Potts... What did I say? I said don't give me worthless anecdotes. What did you do? You gave me an anecdote which cherry picked some random PhD studies from a fringe major not even offered at all colleges.

How am I supposed to take you seriously when this is the sh&t you bring me?

victor809 wrote:

Nice dodge there Victor. It's clear that you've been out-matched by a code monkey with an Associates degree.

As for "fringe" majors...it obviously isn't so fringe that they offer a PhD in the field. But hey, they obviously didn't consult you before they instituted the program. You probably could have set them straight...

That's OK Victor, if you want to sit there are defend those low standards by which one can get a PhD, and thereby claim they are intelligent, be my guest. After all, you were the one who thumped his chest about how doing a thesis and spending time to get a PhD was the measure of intellectual prowress. I'm just showing you how utterly pathetic that standard is.

I guess I just have a slightly higher standard. Any idiot can do a glorified book report and defend it to little more than institutioanlized idiots.

It is little wonder that people with your specific focus in life will always be intellectually inferior to people like me. You can't look past your bias to get at the truth. Such a shame too - all those years of chello lessons, right down the crapper...

jpotts wrote:

Potts,
You unilaterally believe that anyone who has studied a field for a sufficient number of years to be granted a PhD to be "stupid". Then, as a defense to that idiotic claim, you pull up an anecdotal article which whines about thesis titles in a random fringe field (if you had any brains rattling around in that skull of yours, you'd realize that the specific major one receives a PhD in is determined by the university. So if a university has fringe fields, they may also offer PhD studies in it).

What I think are funny about this is you seem to think that a PhD in "black studies" is even on the same playing field as a PhD in physics, biochem or some other hard science. That shows to me just how little you even understand.
go back to your cave potts... you fail. You brought a "black studies" article to a science argument.

victor809 wrote:

Potts,
You unilaterally believe that anyone who has studied a field for a sufficient number of years to be granted a PhD to be "stupid".

victor809 wrote:

Then, as a defense to that idiotic claim, you pull up an anecdotal article which whines about thesis titles in a random fringe field (if you had any brains rattling around in that skull of yours, you'd realize that the specific major one receives a PhD in is determined by the university. So if a university has fringe fields, they may also offer PhD studies in it).

victor809 wrote:

What I think are funny about this is you seem to think that a PhD in "black studies" is even on the same playing field as a PhD in physics, biochem or some other hard science. That shows to me just how little you even understand. go back to your cave potts... you fail. You brought a "black studies" article to a science argument.

victor809 wrote:

I never said that.

You, on the other hand, used that as a definition of intellect.

jpotts wrote:

And yeah, the majority of them I look upon with disdain

the majority of people coming out of these PhD and Masters programs are complete idiots.

I know you're used to stuffing any sort of orifice with all manner of things. But please, refrain from stuffing words in my mouth.

My point is, and always has been that what qualifies for a PhD these days is pretty lacking. And I've shown the proof thereof. You just, well, can't handle being proven wrong.

Again, you're the one who, without conditions, placed an emphasis on getting a PhD as a condition of showing intelligence and/or intellect.

Now that I've sorta pulled the covers off of the whole scam, you've decided that one field of endeavor is "fringe" whereas others are not. Your ability to discern things is, at best, poor.

I think I've proven my point that higher education is so dumbed-down these days that it no longer resembles the elevated status of scholars and academics of yesteryear. But hey, if you want to continue to defend this drivel be my guest.

I've worked with people from accredited universities - University of Michigan, Wayne State as two examples - who've received Masters and PhDs. I verified that these individuals received those degrees in the past. Not only could those individuals barely speak English, they could barely construct a single sentence. Yet, they were able to pass all of those classes to receive a Masters. Now either they learned soooo much from these courses that basic English was crowded out, or they found a way to scam the university, get their degree, and no one was the wiser.

That only works if the university faculty is either too stupid or too complacent to care. The people I'm talking about were in engineering professions. U of M, when it comes to engineering, is no backwater community college.

And you sit there and tell me that it means nothing because it is "anecdotal" evidence. Unfortunately for you, that "anecdotal" evidence is showing up a lot these days, and being discussed by other people I know who are also in engineering. They're basically saying the same thing as I am.

The reality is that your PhD doesn't mean as much as it used to, Victor. You may be smart. Unfortunately, it is becoming more and more clear to me that your graduating class may be been nothing but a gaggle of idiots. So, I wouldn't go around thumping my chest all that loud with your educational pedigree. It very well may be that you’re like that kid from the Sixteen Candles movie: King of the Dipsh*ts.

And you make the faulty assumption that the water at the top of the cesspool is cleaner than the water at the bottom.

You may be a monkey who has learned a few more tricks than the average bear. It doesn't mean you're schmart. It only means you're a well-trained monkey with a piece of paper to prove it.

You get into the application side of things, and that changes radically. Its one thing to watch a video in laying a tile floor, and taking a quaint test on how to lay a tile floor. Its another to actually do it.

Because you cannot understand this simple concept, you have proven yourself to be intellectually inferior.

However, I am sure there is a nice job awaiting you in the food service, or general labor market that is commensurate to your skillz...yo...

Potts, you're an idiot.
Here's your direct quote:

And yeah, the majority of them I look upon with disdain.

the majority of people coming out of these PhD and Masters programs are complete idiots.


Tell me again how you don't unilaterally believe that anyone who's studied a field for a sufficient number of years to be granted a PhD is "stupid".

victor809 wrote:

I, on the other hand, have NOT stated anywhere that it is a measure of intellect. I may believe you're an idiot, but that has nothing to do with your low education levels.

victor809 wrote:

Give me a study showing IQ vs years education rather than your worthless anecdotes, and then you can start to sound less like a crazy bearded homeless man. Of course, the study will probably be developed by someone with a PhD, so I'm sure it must be wrong....

victor809 wrote:

I don't have a PhD you ass.

victor809 wrote:

.... do you even understand what's involved in getting a PhD?

victor809 wrote:

you're an idiot. Go crawl back into your hole.

victor809 wrote:

I used the word "majority."

You're using the word "unilateral," which means "only having one side." You did take English in college, right Victor?

Last time I checked, things like "majority" imply two sides: one being the large body, the other being the small body (a.k.a. "minority.") I guess I assumed that you were capable of making this distinction being that you're all up in that "upper education" bracket thingie.

Really, Victor, do I need to go any further? Is this the type of critical thinking and analysis skills they taught you in Bob's College for Science PhD types?





Your quote:



Someone asking for proof of something, especially with elevated levels sarcasm, is someone who has already decided what they believe. And since you are asking me to show you something that proves my point (which is actually futile because, regardless of what I show, you'll just say it is ancedotal), that means you've already taken your stance.

Or maybe it was the smiley guy banging his head on the brick wall. I dunno.

That and the assumtion that my assertions were unilateral when I clearly denoted in writing that they were not is further indication of what you believe.

Then again, I'll stop beating this drum if you just agree with me that there a quite a few PhDs in the hard-science fields who are complete and utter morons, and I'll be glad to let you off the hook.





All those chello lessons for nothing?

Then, by your own definitions, you're one of the mindless pleebes, just like the rest of this board. And still you defend "The Man."




Yeah, actually I do.

But hey, you know so much, tell me how can you get a PhD in some sort of computer sciences, and not know what a stack is? Or a heap? or what the function of an ALU is?

Or now know what an OpAmp is when you have a newly minted Masters in EE?

Seriously. You want to explain that? Because I'd sure like to hear it.




Again, the need to stuff something into a hole somewhere...

Freud would have a field-day with you.



On a serious note: Victor I thought that you were one of those kinds of guys where I could rib you pretty hard, and with the expectation that I receive the kind of ribbing in kind. You're a fairly intelligent guy. But man, your posts as of late are getting pretty caustic.

Maybe the "inferior" thing was pushing it a bit on my part. If that's the case, I apologize. I kinda thought that would get you wound up, but now you're posting like a rabid tazmanian devil with an inner-ear infection, and a severe case of chaffing. Gumpy, discombobulated (sp:?), and all over the place.;

But if its not me, well, you need to make a change. Maybe so more bran in your diet? I dunno.

jpotts wrote:

If I sound frustrated potts, it's because I'm tired of rehashing this seriously retarded argument. You bitch about the stupidity of scientists, and your own quote: "You want to see one of the biggest group of brain-dead lemmings? They usually have a PhD next to their name." and then as an example of this you pull up fluff majors like black studies... you complain about the english language skills of a computer scientist... what's next, are you going to complain about the multivariable math skills of an english major?

victor809 wrote:

Arguing with you is like eating jello with chopsticks, but not because you are being in any way clever. Your arguments are not based on facts and statistics, you judge the entire science output of our country based on your interactions with some computer programmers... why would you do that?

victor809 wrote:

Why would any intelligent person say that, given the rigors of our science programs?

victor809 wrote:

To get past that barrier usually requires a number of steps, whether that is completing a test, publishing a paper, or whatever. Yet your assumption is that as a group of people successively passes each of these barriers, the ones who succeed are actually dumber. That is so illogical that I seriously lose respect.

victor809 wrote:

Ummm...Victor? When is comes to developing software and systems, language is sorta important. Which, if that all of a sudden becomes one of those things that you can simply discount because it is a "hard science" then it only further underscores my point.

jpotts wrote:

You don't read very well Victor.

I have, in the past, dealt with scientists.

Furthermore, I have no idea where you think they get their modeling for stuff like "Climate Science," but I guarantee you it isn't done with a pen and a pad of paper. In fact, I've interviewed quite a few of the people who wrote some of those climate models that these "eminent" scientists had developed. And, to be honest, I wouldn't let those dolts wash mt car or polish my shoes.

Your scientific high ground stands on a foundation of computers and software...which is my domain. They days of Einstein's written correspondence back and forth while sitting in that patent office are well over. And the people who work with these scientists are people like me.

Most of the data used in those climate models has to be massaged, and those smoothing algorithms are often arbitrary to make the data fit the trend, not the trend to the data (which actually occurs more often than not). I'd give you specific examples, however, you'd just dismiss them as being anecdotal.

And you say that they are anecdotal for one of two reasons. The first is that you can't accept the truth. The other is that you think I'm full of sh*t. There have been a lot of people in the past that have called me out on my "bullsh*t." I generally have no problem telling people when I'm jerking their chain on this, that or the other. And then there are the people I like to make twist in the wind before I unload on them. Even then, I'm not believed. So, frankly, it's not worth the effort.

So you either believe me or you don't. Honestly Victor, I don't care. But half of your frustrations you create yourself.

Oh yeah, and as a guy who claims to know about statistics - and I have no doubt that you do - you know full well how any idiot can fudge stats to say pretty much whatever they want, and there are people who are already have a pre-conceived notion about what those statistics should say. This is the reason why we get research studies whose stats stay, basically, nothing.

So spare me the lecture about stats and "rigor". I know how that game is played.

That's your assumption. That's not what I've said.

The fact is, you walk into any endeavor, you're going to get two sets of people: those who rise to the challenge, and those who don't. And the ones who do rise to the challenge are often reviled by some of those that don't. They usually tend to be smarter than the average bear (the people who rise to the challenge, that is). The deciding factor is not what they have been taught, it is how they apply what it is that they know. That's what separates the men from the boys.

The problem with science is the same problem that plagues the human condition. The mediocre still rule the roost because they concentrate more on looking intellectual, promoting themselves as intellectuals, then actually being intellectual. And a large chunk of them run straight for a PhD because that gives them instant credibility, with next to no effort.

Yeah, getting a PhD is a task. It is nowhere near a difficult a task as producing new things year, after year, after year for decades on end.

Again, I could relate a number of stories where I've had to educate that crowd about the rigors of the private marketplace (and they were both revealing and funny), but you'd simply exclaim that these are anecdotal, and dismiss them right away.

My grandfather worked in the Redstone Rocket project. He was one of those guys who also put men into space. He also had correspondence degree (which, back then, was about a relevant as my stupid Associates degree). The man was an engineering genius. The fact is that guys like him don't come from a PhD program. They often come right out of the blue. And they often upset the apple chart.

The minute we start making something like a PhD become the end-all-be-all seal of approval for intelligence and intellect, the world will descend in to an age of darkness. Because that will give the bonafide morons control of everything. Just like the Inquisition priests of old.

So, I hope that clarifies thing for you Victor.