|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
tastzlike chicken
ROGUE SPADES
293
   |
Posted - 2015.03.10 07:04:00 -
[1] - Quote
NDGT is an F'ing boss! -Idiot misosophists can hiss all they want from within the confines of their tiny dark worlds.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
|
tastzlike chicken
ROGUE SPADES
293
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 01:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Damodred Matari wrote: Everyone is entitled to their opinion...
The battle cry of the misosophist.
NDGT is, among other things, a science educator -the role he currently enjoys the most popularity for -- and he tends to get the science right. You may disagree with his style but when you say that he is "not to be taken seriously"; it sounds like you are disagreeing with the substance.
In this particular video, NDGT was asked a very difficult question (difficult because there tends to be an awful lot to unpack) by a young person. Many scientists and rationalists believe that particular question to be a non-question as "meaning" is subjective. In his opinion It is not reasonable to expect to find a single definitive answer (e.g. 42) or to waste ones existence expecting "THE Answer" to be packaged neatly and handed to you, or discovered by you. Hence:
"...you create you own meaning"
Rather than dismiss the boy's question or squash his innate curiosity he suggested exploration of his environment as a place to start. Exploration with tools that are readily available to a 6 and 3/4 year old. He then offered some suggestions and gave hints as to the fact that different objects (elements) have different physical properties. (Aluminum vs steel pans etc.) Which should lead to the more meaningful questions (from a naturalists point of view). Why do they sound different? In what other ways might they be similar or different? Which maybe leads to a young mind embracing the scientific method of inquiry. Maybe, that boy becomes the one to cure cancer. Maybe someone gets a hold of him and convinces him that "god(s) did it" and he lives out the rest of his life in arrogant confidence -afraid to ask the difficult questions or intimidated into silence.
NDGT is a science educator and in my opinion one of the better ones since Feynman and Sagan. This video is an example of him tailoring his answer to the level of understanding of the young boy that asked the question. He gave the boy an answer that doesn't end the conversation and attempts to respect the spirit of the question and the individual asking it.
You've shared what you saw in that short video encounter. Now, I've shared what I saw.
Congrats on your family psychology degree. I've got a couple pretty pieces of paper up on my I-Love-Me-Wall, as well; none of which should add any authority to anything I say --or, what I type on a video game forum.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
|
tastzlike chicken
ROGUE SPADES
294
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 05:16:00 -
[3] - Quote
@ Heracles Porsche. I appreciated your original post.
I live for those moments.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
|
tastzlike chicken
ROGUE SPADES
294
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 19:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
@ Damodred Matari
I purposely ignored your criticism with regard to whether the child understood the answer or not; or whether or not NDGT fashioned the BEST answer for the boy. I happily grant you that (in fact, I put it in the category of obvious). For your consideration:
Is it possible that NDGT was also also addressing the wider audience? After all isn't "What is the meaning of life?" a fairly common and seemingly important question?
Is it possible that most of us, regardless of age, are ill equipped to deal with answers to that particular question let alone all the implications of it?
Is it possible that NDGT may have answered the question differently in a one-on-one session with the child where he could modulate his answer in real-time as he assesses what this individual child is capable of processing?
Is it possible that the child's parents can be called upon later to better explain what NDGT may have meant?
Seems like the child was "confused" even when being asked for his age? Is it possible that he was nervous? I don't know about you but at that young age that setting would have nearly paralyzed my mental faculties.
Is it possible that an adult had that child go up and ask the question in the first place? -or ,in your expert opinion, do a lot of 6 year olds where you live wax poetically about the meaning of it all?
Yes, children should be given short direct answers. I don't believe the recognition of this fact requires a degree.
Now, completely unrelated to the video...
Damodred Matari wrote:
Them pieces of paper prove that people know what they're talking about though, that's why we get them so in fact they do hold authority when presenting what we talk about.
(Bold type inserted by me for emphasis)
This quote is alarming and I'm not sure I can convince you of how ugly a statement that is; On the off chance that you care about how your public statements are perceived:
Even if you do believe it (and you appear to) you would, generally, be best served by NEVER bringing it up. Rather, present a well reasoned argument. If you do bring it up, say, if someone asks you if you have a any specific relevant training --be prepared for follow-up questions like:
What kind of degree? AA? Bachelors? Masters? PhD? (Or their equivalent, I don't know what system you were trained in)
Was it from an accredited program?
(Was it from a reputable program?)
Was this a purely academic program or did you have clinical training as well? You know...patients/clients?
How long ago did you get your degree? (Is your training still relevant)
Are you required to go through continuing education?
I notice you stated family psychology...any focus on pediatrics?
Are you currently practicing in that field? For how long?
Any statistical training? (I'd like to know if it is reasonable for me to expect that you can find your way through a published, preferably, peer-reviewed paper)
Because this is how thoughtful people vet those that appeal to authority. In fact, look up Appeal to Authority. While certainly permissible in a debate most of us realize it to be a logical fallacy and a tool that bullies use when trying to make their point. When evidence is available to support an argument; evidence is preferred to credentials (Also, not all credentials carry equal weight) -- and even evidence has to be vetted.
Those pieces of paper do NOT PROVE that people know what they're talking about, though I grant you that they suggest that they may or should.
(which is why folks love to bring up credentials and academic degrees in lieu of a reasoned argument. At best it's a way to bolster a poor argument at it's worst it's a cowardly attempt to head off criticism or questions)
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
|
|
|
| |
|