Are you talking about teaching critical thinking skills?
Also, do you think the professor in the video a few posts ago wouldn't be trying to teach you about defining engineering problems if, say, you didn't have to pay to take so many units of elective courses, such as, perhaps, music appreciation?
Also, do you think the professor in the video a few posts ago wouldn't be trying to teach you about defining engineering problems if, say, you didn't have to pay to take so many units of elective courses, such as, perhaps, music appreciation?
Last edited:
@ulogon
Hi,
try to do some researchs to sort out the manicheism behind such questions.
A journey from Descartes to Knewton is imho a good starting and base to go back to some others thinkers : Kant, Spinoza, Husserl, not limited.
Sort out about verity (universal,at least as a species) and subjectiv (your personal journey).
For illustration, what can I doubt or not. Illustration : one + one equal Two (universal verity, at least for us) and your subjectives that are also true, valid but subjectivs (the whole is making our world behind some solid concepts). Illustration (a very basic illustration of mime) : an Asahi is the best beverage after an onsen (very subjective but a veririty as far I am concerned ! Is it universal ? Nah, but you can believe it as far I am concerned and here science as nothing to see, but it is a verity ok : llimited nd not not universal. Do I care when I bath in an Onsen?)!).
Then: some Kant (as a shortcut) about what is a limot about what I can believe, judge and know.Then some Husserl (as a base) about includoing my states of mind about what I can beliieve as a person thinking about that (shorcut).
What is making your life is not limited to science (and the universal 1+1 demo,strtion behind it) but also with all the rest that involve your personal journey, culture (wolrdwide heritage to your local journey). All of that is true for you. You just have to sort out the hieararchy to move into your society with coherency. Imho.
Hi,
try to do some researchs to sort out the manicheism behind such questions.
A journey from Descartes to Knewton is imho a good starting and base to go back to some others thinkers : Kant, Spinoza, Husserl, not limited.
Sort out about verity (universal,at least as a species) and subjectiv (your personal journey).
For illustration, what can I doubt or not. Illustration : one + one equal Two (universal verity, at least for us) and your subjectives that are also true, valid but subjectivs (the whole is making our world behind some solid concepts). Illustration (a very basic illustration of mime) : an Asahi is the best beverage after an onsen (very subjective but a veririty as far I am concerned ! Is it universal ? Nah, but you can believe it as far I am concerned and here science as nothing to see, but it is a verity ok : llimited nd not not universal. Do I care when I bath in an Onsen?)!).
Then: some Kant (as a shortcut) about what is a limot about what I can believe, judge and know.Then some Husserl (as a base) about includoing my states of mind about what I can beliieve as a person thinking about that (shorcut).
What is making your life is not limited to science (and the universal 1+1 demo,strtion behind it) but also with all the rest that involve your personal journey, culture (wolrdwide heritage to your local journey). All of that is true for you. You just have to sort out the hieararchy to move into your society with coherency. Imho.
Last edited:
Now we are back to philosophy?
If philosophy leads to understanding of what is real, then I guess what is real and what isn't must be well understood by now. Thus, all philosophers should exactly agree on everything? Or if they disagree maybe its that none of them really know what is real/truth? Maybe its mostly a matter of philosophical opinion?
If philosophy leads to understanding of what is real, then I guess what is real and what isn't must be well understood by now. Thus, all philosophers should exactly agree on everything? Or if they disagree maybe its that none of them really know what is real/truth? Maybe its mostly a matter of philosophical opinion?
Last edited:
Do you know what it is really ?
Mark, you have not idea imho about what you are talking about when talking about history of knowledge and where we went till science you are involving in the world "philosophy", imho.
You just basicly illustrate an not valid opinion about what philosophy is, i.e. story of knowledge evolution.
without your shortcut about what science is : would not have ben possible without all the reasons behind concepts and sorting out about subjectivities and cultures which is about what is philosophy, sorting out what is universal and which came to science (very easy to sea when studing history of ideas and ciences further)! Because you start from what science is but with avoiding what made it (it is a jouirney you think logic but it is not as simple)
Do you think it really pops up soon and from no-where? Nah !
Mark, you have not idea imho about what you are talking about when talking about history of knowledge and where we went till science you are involving in the world "philosophy", imho.
You just basicly illustrate an not valid opinion about what philosophy is, i.e. story of knowledge evolution.
without your shortcut about what science is : would not have ben possible without all the reasons behind concepts and sorting out about subjectivities and cultures which is about what is philosophy, sorting out what is universal and which came to science (very easy to sea when studing history of ideas and ciences further)! Because you start from what science is but with avoiding what made it (it is a jouirney you think logic but it is not as simple)
Do you think it really pops up soon and from no-where? Nah !
Last edited:
I have read enough of philosophy to know that it there is a history to it, that there have been disagreements, and that aside from spinning off physics and some of mathematics (fields that were once sort of incorporated into western philosophy), not much of significance has happened since.
No, this has nothing whatsoever to do with critical thinking skills. That's an entirely different subject.
This is a very simple yet fundamental element of an engineering education. The most important thing to learn how to do is to first define the problem you are trying to solve.
And the professor in the video seems to be completely overlooking this basic element of an engineering education. Moreover, I have no problem whatsoever with requiring engineering students to take elective courses such as art, literature, music appreciation, etc. We need well rounded engineers just as much as any other majors. Maybe even more so. In retrospect I wish I had been required to take more than just the few liberal arts courses in my days in college.
So you would agree that any person not wishing to pay for and take elective courses such as art, literature, music appreciation, should be prohibited from being allowed to learn how to design an amplifier in college?
I think you really have missed the point, sorry ! You are making a basic manicheism because you do not know really! You are really missing about history of knowledge and ideas as if you were thinking world begun withe the idea of what you think about science is (lately) !
First year of ingineering school knowledge missunderstanding. A basic in engineering studies, cause as far I know you do not know about science history (but your cursus which is not focused on that, so a basic knowledge). I am not talking about epistimology yet, most of the menbers with basic knowledge seem to belive they understand as having a basic introduction with engineering studies or as a self studies.
First year of ingineering school knowledge missunderstanding. A basic in engineering studies, cause as far I know you do not know about science history (but your cursus which is not focused on that, so a basic knowledge). I am not talking about epistimology yet, most of the menbers with basic knowledge seem to belive they understand as having a basic introduction with engineering studies or as a self studies.
Last edited:
Diyiggy, I don't think so. I have looked for answers in philosophy and a number of other areas of study. There are some very thoughtful ideas in philosophy, but I question the practical applicability when philosophical arguments cannot be be proven right or wrong. Sometimes it has turned out there is some truth as discovered later by science. Hume did fairly well in some respects, but that means other guys turned out to be less right. How would you know back then who would turn out to be right?
Sorry, you do not know what philosophy is and your post proves you haven't studied it seriously (and understand it) or were guided in that knowldge about ideas evolutions. Cause your phrases is about what a daily newspaper would be about talking about that. No offense, but really a manicheism thinking, not so far from when people talk about psychanilsm VS psychiatry.
Nothing wrong, if you came towards it from yourself (or as introduction in your studies), it is quite a good idea if you want to understand more about science and history of ideas and what your world is made about (I think you understood you have also to rule history before studying philosophy and history about knowledge evolution to critism it among what science is ? Do you think really a scientist is knowwing all about what is behind science and thinking methodology ? Most of them has no time to study it seriously, and too much has not enough epistomology training as a base to do more than repeating and read main scineting printings. Again, no critisms : a day is only 12 hours of working if not too much far from your job.
Again, first year of engineering high school thinking ! Go beyond.
Nothing wrong, if you came towards it from yourself (or as introduction in your studies), it is quite a good idea if you want to understand more about science and history of ideas and what your world is made about (I think you understood you have also to rule history before studying philosophy and history about knowledge evolution to critism it among what science is ? Do you think really a scientist is knowwing all about what is behind science and thinking methodology ? Most of them has no time to study it seriously, and too much has not enough epistomology training as a base to do more than repeating and read main scineting printings. Again, no critisms : a day is only 12 hours of working if not too much far from your job.
Again, first year of engineering high school thinking ! Go beyond.
Last edited:
Diyiggy, Once again I must disagree. I have already said previously that the philosophy of science is very important for practical reasons. OTOH how many angels can dance on the head of pin is not.
Regarding history, that is another matter. Do you have any idea how many books and articles have been written on Abraham Lincoln? Over 16,000, according to wikipedia. It can only mean that there are 16,000+ different views/interpretations of the story of Lincoln. How many of them are right, any of them? Otherwise, why do we need so many?
Not only that, but all history is revisionist:
...history is created by the application of human thought and imagination to what’s left behind. And because each historian is an individual human being—differing by sex and gender; origin, nationality, ethnicity, and community; nurture, education, and culture; wealth and occupation; politics and ideology; mind, disposition, sensibility, and interest, each living at a distinct time in a distinct place—as a community of professionals, they come to hold different views, have different purposes, create different interpretations, and put forth their own distinctive understandings of “the past.”
IOW, there is no exact truth in history either. Rather there are a lot of disagreements and opinions. This is not to deny anything in particular, only to point out that evidence of the past subject to interpretation by historians. They don't always agree on everything. Sometimes early history has to be rewritten when some new bones are discovered somewhere.
https://www.neh.gov/article/all-history-revisionist-history
Regarding history, that is another matter. Do you have any idea how many books and articles have been written on Abraham Lincoln? Over 16,000, according to wikipedia. It can only mean that there are 16,000+ different views/interpretations of the story of Lincoln. How many of them are right, any of them? Otherwise, why do we need so many?
Not only that, but all history is revisionist:
...history is created by the application of human thought and imagination to what’s left behind. And because each historian is an individual human being—differing by sex and gender; origin, nationality, ethnicity, and community; nurture, education, and culture; wealth and occupation; politics and ideology; mind, disposition, sensibility, and interest, each living at a distinct time in a distinct place—as a community of professionals, they come to hold different views, have different purposes, create different interpretations, and put forth their own distinctive understandings of “the past.”
IOW, there is no exact truth in history either. Rather there are a lot of disagreements and opinions. This is not to deny anything in particular, only to point out that evidence of the past subject to interpretation by historians. They don't always agree on everything. Sometimes early history has to be rewritten when some new bones are discovered somewhere.
https://www.neh.gov/article/all-history-revisionist-history
Last edited:
UH. Sorry, but my knowledge is not comming from Wikipedia. I really think you have an etheral idea about what is philosophy as most of people having not studied it. Nothing wrong, if we only could have had more versability at learning with 72 hours days 🙂
And of course I know about history and methodology about it from a late science frrom XIXe and mostly from XX. Studied it in the best Universities of my part of the world !
I know that but I know nothing about electricity ! Cut and paste is poor demonstration btw !
And of course I know about history and methodology about it from a late science frrom XIXe and mostly from XX. Studied it in the best Universities of my part of the world !
I know that but I know nothing about electricity ! Cut and paste is poor demonstration btw !
Last edited:
lol ! Certainly a non mastered corpus from you ! Basic manicheism from your side of your world (known as poor culture alas).
Well, some good historiscists though !
Well, some good historiscists though !
Last edited:
Strange thing to say about an undisputed fact.
Personal insults toward someone you know literally nothing about? Really?
Personal insults toward someone you know literally nothing about? Really?
no insults, when you know you know ! dialectict has nothing to do here, it is no discussion when you are wrong.
facts and knowledge are stupborns. if you want to change the paradigm then illustrate it (wikipedia ?....please!)
facts and knowledge are stupborns. if you want to change the paradigm then illustrate it (wikipedia ?....please!)
I don't engage in such BS, believing in science and rationality.
If Ludwig Wittgenstein decided that philosophical questions are literally nonsense, who am I to disagree?
If Ludwig Wittgenstein decided that philosophical questions are literally nonsense, who am I to disagree?
Hi Mark,
First let me point out that there are two very different and distinct threads going on here. One is about philosophy and a lot of other abstract things. I'm not interested in getting into that debate.
The other thread is about this subject. Namely, the study of engineering in universities.
So to address your point I would not agree that a person who doesn't want to pay for taking elective courses such as art, literature, music appreciation, etc., should have that choice in gettng an engineering degree.
That misses the whole point of getting a college education. The study of engineering is just one aspect of attending college. A far more important issue is producing a well rounded and educated individual. A person who can not only design amplifiers as in your example, but can function in the world on a broader scale. If fact, I think there should be more emphasis on liberal arts subjects, not less.
Most importantly, the person needs to learn how to define and solve problems. And that is what an engineering education needs to provide.
As I said previously, it amazes me how many people I have encountered in years of business who do not have the ability or mental processes to define problems before trying to solve them. And those people are typically not engineers. In fact, some of the worse cases I have encountered have been with middle and upper management individuals who are employeed in technical industies but do not have an engineering background. They just don't know how to ever define a problem to begin with. And the results of their decisions and direction are usually far from satisfactory. I've seen this over and over again.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.