People are dumb and this site proves it
Side Score: 16
Side Score: 16
I was banned from the original debate, so I would like to address some points here in response to posts Nomenclature added post-ban:
Nomenclature: I think the difference between us is probably that I am not a liar...Just for a start, you post here every day and have posted here every day for months. That is entirely logically inconsistent with the notion that you study anything at uni, let alone maths/physics, which I happen to know from colleagues takes up more time than a person actually has in their day...Mr. I Study Physics At Harvard."
First, I never claimed that I studied Physics at Harvard, the overwhelming majority of my Professors went to elite Universities (also some do research at CERN, attend international conferences, have a notable presence in their respective fields, ect.) and the others went to Moderate level big Universities. I attend a Moderate level school on par with the University of Texas- Austin, Penn State, Ohio State, ect. (I do not like the idea of revealing my identity on this social media format and there is no need to reveal the exact school or my legal name). Most of my Professors are from more elite schools because it is such a highly competitive field and jobs are limited, but this gives me the distinct advantage of having contact/relationships with some of the notable figures in their respective fields.
Second, I only have a handful of courses left that I'm spreading out between this and next semester. I'm only taking two technical courses in the Fall Semester 3 days a week and have far more time on my hands than usual (thus how and why I found this forum and others to join and participate in).
Third, I am very much aware of how much work learning real technical science is while you (Nomenclature) are not. This is why it is so particularly outrageous that you are demanding respect for that which you have not worked for.
If you are a physicist and want to criticise my rather basic understanding of physics, then absolutely fair enough...I have a first class degree in journalism and I specialised in science journalism. In fact, that is not entirely accurate, because I specialised in physics journalism. Short of being an actual physicist, you are not going to find anybody more qualified to explain relativity to you.
Interestingly, you are the one who went out of your way to claim authority/credentials only to reveal that training is exactly what you are lacking. This is why I responded to you with my background since you directly referred to me (which you misrepresented). Anyone who was/is in STEM would understand what is wrong with a Journalist who does not have direct contact with science proclaiming this. There is a very clear hierarchy in learning Physics for example (and the level of University one attends is an important factor):
(1) First 2 Years Undergrad: Fundamental Courses and Mid-level courses (e.g., Calc 1-3, Diff. Eq, Phsics 1-2/3, Intro Modern Physics sequence, Chem sequence, CS ect.)
(2) Final 2+ years Undergrad: Higher Level courses
(3) Grad School first 2-3 Years: Advanced Courses
(4) Grad School Remainder of Years: Research and Dissertation
(5) Post-Graduate Program: Research
On this scale, you are at (0.5). I am finishing up (2) and getting ready for the transition into (3). To claim that someone would need to be at (6) in order to challenge your (0.5) level understanding is patently absurd. Furthermore, there are plenty of other people on this site with a (0.5)+ level understanding (to various degrees) that are plenty capable of intelligently discussing a range of issues/topics in STEM and challenging your assertions. You do not have a trump card, nor do I.
The truth is, unless one has a 150+ IQ (which I certainly don't), then learning science/math is going to require a lot of consistent time, effort, discipline, perseverance, ect. and going to Uni. for science (particularly at a big Uni.) is going to be a struggle to get through (if one gets through it). Note, none of which you have done, rather, you have skipped in line and declared yourself to be the equivalent of a (5.5) and fail to understand why I and others would take issue with that.
I have never claimed expertise or authority on Math/Physics/Science as you are attempting to do. In fact, as a student of science, I am non-stop confronted by people higher-up on the latter than I am or others at my level who perform better than me even at that level I'm on at the moment (i.e. attend a more elite school, receive higher marks, ect.). I do not think that I possess extreme intelligence nor knowledge, it is essentially impossible for a sane person to think that when inside of the competitive arena that I described.
Intelligence and abstract reasoning ability is very much like a muscle, it can adapt and strengthen if you train it and anyone familiar with the process in STEM that I layed out would be very aware of this. By necessity, if one is not already at a very high level of intellect abstract reasoning, then (to keep with this example) transitioning from one point on the scale to the next requires one to become more intelligent (not just more knowledgeable). That is why it is such a difficult process for the overwhelming majority of people (over 95%), myself included to progress along this chain (to various degrees depending on the person). Now, to be clear, one certainly does not have to be involved in this process in order to have a higher level abstract reasoning. It is rather that if one makes it to an additional level up the scale, by necessity their abstract reasoning would have to be on par with that level or above. That is to say, one could be at (0.5) and already have the intellectual power of a (3) but not with the same knowledge base for example, however if you are at (3) then you definitely posses abstract reasoning above a (0.5).
All I have ever claimed is that I'm finishing up (2) at a Moderate Level school transitioning toward (3) at a Moderate Level school and I'm slightly to moderately above average at the scale I'm on at the moment (relative to my peers). I am very aware of my extreme limitations, you are wildly unaware of yours, happily oblivious, and proud of it. Again, I'll repeat for emphasis, you have skipped in line and declared yourself to be the equivalent of a (5.5) and fail to understand why I and others would take issue with that. That was the fundamental basis for the entire "debate" thread that you created by the title "People are Dumb and this Site Proves It".
So, for your claim that 'the difference between us is that I (xMathFanx) am a liar and you (Nomenclature) are not', I will allow other members on this forum to evaluate for themselves who is being more honest with themselves and who's self-claims appear to most align (or wildly deviate) with their thought processes, reasoning, intelligence level, knowledge base, ect. as evidenced through our post history on this site.
Nomenclature: If you are a physicist and want to criticise my rather basic understanding of physics, then absolutely fair enough. But xMathFanx is a philosopher...
xMathFanx: I formally study Math/Physics at a major Uni. in the US... To say that you are more "credentialed" in Physics because you have a Journalism degree is laughable at best..
Nomenclature (to xMathFanx): I think the difference between us is probably that I am not a liar...Just for a start, you post here every day and have posted here every day for months. That is entirely logically inconsistent with the notion that you study anything at uni, let alone maths/physics...The fact of the matter is that you have had absolutely no education in physics...the reality is that your lack of education is as transparent as a sheet of glass. You dare not even approach the subject matter in front of me, which is why your responses are so infuriatingly stupid.
In my fourth installment of disproving Nomenclature's unfounded Conspiracy Theories, Nom. has claimed on many occasions that I have zero formal technical training in Mathematics and Physics as I have stated, and believes that I am "making it all up".
Now, without providing my legal name and identity, it is very difficult to prove that my claims are true. However, I can provide some evidence (without revealing my identity) of this that a reasonable person would consider sufficient. Below, you will find links to an old Mathematics paper I wrote for school about two years ago in my Intro to Theoretical Mathematics course at University. I can provide more papers on other classes as well (although frankly I don't see why it would be necessary after this). Also note, I do not have all my courses work saved (as there is no function to it post-semester) however I do have some still and am enrolled in two technical classes at the moment. Note, I have intentionally removed my legal name from the paper and replaced it with my screen name (xMathFanx) as well as the citations in the References section since some of them link back to my University and I would like to retain anonymity:
Thus far, we have seen how four of Nomenclature's Conspiracy Theories have been discredited, and still counting........
Side Note: As this list is already becoming quite large and scattered, in order to keep up with Nomenclature's many Conspiracy Theories, wild unfounded claims, ect. in an accessible format, I will soon be making a separate official thread by the title "NomenclatureWatch". This is intended to function as a definitive list of Nomenclature's foundational falsehoods. Any member that would like to add to this collection is welcome to join in on the project
@EldonG. This is a response to a post of yours from a debate I was banned from:
EldonG: "You make some excellent points, here. Math used to be the thing I could rely on most, incidentally - my scores were rather insane...but I couldn't get the instruction when I needed it, and slowly lost interest. Pretty much the same happened in science, too - as I became more interested in computer science, and just computers in general. I tried getting back into math, but after being out of it for so long, calculus stumped me.
I have two points in this - though there is rampant stupidity on this site, there are some damn smart people. You'd be one of them.
My other point - damn straight they need to keep up with scientific knowledge, and that's a challenge for anybody, even professionals. My life story is damn sure a testament to that."
Thank you for your input.
As a person with a level of experience with Math/tech. science, I trust you will appreciate the distinctions that I made in my OP. I think I have seen elsewhere that as a kid you wanted to be a physicist(?). I'm sorry to hear that the education system seemed to fail you (as it does most people) and did not provide you with the proper instruction that could have retained/sparked your interest for continuing to progress with math and science. I think that I have seen elsewhere that you are of a different generation from me(?) and I am happy to say that access to proper instruction has fundamentally shifted for the better in the modern era. Now, one has access to essentially any relevant textbook for free online (although it may be somewhat dated) and importantly free proper online instruction provided by MITOpenCourseWare (and other Uni. Open-courseware), MOOC's (free Massive Online Open Courses), Khan Academy, YouTube channels (e.g. PatrickJMT, KristaKing, Michael Van Benzein, Houston Math Prep, ect.), Chegg, PhysicsForum.com, ect. This is a huge benefit and invaluable resources that aid one in learning new topics in STEM (I frequently make use of these various resources). One can actually be involved in graded courses now at ones own pace without formally attending an academic institution as well as personal tutors, all in the privacy of their own home and for free.
If Math/Science is something you are interested in, I would encourage you to give it another go utilizing these resources. You say you got stumped on Calculus last time you tried getting back into it. The truth is, anyone who can do Algebra/Pre-Calc can definitely do Calculus, Diff. Eq., and (Computational) Linear Algebra with the proper instruction (on top of the textbook), some time and practice. Now, what would be a very difficult gap to bridge is after Calc 1-3 when you reach Proof based Mathematics which is the foundation for modern Maths as opposed to Computational Maths. There are plenty of resources on this as well though. Furthermore, with just a Computational Math background that I outlined above, that is going to open up your ability to study all of the other areas of STEM tremendously on a deep level (e.g. you can learn all the way through intro Quantum Mechanics, a lot of Chem, essentially all of engineering (or at least on the level of an Undergrad in Engineering), other sciences, ect.).
If you are at all interested in pursuing this then feel free to let me know and I could help point you in the right direction if you like.
Nomenclature: If Francis Crick used that argument then it is simply the age-old "anything is possible, nothing is a fact" pseudo-philosophical platitude which has been repackaged and relabelled for public consumption. In reality, you can't lock information behind a door and distribute keys without having the intent to lock information behind a door and distribute keys. In reality, computers don't program themselves.
FactMachine (in response to Nomenclature): DNA didn't program itself either, the "code" in DNA is the result of a gradual process that occurred in a complex chemical environment, you are a creationist. If you believe the annunaki made our genetic code then who made theirs? Is there an infinite chain of creators? Somewhere along the line a code HAS to form naturally to create an intelligent being to create the codes that where created deliberately. This is why your logic is non existent and your obsession with codes is futile.
FactMachine is exactly right for the reasons both he (now) and I (previously) have explained. Moreover, Francis Crick is one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century and you are dismissing even Crick in a condescending manner as though he were a buffoon. If Crick was mapped onto the scale I submitted in my larger post he would be about (7.5), with (7) being a Noble Prize level Scientist and (8) being the elite scientists of all-time in any discipline.