"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:ftg5kc$5dq$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "H Duffy" <hester_duffy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:65v6b2F2i5r0tU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> It doesn't buy enough of every book for each student to have one, no.
But
>> as I've said, they don't need one of every book; they simply need to
read
>> _some_ books, and usually, the information they need will appear in
>> several different books, so it is entirely possible for all the
students
>> to find exactly what they need, in the library.
> Or any other place on the planet, so why restrict them ?
We don't restrict them in terms of where they can find their sources; we
simply expect them to use, and cite, reliable sources. And to make that
easier for them, and to ensure that they don't have to pay for their
reliable sources if they don't want to, we provide them with free access
to
a library, which has lots of reliable sources in it.
> Surely their ability should be checked rather than anything else.
Well, part of "ability" is the ability to find and use and cite reliable
sources, and to distinguish between reliable sources (like peer-reviewed
journals) and unreliable sources (like Wikipedia, religious websites, and
so
on).
>>Apart from anything else, a lot of what they need will be in journal
>>articles, and most libraries don't let you take journals out; instead,
you
>>take a photocopy of the article you need, which means every member of
the
>>class can get a copy.
> yes and gettign a copy doesn't make you clever even agreeing with what
it
> says
> doesn't make you clever,
No, absolutely; in fact, quite often it's _disagreeing_ with it that
demonstrates some original thought and uderstanding. But it's a lot more
useful to disagree (or agree, either way) with a reputable, reliable
source
than with some nutjob who has put up a bunch of inaccurate nonsense as
propaganda on a website.
I'm sure there was a journal that gave the size of
> your
> head as a measure of intelligence. I'm sure there was a time when it was
> thought that
> women shouldn't go to universities ands I'm sure there must have been
> sup****ting
> materials otherwise why would have it been sup****ted at the time.
Right. And the way those things changed is that people read _those_
journals, and then came up with intelligent refutations. If they hadn't
bothered to read them, they couldn't have pointed out why they were wrong,
and no progress would have been made.
>> And no-one has claimed that they do.
> So what would a student do if he is recommended to buy a particular book
> for a course
> and he can;t get it from the library, when I faced this problem I
brought
> the book,
Well, if a student is going to be using the same book a lot, then
sometimes
buying it is the best option; in that case, it's quite often best to get
it
second hand, as it's cheaper that way.
Buyt yes, students sometimes have to buy books. That's one of the
downsides
of being a student.
>> And if any class ever only recommended one book, that would indeed be
an
>> issue. However, since that's never the case, it's not an issue;
instead,
>> any given lecturer will recommend at least half a dozen books, and
often
>> some journal articles as well (if it's for a specific topic, rather
than
>> a more general course-book), any of which will give the students the
>> ifnromation they need. They are also allowed, nay, encouraged, to go
and
>> do their own research and find other reputable sources of information
on
>> the same topic.
> There you're back to the same problem for reputable.
> Reputable according to who ?
Well, peer-reviewed journals are onsidered reputable. Books published by
academic publishers (CUP, OUP, Sage, etc) are generally considered
reputable. The reason for that is that the peer reviewers have no vested
interest in a given article being published; if they don't think it's
good,
they'll turn it down, even if it agrees with what they're saying. If they
think it's a good article, they'll recommend it for publication, even if
they disagree with it. In fact, quite often, they'll be glad of an
articule
they disagree with, because it gives them something to write about.
Academic publishers aren't biased, because they want to maintain their
good
reputation, and if they start publi****ng any old nonsense, people will
stop
taking them seriously.
>> And since we're talking about using them for academic work, you're
going
>> off ona tangent again.
>
> well you never found a reputable cite to prove that Galileo, all you
found
> were
> catholic references to what was said at the time.
No, Dave, I didn't; you _assumed_ that any source that sup****ted what I'd
said was Catholic, but you were actually entirely wrong about that.
>
>>> If all you have to do is copy someone else's work
>>
>> But we're not talking about that, so it's irrelevant.
>
> But if you wants facts or the truth why leave any stone unturned.
Because some stones quite obviously don't have any facts or truth under
them, and are thus not worth turning.
For example, I'm reading various stuff on evolutionary psychology at the
moment. I _could_ go and read some creationist websites, because they
mention evolution. But would there be any point? No, of course not,
because
they don't actually have anything useful or informative to say about
evolution. So instead, I'll stick to scientific articles in reputable
journals, and scientific books published by reputable publishers.
>> Yes. No student is expected to read _all_ the available information.
> But they are usually expected to read more than one source, why would
that
> be
> if you've found your reputable source.
Because even a reputable source doesn't have access to Absolute Truth;
quite
often, we want them to look at two opposing views of the same issue, and
try
to understand the evidence behind each view.
>> Another tangent; where is there any indication that anyone thinks that
>> people aren't allowed opinions?
>
>
>
> If you're only allowed to cite certain books or passages.
That doesn't mean you cna't have an opinion; it just means that, for
example, when talking about evolutionary psychology, the Creationist
viewpoint is just not helpful.
> You should be allowed to listen to anyones opinions.
Yes, and in your spare time, you can, but some opinions just don't inform
the debate at all, and are thus a waste of time.
>>>> not "facts and truth", because we simply don't have access to all the
>>>> "facts and truth"
>>> Who's we.
>>
>> The human race.
>
> But you won't allow the human race a say it has to be from those sources
> you
> claim are reputable.
That's right; some members of the human race know enough about a given
subject that their opinions are useful and informative. Some don't.
Of course asking the police about crime what they
> nearly always say
> is there is a reduction in re****ted crime. If you really want to know
> about crime you
> have to go beyond the so called reputable sources you're used to.
*heh* What, and ask some Sherriff in America who claims to have reduced
recidivism by 70% by painting the prison pink? Exactly how far beyond that
source did _you_ go before accepting his story, Dave? What evidence did
you
look at to sup****t what he said?
>> Are you aware that what you've just said is a non sequitur? You seem to
>> be reading something completely separate from what I've actually said.
>> You seem to think I'm saying that students must follow the party line,
>> and only express certain opinions which have the official rubber-stamp
on
>> them.
> Isn't that what you mean by reputable sources,
No, it really isn't. Whether a source is reputable or not doesn't depend
on
which opinions they express, it depends on whether they actually provide
reliable, valid evidence for their opinions. If a Creationist came up with
some solid _proof_ that the planet is only 6,000 years old, and could show
the whole research process, then their views would be worth listening to.
If
they say "This is how it is because it just is", it doesn't matter whether
they're espousing creationism or evolution; they're not a good source.
In fact, if Steven Hawking had said "The universe is like it is just
because
of Physics, and that's it", no-one would have listened to him. He became
the
leading light in his field by providing good solid evidence to prove his
points.
Similarly, if Darwin had said "Evolution is the one true path and anyone
who
doesn't believe in it is an infidel", he wouldn't be counted as one of the
Fathers of Modern Science. He's reputable because he provided logical,
evidence-based proof of his theories.
>> Actually, I've said no such thing. So who are you replying to, and what
>> did they say?
>
> Who did you decide were a reputable source for working out what fell
> to the ground in Roswell ?
I don't know of any reputable sources, and thus I don't have a strong
opinion on what it was. It seems likely that it was a spy balloon of some
sort, but without seeing actual evidence, I can't draw a conclusion.
>> Do you realise that research is one of the things I do for a living?
>> Like, new research, finding out new stuff?
> And yuo don;t find NEW stuff by quoting old cites.
Acually, yes, you do; or rather, in order to find new stuff, you have to
understand the old stuff first. Otherwise your "new" stuff might just be
old
stuff that someone has already done, mightn't it? I mean, there'd be no
point in an astrophysicist _now_ saying "Hold on chaps; I think I've
figured
it out! The planets don't revolve around the Earth, they go round the sun!
Hah! How's that for new research!".
In order to generate _new_ knowledge, you have to understand the state of
the science as it is, and that involves reading old stuff, so that you're
not just reinventing the wheel.
>
>> You really have absolutely no conception of other people, do you?
You've
>> got this weird picture of what you _think_ I am, what what you think I
>> believe,
> I know what you believe you've proved that time and time again.
But you don't, Dave; pretty much _every_ time you say what you think I
believe, you get it wrong. Does that not tell you something about your
perceptions?
>
>> and it doesn't matter than your view of my and my beliefs is entirely
>> worng, and that it goes against all the evidence; you've got your
>> opinion, and you can't or won't change it.
> I knew your view on Roswell, and the Bible and santorini and the sheriff
> that you'vesaid has claime d to find a cure for crime.
No, Dave, you don't. For example, you've repeatedly accused me of
believing
that the Bible is true. I don't. You're just wrong about what my opinions
are. And even though you've been told that, over and over again, you seem
to
be incapable of adjusting your view; that is the sign of a very very
limited
intelligence.
>> Mind you, you've missed something pretty obvious; it's generally not
>> students who come up with new stuff. It's the teachers themselves.
> Not really,
Yes, really; when was the last time you heard of an undergraduate putting
out any rally ground-breaking work?
>
>>This is because most students don't have the skills or undestanding
needed
>>in order to be innovative and to create new research; that's why they're
>>students. They need to learn the state of the Science, and they need to
>>learn research skills. Once they've learned that, and learned about the
>>research that has already been done, they can become proficient, and
they
>>can do their own research, and find out new stuff.
> Stuff that their teachers don't know about ?
> How can yuo discover soething new if your teachers already know about
it.
That question makes no sense. I think the problem here is that you simply
don't have the first beginning of an understanding of how research works,
or
even what it _is_, and thus this conversation is just way over your head.
>
>>But in general, it's the teachers, who are also reserachers, who do the
>>innovative stuff. My research, for example, brings together a couple of
>>different areas which haven't really been brought together before. I'm
>>going to be contradicting some of the "stuff we all know", and hopefully
>>sup****ting some other work that disagrees with the "stuff we all know".
> Do you considerer yourself a teacher ?
Yes, and also a student, although not an undergraduate student.
>> The other error you're making, of course, is that you seem to be
assuming
>> there is A Party Line. There isn't; there are lots and lots of
different
>> people with widely differing opinions on The Way It Is. So even if we
>> wanted to teach our students The Party Line (which we don't), we
>> couldn't, because there isn't one. All we can do is teach them about
the
>> research and theories that already exist,a nd try to give them the
>> cognitive and research tools to understand the theories and the
research,
>> and to do more researchj to add more evidence to the debate.
> But what of your peers, what if they say your wrong.
Then that will lead to more intellectual debate, which is a good thing.
And
I have absolutely no doubt that some of them _will_ say I'm wrong, or at
least will express an opinion which is in opposition to mine.
>> Mind you, why I'm bothering to tell you any of this, I don't know;
you'll
>> ignore it all and go back to your bridge where you can throw turds at
>> other people and accuse them of being unenlightened and
unsophisticated.
>
> Who's the unenlighted one regarding Galileo and Roswell,
*heh8 See, all you mean here is that anyone who doesn't absolutely agree
with you must be unenlightened.
This is amusing, because that's precisely the attitude you're attributing
to
Academia. In fact, Academia doesn't have that attitude, but you do. Surely
even you can see the irony in that?
and even in your
> own area you
> stated that children can't lie or deceive before the age of about 4
months
> but I heard
> an interview where a research had written a paper proving that children
as
> young
> as 4 months can learn to lie and deceive, or course all you were
> interested in was the
> grammatical content rather than what was done.
No, I was interested in what was done, I just didn't agree with the
conlcusions, because tyhey make certain blatantly false assumptions.
Or rather, the newspaper re****t you linked to included those assumptions;
whether they were included in the original research, I don't know. I
suspect
they weren't.
H
|
