|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: no intelligent live here.
Hey what about @OriginalGriff?
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: it is feasible an extraterrestrial spaceship could be in our galactic neighborhood, exploring the region by the means of "dandelion seeds"
It is feasible that a dragon in another dimension is using small pixies to explore our solar system.
I actually give that a higher probability that the prior one because the prior one is limited by the physics (and economics) of this universe while mine is not.
But I certainly will not be spending time looking or even thinking about either.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: But I certainly will not be spending time looking or even thinking about either.
I will... just in case. 
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Been wondering where these danged pixies are coming from...
It all makes sense now.
|
|
|
|
|
Given enough time, anything is possible. Oscillating, expanding; take your choice.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
They do not want the gen-pop thinking critically, it would make it harder for them to control the masses with FUD.
As for the Harvard scientist and Pentagon official's conjecture, it sounds to me like nothing more than they're trying to justify their grants/budget.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. - Thomas Sowell
A day can really slip by when you're deliberately avoiding what you're supposed to do.
- Calvin (Bill Watterson, Calvin & Hobbes)
|
|
|
|
|
Who's the "they" you refer to? Some unknown, anonymous (therefore not disprovable) group that are 'controlling' everything in true conspiracy theory form? If you know who 'they' are why not not share the name with us together with your hard evidence. If not, admit you are talking BS.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, aren't you the sweet talker? Of course I'm talking BS and speculation, I thought that was evident.
Is it a conspiracy? Did a bunch of people with power and influence get together one day to plan, hatch and implement a plot to dumb down our children? Not likely. Is it the result of decisions made by educators who share ideas through networking both professional and personal, and the DoE and government agencies that partially fund public schools and often dictate through that funding what is or isn't taught? Obviously. Was the decision not to teach logic and critical thinking made for non-nefarious purposes, like to make room for other subjects deemed more important? Who knows? Whatever the reason it was made I suspect no one who has something to sell (politicians, businesses, media companies, etc.) is trying to convince our educators to do anything differently.
The second "they" is the scientist and the Pentagon official. Surely that much of my intent was evident.
There are no solutions, only trade-offs. - Thomas Sowell
A day can really slip by when you're deliberately avoiding what you're supposed to do.
- Calvin (Bill Watterson, Calvin & Hobbes)
|
|
|
|
|
Research courtesy of ChatGPD.
>64
Some days the dragon wins. Suck it up.
|
|
|
|
|
ChatGPT is faster at producing average nonsense, but only humans can produce first-class nonsense!
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes but the speed of false information flow on social networks is such that the ChatGPT becomes the front runner then.
|
|
|
|
|
Ever since the Sixties, I would say that US education has abandoned rigourous, logical thinking in favour of "self affirmation", "feelings", and other distractions. In that, they were only one generation ahead of the rest of the Western world. Western civilization may coast on its past accomplishments for a few more decades, but unless a major shift occurs in the near future - the late 21st and 22nd centuries will be under the ascendancy of South and East Asia. They haven't lost sight of the goals.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I think once societies achieve a certain level of advancement, or at least - I struggle for the word here - "decadence" almost covers it but I don't like moral connotations of it generally they tend to rest on their laurels, and even pursue more frivolous aims.
Douglas Adams sort of touched on this in his books at a couple of points.
Quote: “The history of every major galactic civilisation tends to pass through three distinct and recognisable phases, those of Survival, Enquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why and Where phases.
For instance, the first phase is characterised by the question How can we eat?, the second by the question Why do we eat?, and the third but the question Where shall we have lunch?”
There's a longer, better quote that dovetails more with what I'm getting at, but it's about shoe stores. It's also too long to comfortably post here. It's basically a short story.
I think in the end, there's a global ebb and flow among competing civilizations, as one gets comfortable, the ones that are still hungry will eventually overtake them, but then the comfortable become the hungry.
For a long time, China wasn't competitive. Then they were. Maybe it's just our turn.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Civilisations come and go; it was ever thus. Read "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers" by Paul Kennedy (ISBN 0-394-54674-1) for a plausible study and explanation of how and why this happens. Comparing the the demise of previous Great Powers (the ancients through to the more recent European powers, Netherlands, Spain, France, Britain etc) to today is eerily familiar. It's broadly similar to the Peter Principle - that at work people rise to their own level of incompetence, which is where their demise begins. So, it appears, do nations.
|
|
|
|
|
i find such reports frustrating also for the reason my critical thinking leads me to conclude it is absurd to speak w/ such confidence re/ aliens who are one millions years more advanced than us .
|
|
|
|
|
If you try to introduce critical thought into a conversation you're immediately plastered with the worst caricatures of the opposition and labeled a 'hater'.
News: "So Eric enjoys sticking nails up his nose."
Me: "That seems like that might hurt."
News: "What are you, some kind of Nazi?"
Eric's Mother (crying): "My god, how long will the hate continue?"
If people want to believe a nose full of iron is good then I say have at it. I no longer care. Chew on arsenic tablets, surf naked in shark filled waters with a ham around your neck, believe an alien mothership is monitoring your every more - I no longer elephanting care because when you try to help you just get kicked in the head.
Did that come across as bitter?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Did that come across as bitter?
Yes, but understandably so.
The quandary is this: who is listening in to your response? The news certainly, the mother in your example, yes, but who else? Does your response embolden others to think their own thoughts, to stop deriding themselves for thinking such "hateful" things? Do your words make anyone think? How important is that?
We change the world one mind at a time by politely, concisely, and audibly dissenting.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, that is sound advice.
I think those teachable moments are found in personal relationships and probably less so on social media where things are shouted down by morons.
|
|
|
|
|
MadGerbil wrote: surf naked in shark filled waters with a ham around your neck,
Just to be fair to the sharks I think they prefer a nice juicy seal.
|
|
|
|
|
Alternative Math | Short Film - YouTube[^]
Really worth seeing, sadly 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Several times a day I find myself wondering where we went wrong as a species, and come back to the moment when we decided it would be a good idea to put warning labels on basic household items.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Required standardized testing is a major factor in eliminating critical thinking from schools. A couple science teachers I know lament how "teaching to the test" ties their hands. The focus is on memorizing predigested facts, and not on understanding how things work.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Kemner wrote: Required standardized testing is a major factor in eliminating critical thinking from schools.
So they claim that before that they were succeeding?
The No Child Left Behind was passed in 2002. And it took several years to be implemented. And it did not initially include Science regardless (it was math and reading.)
But even being generous a 35 year old now would have been 15 in 2002. So little or no impact from that on their learning.
Paul Kemner wrote: A couple science teachers I know lament how "teaching to the test" ties their hands.
Perhaps ask them how then then explain that 22% of those 35 and older believe that Bigfoot is real? See the following link. (look for the age chart)
U.S. Belief in Sasquatch Has Risen Since 2020 - CivicScience[^]
And how do they explain that those that believe in that, in that age group, have increased significantly in the past couple of years? Seems like if anything, the prior educational experience, before that testing, specifically did not teach critical thinking. Or did a really poor job of it.
The magazines Skeptical Inquirer and/or Skeptic have done multiple articles on this. And one conclusion is that Finlad schools do a good job. And they do so because they specifically teach critical thinking. Not science itself but critical thinking itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Clearly speculation to draw attention away from time travelers lurking around.
|
|
|
|
|
I taught my own kids, so they got training in critical thinking with every conversation, in every lesson, from before they could talk until they moved out.
When I was a kid, my own mother taught me these skills, and because of that, I learned better in schools and recognized when teachers were actually trying to impart the skills for actually learning as opposed to just memorizing for exams.
I think I learned more about English grammar from my French teacher than from my very capable Comp and Grammar teacher in high school, because the comparison required critical thinking, whereas diagramming a huge sentence only needed a memorization of the parts of speech, complex as they are.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
