not try to explain the basic theory behind the discussion. The misunderstandings are not as big a deal to me as not trying. So people get confused and think the god particle is more than it is. Is it better they just don't think about it at all? I don't know the answer for it. Carl Saegan and Neil D.T. do a pretty good thing for society I think. I would much rather loose a debate to them because I would actually change my opinion.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: chr0naut

The last part of your statement can't be true by empirical evidence. If we were not capable of reason beyond our current expirence how would we then do anything new? How are we not still in loin clothes in caves? Reason is what allows us to transcend our expirence. Or else it really isn't reason.

Some extend their range of reason by 'experiencing' what others do not.

A physicist or mathematician has tools that the layman does not. They have learned, usually repetitively, to wield uncommon paradigms as part of their reasoning process.

a reply to: chr0naut

But that's not what we are talking about. Those mathematicians and scientists would never acquire those skills or any skills without being able to move past you current experiences. Reason is what allows you to make predictions on the evidence. How would science even come to be without reasonably assuming there was more than what you have experienced?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: chr0naut

But that's not what we are talking about. Those mathematicians and scientists would never squire those skills or any skills without being able to move past you current experiences. Reason is what allows you to make predictions on the evidence. How would science even come to be without reasonably assuming there was more than what you have experienced?

One could point out the number of unreasonable conclusions we have found about things in the quantum realm. As someone tersely (and perhaps cryptically) put it; "Schrödinger's cat".

a reply to: chr0naut

Explain how that applies? I don't understand. That seems to be entirely different topic. I understand the paradox and thought experiment but how does it affect reason that reason allows us to transcend expirence?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: chr0naut

Explain how that applies? I don't understand. That seems to be entirely different topic. I understand the paradox and thought experiment but how does it affect reason that reason allows us to transcend expirence?

We have no experience of a cat being simultaneously alive and dead. The mathematics of the quantum realm suggests that there are actually four states possible: alive, dead, dead/alive & alive/dead.

That is not very reasonable based upon human experience & also isn't a paradox.

a reply to: chr0naut

Sure but that's still doesn't make sense in the argument to me. Reason is not only based on human expirence is what I am saying. Something being "reasonable" is not the same as the mind function reason. Reason would be understanding the data the doesn't make sense based on expirence is what I have been saying. If you didn't have reason you would never come up with the thought experiment or understand the data. You would assume like animals it was magic. Reason tunes your expirence and allow you to make predictions other wise we would be scared animals not capable of understanding. Logic changes with study and expirence reason is the processor that computes all of it.