Particle Generations and the Dorian Mode

* * *
I found the statements most interesting today on the science chat forum as they reflect a mirror viewpoint hard to see from a mirror view. What horse hockey which considering the topic. the role of education and does it need changes- especially when in this economy the universities themselves are reconsidering their roles- well, this is just another case of the weapon of the established that give advice and evolutionary reductionist criticism just to defend their turf of expertise. It is the magician's choice between Wittgenstein and Popper in relation to our Jungian aspect of dreams that become conscious as our reason evolves in our fore brains. We can easily generalize and grow if we have good hearts and thoughtful reasoning despite our age. Why indeed, rrushman does such professionals hang around what is really a confused and limited medium of opinion as debating the truth of it?

Let us not buy into the intellectual weapon that science is experiment
Even if we can trust experiment (as the explanation of the generational problem for example and the group logic of waves as music in many dimensions- and old guy generalizing naturally here btw) for what reality there is in scientific truth or facts we still have to deal with the reality of content basis and that as a matter of our models or interpretations.)

http://www.philosophychatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=82&p=137147#p137147

Arrogance is a disease experienced by many, but more often the young. It comes from having not enough years to experience broad horizons. I have found that as my horizons have broadened, my confidence in my ability to generalize has greatly diminished.

Given your age, it is improbable that you have more than at most 5 years of awareness on the topic.

Lincoln


The most glaring problem with this argument is that premises (1) and (2) no where mentioned education. You cannot introduce a new variable in your conclusion; perhaps you need to include a premise which states that current education is bad and that continuing to learn for ourselves would involve a certain kind of education is not presently occuring.

At any rate, I think that if you go back and re-examine your argument and formulate in a valid way then you'll find that it's much more impressive. There is a reason that many lawyers study logic and philosophy at their undergraduate institutions; this kind of reasoning is extremely powerful.

Additionally, since this is a science forum, I encourage you to think about what kinds of scientific evidence might be used to support your claims and how one might go about gathering such evidence.

linford86 (btw- the quote's spelling errors are not corrected here if that matters)