am i a buzz killer?

[dean_r_koontz]

i made an equation in another thread, this really satisfy every little factor that should make it the epitome of "no buzzness". if you want buzz, don't look here.

[sleeper]

i meant that half the class failed (if not even more) and that at least half of the class was made up of people in applied sciences. im not saying that, therefore, 100% of the science peopel failed, im saying that heres a pretty good chunk of people in a 'serious' field who cant even pass an exam in this class, this class that you deride a pitifully easy


its not what you said its what you implied, its what was clearly the sentiment that you were expressing. you dont have to literally say "i think all ... are lazy." the undeniable (this is really not even debatable) implication of what you were saying is that it takes more "discipline and intelligence" (your words) to do something in the sciences and that all of these liberal art things are nothing and nought -- the idea then being that people who pursue the latter are at least lazier, if not stupider, on the whole


but, i answered all of your direct questions, why not answer mine? why are you still a moron? why cant you translate any of this more rigorous and intellectually demanding education (i fully agree that it is this, to be clear) into anything meaningful outside of biochemistry? really, you can only point to some abstract measure of intelligence like this and pretend that it is intelligence to a point. lets focus on results here. i mean, you may be right, i may indeed be a moron, but that wont and doesnt make you any less stupid

[dean_r_koontz]

no no no. you made two assumptions:

A: that i think all the people who study sciences are geniuses

and

B: that i thought you've slept your way through school

i replied:

can you QUOTE me on that, you couldn't. do you realise something is wrong with your way of debating when you put words in other peoples mouths like that?

[dean_r_koontz]

feel free to post a quote with undeniable proof that i stand for A and B, even though it's just from deduction of said quote.

[sleeper]

i already wrote a reply but you first have to answer the questions that i posed to you. im not interested in continuing this if im basically just serving you here

i think dean makes a really good appraisal of what he reads, hears etc. and that is a sure sign of intelligence. ive seen a good deal of understanding and very little bias in his posts

[dean_r_koontz]

let's look at the "proof" you've got of me thinking all people who study science are geniuses:

i wrote that the things i study now are 200% more difficult and more demanding than your little epistemology and the logic class (which is something i can't deduce, but i wasn't bothering to be correct at that point).

the things i study now does not contain ALL of science, there's other maths, there's physics and hordes of other things that can be looked upon as "science" of this kind. therefore, you can't deduce that i think all people who study any kind of science is a genius, since all areas of science aren't *******d in the thing i'm currently studying.

B: i can't see that you've given any proof that i've ever believed that you slept your way through school, i'm still waiting for that.

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by sleeper

its not what you said its what you implied, its what was clearly the sentiment that you were expressing. you dont have to literally say "i think all ... are lazy." the undeniable (this is really not even debatable) implication of what you were saying is that it takes more "discipline and intelligence" (your words) to do something in the sciences and that all of these liberal art things are nothing and nought -- the idea then being that people who pursue the latter are at least lazier, if not stupider, on the whole

this doesn't make any sense to me, sleeper

saying it requires more "discipline and intelligence" to succeed in field A does not necessarily imply anything about the personal qualities of those who pursue field B. if dean's statement is true, it will tell you something about the composition of the population of successful individuals in either field (i.e., field A's will on average be more disciplined and intelligent than field B's), but i don't see how it implies anything about the personal qualities of, say, a random unproven freshman in either field. if you take all freshmen as being equal, it just means they have a greater chance of failure in field A

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

let's look at the "proof" you've got of me thinking all people who study science are geniuses:

i wrote that the things i study now are 200% more difficult and more demanding than your little epistemology and the logic class (which is something i can't deduce, but i wasn't bothering to be correct at that point).

the things i study now does not contain ALL of science, there's other maths, there's physics and hordes of other things that can be looked upon as "science" of this kind. therefore, you can't deduce that i think all people who study any kind of science is a genius, since all areas of science aren't *******d in the thing i'm currently studying.

B: i can't see that you've given any proof that i've ever believed that you slept your way through school, i'm still waiting for that.

if you ask me "is it raining?" and i show you my wet umbrella -- or say "im soaked" or that "the streets are flooded" or any number of things -- ive said absolutely nothing explicit on if or if not its raining, yet, magically, its totally, totally clear as to what the answer is. it wouldnt be "putting words in my mouth" to rightly assume that i answered yes to that question. the moral is: implication exists and is, id say, the level that actually most communication is done on


and no i didnt make that assumption. i mean could challenge you to find where i assumed that you thought that ALL of them were genuises. the idea was always that people that study sciences are more intelligent than those in liberal arts, and that (circular logic here) the fact that someone is in the sciences can generally function as proof that a person is intelligent because of how much more demanding of intelligence it is (your words) compared to the liberal arts

ill partly conceed B. ill say partly because while you never exactly asserted that i or others like me are lazy, you did assert that though the sciences are more difficult and that the students in them work harder, that the what im doing is "nothing" and "naught," and you said those in ways the precluded the possibility that you meant it specifically and strictly in a relative sense



from that second last paragraph its clear that youre actually arguing things on some kind of ridiculous lawyerly level here. i said "science" when referring to the field you said you were in which was 200% harder and later when talking about the thing. "science" is actually defined as xyz, you say. my previous comments didnt apply to alll of that xyz. therefore how could i have made that claim? need i even point out how dishonest this sudden, new approach is? not to mention how laborious. fuck, its a hassle talking to you

[dean_r_koontz]

"but to put it into perspective, i got the highest mark in the class and the rest of the class, at least half of whom were in some applied science or another (geniuses by your measure), actually failed the motherfucker"

from that post, i CAN deduce that you think that i believe all people who study applied science or another are geniuses, just because they study in that field. i really can't see that there's any other way of looking at it. do you?

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

"but to put it into perspective, i got the highest mark in the class and the rest of the class, at least half of whom were in some applied science or another (geniuses by your measure), actually failed the motherfucker"

from that post, i CAN deduce that you think that i believe all people who study applied science or another are geniuses, just because they study in that field. i really can't see that there's any other way of looking at it. do you?

you could only take it that way if you took it 100.00% literally. where you looked at that aside ("geniuses by your measure") and took it exactly literally. whats being expressed is "these people should be intelligent, according to you." it sounds like im splitting hairs or obfuscating, but, really, you cant honestly take it literally

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

this doesn't make any sense to me, sleeper

saying it requires more "discipline and intelligence" to succeed in field A does not necessarily imply anything about the personal qualities of those who pursue field B.
if dean's statement is true, it will tell you something about the composition of the population of successful individuals in either field (i.e., field A's will on average be more disciplined and intelligent than field B's), but i don't see how it implies anything about the personal qualities of, say, a random unproven freshman in either field. if you take all freshmen as being equal, it just means they have a greater chance of failure in field A

no i agree, i conceded that tie to personal qualities on the part of people in field B (it is strongly implied, not in and of itself, but with everything else he said, but he didnt necessarily assert it, i accept) and its good that you made the distinction between successful and untried.

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by sleeper

no i agree, i conceded that tie to personal qualities on the part of people in field B (it is strongly implied, not in and of itself, but with everything else he said, but he didnt necessarily assert it, i accept) and its good that you made the distinction between successful and untried.

how is it implied, then?

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

how is it implied, then?

have you read the whole thread?

im sure there are a number of isntances that could go towards this, but, as i said, its just implied. heres one i just saw now:

"and then you can say: man i've studied logic in school, i can play the game of the science people but choose not to"

what does "can" imply there? that those who dont generally actually dont because they cant, and that what they cant do is deal with the higher level of intelligence and discipline that is required. this does suggest something about the personal qualities of the people in field B, and its certainly not positive.

but i really hate this type of argument now where things are broken down in this lawyerly way. ill concede that any good argument should be able to withstand that or anything, so im not saying its wrong on those grounds, but that its just dishonest and unnecessarily work intensive. dishonest because i can easily know what you mean by some comment, and you can i, but to then remove oneself from that and act like what you meant was actually the sum of the literal definitions of the words you typed is a bit dishonest. its fair to an extent because we only really can fully rely on the words, but its unnecessary for most discussions

[wHATcOLOR]

doesn't this get exhausting?

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by wHATcOLOR

doesn't this get exhausting?

this one in particular really is. all the other threads where i debate something for pages usually arent, even with corganist, who is known for being a real pedant

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by sleeper

"and then you can say: man i've studied logic in school, i can play the game of the science people but choose not to"

what does "can" imply there? that those who dont generally actually dont because they cant, and that what they cant do is deal with the higher level of intelligence and discipline that is required. this does suggest something about the personal qualities of the people in field B, and its certainly not positive.

i don't see how that statement implies anything about arts students generally. the inference i make from it is that he thinks you're being defensive in regard to your own level of ability, not anyone else's

[dean_r_koontz]

this gets exhausting because i'm (and lucky day spa helped, thank you) making a point out of showing the faulty logic of one of your posts. this is just ONE of your posts, in a general discussion, you'll post about twenty posts like that with just as much assumptions and faulty logic. the stuff you post generally falls apart if it is put under closer scrutiny, but no one usually bothers because it will only lead into an exhaustive discussion like this that will only serve to piss people off, no one will actually read the whole thing to figure out who's right and who's wrong. I know that you're faking your way forward on the board, i know that you've got nothing to show for, sooner or later when you're stuck doing those menial tasks full time, you will have to accept it too.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

this gets exhausting because i'm (and lucky day spa helped, thank you) making a point out of showing the faulty logic of one of your posts. this is just ONE of your posts, in a general discussion, you'll post about twenty posts like that with just as much assumptions and faulty logic. the stuff you post generally falls apart if it is put under closer scrutiny, but no one usually bothers because it will only lead into an exhaustive discussion like this that will only serve to piss people off, no one will actually read the whole thing to figure out who's right and who's wrong. I know that you're faking your way forward on the board, i know that you've got nothing to show for, sooner or later when you're stuck doing those menial tasks full time, you will have to accept it too.

wow what idiocy. look at what a charade this is. you fished around for 2 pages and finally struck on one connection that required a bit too much assumption ("lazy-man") and now you act like youve just casually struck down one soggy timber to prove the whole house is rotten. what about all the other points you challenged me on, attempting to use to "prove" some kind of consistent trend of poor reasoning? what about that genius one? that one was particularly pitiful. you might as well have found a typo and said "aha, you said i was a 'idoit.' no such word exists!!!!" indeed.

this thread actually proves the exact opposite of what youre suggesting. after 2 pages of labour you discovered one weak argument, (you certainly werent chasing this one from the beginning, it came about incidentally after other nonsense wouldnt stick) while every single other weak argument the length of this thread belonged to you, with the difference being that i didnt try and seize on them as proof of some trend of faulty logic. hell, that post im quoting above is a horrible argument

but look at what air of certainty and wisdom there is in that post. this whole thing is so obviously an afterthought, yet you frame it like "it was dirty work but it had to be done. you can all thank me later." a pretty pathetic sight

[mercurial]

yep ... you're both buzz killers

imho

[dean_r_koontz]

that was a wonder of substance.

[sleeper]

its amazing how unperturbed you are by your own stupidity though. the hypocrisy of it all doesnt ever seem to be an issue to you, it doesnt come up. maybe its time you went back on the meds, dean

[dean_r_koontz]

sleeper, you MUST send at least one question from that test that everyone failed, i'd love to read it.

[Luke de Spa]

deanders, i'd like to know more about the challenges of biochemistry. where should i start?

[dean_r_koontz]

Originally Posted by sleeper

its amazing how unperturbed you are by your own stupidity though. the hypocrisy of it all doesnt ever seem to be an issue to you, it doesnt come up. maybe its time you went back on the meds, dean

i suppose you can deduce that i'm not on any medication from the stuff i'm currently writing?

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

i suppose you can deduce that i'm not on any medication from the stuff i'm currently writing?

i was being generous, dean

[Shapan]

bio is a tough enough major, i cant imagine biochemistry. ill be happy once im done with ochem by the end of the year to have put chem aside.

how far along are you in it dean? what do you want as an occupation after you're done schooling?

[dean_r_koontz]

Originally Posted by Luke de Spa

deanders, i'd like to know more about the challenges of biochemistry. where should i start?

i've got little or no knowledge about popular science books concerning this, perhaps the egoistical gene or whatever it's called by richard dawkins? i haven't read it myself but a dude i know says it's good. if you want the real challenges, go for the average basic 1000-pages chemistry book to read about electron orbitals, wave properties of matter, calcualation of weak acids/bases, orbital hybridizations, inter and intramolecular forces blah blah. the basic stuff. then move on to something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-liquid_extraction

which is a little part of what i'm currently doing. the real challenges are up ahead for me as well though. it's not like learning to take photographs with a good lighting scource or remembering the definition of utilitarianism for several weeks, but we can't all be rocket scientists like sleeper.

[dean_r_koontz]

Originally Posted by Shapan

bio is a tough enough major, i cant imagine biochemistry. ill be happy once im done with ochem by the end of the year to have put chem aside.

how far along are you in it dean? what do you want as an occupation after you're done schooling?

i'm in my first year so it's a looong way ahead. knowledge wise it can be compared with second year of college, perhaps, it's hard to make a decent translation between the systems. i want to study the brain.i'm going to read as much brain physiology and chemistry as i can to get at least a little shot at working with it. what kind of organic chemistry are you reading?

[Luke de Spa]

Originally Posted by dean_r_koontz

i've got little or no knowledge about popular science books concerning this, perhaps the egoistical gene or whatever it's called by richard dawkins? i haven't read it myself but a dude i know says it's good. if you want the real challenges, go for the average basic 1000-pages chemistry book to read about electron orbitals, wave properties of matter, calcualation of weak acids/bases, orbital hybridizations, inter and intramolecular forces blah blah. the basic stuff. then move on to something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid-liquid_extraction

which is a little part of what i'm currently doing. the real challenges are up ahead for me as well though. it's not like learning to take photographs with a good lighting scource or understanding the definition of utilitarianism, but we can't all be rocket scientists like sleeper.

i haven't read the selfish gene, but i've read a few other books by dawkins. i'll have to put that on my list. most of those terms are familiar to me already (only from high school chemistry/physics, though). i'll take a look at that article later. thanks.