#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
How do innovations in science and technology impact society?
| Add New Argument |
|
By changing our diet. By changing the way we take care of ourselves. By changing the way we travel. By changing the comfort of our homes. By changing the way we communicate. By changing the types of work we do. Oh hell. The list of what it does not change would be a lot shorter. Lets see. Innovations in science and technology impact society -------------------- in every way. 4
points
By constructing new ways to make it [society] better (aka lazier). (I mean really 'self-driving cars'? I understand unmanned drones, but manned cars just driving itself...?) Next they're going to invent a self-cutting lawn mower (which they probably already have). There are certain things that could be easier and less dangerous (construction etc) but, lest they want Americans to remain the most obese country, then I would suggest the most constructive elements remain non-revolutionized (mowing lawns etc). Its more so the laziness than the exercise. It doesn't take that much thought effort already to drive so to limit that miniscule effort by constructing self-driving cars is a bit unnecessary. I can also, if you wish, go into detail why an autonomous car is as equally problematic as the contrary (system failure; malfunctions; genius hackers overriding the cars system, etc.). In what way can a human driven car not malfunction in the way a autonomous car can? The driver can take control at any time. Well if the drivers asleep or just lacking vigilance I am sure the reaction wouldn't be so sudden (your car swerves itself into a tree I am sure you won't have time to grab the wheel with the newspaper and a mug of coffee in your hand). Now maybe when you first ride in the Google car you may be ready to grab the wheel at any moment (given you're not used to a car driving itself while you're behind the wheel), but I am sure since all is well with those cars--as you said 0 crashes!--then consumers will be somewhat settled when they get behind the self-functioning wheel. (P.S.-: There's a reason self-driving cars are (legally) geographically limited and highly regulated therein- level of autonomy; speed; etc.). I can't think of a system failure that isn't a malfunction...? Why the repeat? I am sure that's not the only thing you can't think of... System malfunction and system failure are not relatively interchangeable... For instance, the cars system may fail to function properly/normally but may still work therefore the system itself does not fail- and if that happens [system fail] then we can safely call it a "system failure"... Simple enough, atrag? [Malfunction- (of a piece of equipment or machinery) fail to function normally or satisfactorily.] Your brain may malfunction causing a stroke, but the brain itself may not completely fail. You may have a heart attack, which could fit in the criteria of system malfunctioning, but it need not completely fail (ironically, you have a heart attack so your system doesn't fail). Really? You can't get me on a lexical issue...? :/ Now maybe when you first ride in the Google car you may be ready to grab the wheel at any moment (given you're not used to a car driving itself while you're behind the wheel), but I am sure since all is well with those cars--as you said 0 crashes!--then consumers will be somewhat settled when they get behind the self-functioning wheel. That is their fault. We shouldn't stop making these sort of cars just because some people will be lazy. In the future though I believe the cars will be impossible to crash. The google car is getting close if it is not there already. (P.S.-: There's a reason self-driving cars are (legally) geographically limited and highly regulated therein- level of autonomy; speed; etc.). It is due to the stupidity of everyone else on the road compared to the software in the car. System malfunction and system failure are not relatively interchangeable... For instance, the cars system may fail to function properly/normally but may still work therefore the system itself does not fail- and if that happens [system fail] then we can safely call it a "system failure"... Simple enough, atrag? I would love a specific example of a malfunction that is not a failure. Your brain may malfunction causing a stroke, but the brain itself may not completely fail. You may have a heart attack, which could fit in the criteria of system malfunctioning, but it need not completely fail (ironically, you have a heart attack so your system doesn't fail). Yes the brain and the heart have failed. Do you know what a heart attack could also be described as? Heart failure!! Adding the word 'completely' doesn't help you. I would love a specific example of a malfunction that is not a failure. Did you just disregard the definition of malfunction? Haha, let me reiterate since its too complicated for the English teacher: Complete- fully carried out. Failure- omission of occurrence or performance; specifically : a failing to perform a duty or expected action. Malfunction- to function imperfectly or badly. (is means that a system can still work--albeit badly--while malfunctioning...) http://www.merriam-webster.com/ Do you know what a heart attack could also be described as? Heart failure!! And for a med student you don't know the distinction between heart failure and heart attack?!? haha wow. Sudden cardiac arrest would be described as a complete heart failure. http://www.heart. Once your brain fails completely your dead... But if it just malfunctions you may still live (hence the people who has lived through strokes). --- This is fun seeing you try and be clever with vacuous claims :) You're ridiculous. You say stupid things then desperately cling on to them. I repeat: I would love a specific example of a malfunction that is not a failure EITHER COMPLETE OR PARTIAL!!! And for a med student you don't know the distinction between heart failure and heart attack?!? haha wow. Sudden cardiac arrest would be described as a complete heart failure. English lesson: Adding the adjective "complete" or "partial" specifies the type of failure. "You have heart failure", "you have partial heart failure", "you have complete heart failure". These all mean: you have heart failure. The heart is 1) failing 2) malfunctioning, in both cases. I repeat: I would love a specific example of a malfunction that is not a failure EITHER COMPLETE OR PARTIAL!!! Malfunction- To function imperfectly or badly (2) to fail to function or work properly. A malfunction is not a complete failure of, in the context we're speaking, a system; and your initial rebuttal stated that I was repetitious when I said complete failure and malfunction. A complete failure would be if the car fails to work period, whereas a malfunction could be the car failing to work perfectly but still work. Just like deformed- you're still formed but just not properly but it is not interchangeable with unformed, Adding the adjective "complete" or "partial" specifies the type of failure Okay and the distinction I made was that malfunctioning is not equated nor interchangeable with failing since you have to specify as to what you mean by fail. A light bulb may malfunction and flicker, become dim etc. or completely fail (blow-out). The heart is 1) failing 2) malfunctioning, in both cases. When you say malfunctioning you're speaking of the process in which the heart is about to completely fail. Thinks grades, someone may normally have an A and start dropping down to a F so they may be malfunctioning in their academic application, but they haven't completely failed. Oh my god. You are just completely incapable of admitting you're wrong. Malfunction- To function imperfectly or badly (2) to fail to function or work properly. So if someone says "the engines are failing!" then it means to you that they have stopped working completely? Partial failure is oxymoronic? If a light bulb flickers then there is a failure in the light bulb. It is also a malfunction. When you say malfunctioning you're speaking of the process in which the heart is about to completely fail. No. No you're not. Thinks grades, someone may normally have an A and start dropping down to a F so they may be malfunctioning in their academic application, but they haven't completely failed. You wouldn't use the word malfunction in that context. You once me you weren't a USAian. Is English not your first language? A lot of shit you say would make sense then. If a light bulb flickers then there is a failure in the light bulb. It is also a malfunction. But not a complete failure is what I was getting at; again, my initial comment that you disputed stated 'completely fail' then I continued to say 'or malfunction'- you seem to think that 'completely failing' can be equated with 'improperly functioning'... I'm quite afraid that you simply cannot distinguish the two being an English teacher (well... you did say you weren't qualified so...). You wouldn't use the word malfunction in that context. You once me you weren't a USAian. Is English not your first language? A lot of shit you say would make sense then. You've misunderstood the context I used- a kid with a sharp mind always on point, then something happens and his organized system of thinking--in which the 'academic application' would be the consequent--malfunctioned thus rendering bad grades therefore causing a drop in grade average, simple. And no, I am not from the USA nor was English my first language; Spanish was my first language. And its extremely hilarious that you always deter all of my arguments over something quite stupid (really, instead of ridiculing my argument you just practiced a reductionist (with a little sophistry) technique). you seem to think that 'completely failing' can be equated with 'improperly functioning'... I'm quite afraid that you simply cannot distinguish the two being an English teacher (well... you did say you weren't qualified so...). Is your IQ really that low or did you not understand what I said? System failure = malfunction Complete system failure = complete malfunction Partial system failure = partial malfunction. It is not relevant at all whether you meant to imply complete or partial!!! 1
point
This shows your ignorance. You are with the (unintelligible) group that believes IQ correlates with success. The guy with the highest IQ lives and works on a farm (and ironically believes in god, he even created/creating a formulaic model to prove gods existence). Secondly, how do I spend my time on this site? I briefly respond to disputations which takes about 5 minutes... But of course your newly found ignorance would make this assertion understandable (yet not rational). I bet its fun to be an idiot apart of the 99% : D 1
point
I never claimed that IQ had anything to do with success. Doesn't correlate with; Of course you have an IQ higher than Steven Hawking, and spend your time on this website ? I used Chris as an example as to why High IQ wouldn't dictate how you spend your time since he is a farmer. So in actuality one might say I am being more productive as I am engaging in intellectual discourse instead of feeding cows. (Me:177- intellectual discourse; Chris: 200- farmer). Which man do you believe has the highest IQ? Christopher Langan (and if its not he still nevertheless has an IQ of 200). Why do you rely so much on personal attacks? What do you get out of them? This is a gross assertion in respects to my arguments as I rarely makes personal attacks. My remark was a reciprocation. 1
point
How is saying "of course you have an IQ higher than Steven Hawking, and spend your time on this website" prove that I in any way correlate IQ with success? "I used Chris as an example as to why High IQ wouldn't dictate how you spend your time since he is a farmer. So in actuality one might say I am being more productive as I am engaging in intellectual discourse instead of feeding cows. " Not really, you spend a lot of time on here either touting your own intelligence or insulting people. "This is a gross assertion in respects to my arguments as I rarely makes personal attacks. My remark was a reciprocation." Want me to list them? And no, it was not reciprocation. I questioned the legitimacy of self reporting your IQ as being higher than one of the most world renowned scientists. I did not assert you were unintelligent. How is saying "of course you have an IQ higher than Steven Hawking, and spend your time on this website" prove that I in any way correlate IQ with success? You say I spend my time on this site with an IQ higher than Hawking's as if I am supposed to be doing something like that of Hawkings. Maybe I should ask, what did that comment mean? I translate it as "if your smarter than hawking's you should be doing things that is better than what he is doing, or quite similar" - and this presupposes that all people with high IQs have the same kind of mentality - which is why I used the farmer with the worlds highest IQ (who incidentally spends half of his time on the internet on a site similar to this). Not really, you spend a lot of time on here either touting your own intelligence or insulting people. I spend my time on here establishing good points, it is you, atrag, and amarel who constantly make arbitrary disputations that are irrelative to my essential points. If you want an example look at atrags response to my initial point in this debate, he argued for an improper use of words instead of the key point. And, again, I don't spend that much time up here lol I don't know how you even came to this conclusion.. I questioned the legitimacy of self reporting your IQ as being higher than one of the most world renowned scientists. But Chris has an IQ higher than a worlds renowned scientist by like 30 points, and he is a farmer who spends a portion of his day online, so do you question his legitimacy? It wouldn't be impartial if you didn't. And I occasionally make comments regarding someone's post - if you assert "1+ 1 = 6" I may question your intelligence in a way that may not appear so benign. 1
point
Off-topic, specifically regarding IQ scores. Some of us question the legitimacy of IQ scores period, given the lack of consensus regarding which aspects of our mental faculties fall under 'intelligence' and how each aspect is 'weighted,' as well as the historical lack of control for other factors. Any individual is likely to have significantly varying scores on IQ tests created and scored by different groups. I myself have taken several such tests and there is a range of ~60 points on my scores (lowest was ~130, highest was ~190). I tend to not answer when asked what my IQ is because I feel any response I gave would be inaccurate, given the subjectivity of most of the tests. How do you feel about the legitimacy of modern IQ testing? And also as an aside- when you post about your IQ, are you giving us the result you got from a single IQ test, the (lowest, average, or highest) result you get from multiple, or some other form of calculation based on multiple scores? I have taken the IQ test multiple times because my (math) elementary school performance didn't reflect my IQ in a way which it should, it was later found out that I was dyslexic. My lowest score was 163 when I was a child, but that was because I did lousy on the math part mainly due to my dyslexia (which wasn't diagnosed or known at that time). But that score, according to my psychologist, meant I was "intelligent" (of course as child I had no idea about what an IQ was). Anyway, I had lots of difficulties in school but they were considered me just being lazy because my "intelligence" suggested otherwise. I took another IQ test years later (around middle school) and scored just a little higher (around 168 167). After failing so many (English) essays due to simple grammatical mistakes (consistent misspellings, reversed words, improper usage of words) I was diagnosed as a dyslexic. From there I took two IQ test but they were a bit different- one was vocal and one was written (both timed). On the vocal part with logic (math, which is the only part I don't do so well in, partly because of the symbols) I did much better and that incorporated with the other sectors resulted in a 176 IQ. Though in the paper portion the results were still in the 167-169 range. Then my psychologist specially designed the (paper) test for my type of dyslexia (and they way he did it was ingenious) and that resulted in me scoring 179 the first time, 173 the second time (probably a rough day), and then a 178. So I just take one point of my final score though I probably have an IQ higher than what I say, or tests suggest- what I have done even with my dyslexia would suggest some intelligence as most people continue to struggle with theirs. 1
point
Thank you for clarifying re: your IQ scores. Obviously, you've had your score impacted by a factor that isn't typically controlled for (dyslexia) and had to have a modified test to take that into account. Could you speak to my other question (quoted below, context included)? "Some of us question the legitimacy of IQ scores period, given the lack of consensus regarding which aspects of our mental faculties fall under 'intelligence' and how each aspect is 'weighted,' as well as the historical lack of control for other factors. Any individual is likely to have significantly varying scores on IQ tests created and scored by different groups. I myself have taken several such tests and there is a range of ~60 points on my scores (lowest was ~130, highest was ~190). I tend to not answer when asked what my IQ is because I feel any response I gave would be inaccurate, given the subjectivity of most of the tests. How do you feel about the legitimacy of modern IQ testing?" Expanding this with specifics... Do you feel that dyslexia was the only discrepancy to be accounted for? Do you feel that some aspects of your intelligence were underrated or overrated to generate the score? Do you feel there are some aspects of your intelligence that weren't touched on in the test, or some aspects that the test covered that you don't believe should be a consideration when determining an individuals intelligence? I'm not questioning your scores- I just have seen such variance in IQ scores in general that I have to question the methodology used, the criteria included/excluded, and how heavily each factor is weighted. I'm not suggesting that your real score should be higher, or that your real score should be lower. I'm just rather dubious in general about this type of assessment for reasons I've already covered. I feel the legitimacy of IQ testing regarding essential components of intelligence (memory, logical thinking, problem solving, seeing patterns, etc.) are accurate. But I believe the question bores down to "what is intelligence". One may have a low IQ but be a brilliant/talented artist, musicians, singers, therein I believe is a distinctive intelligence separate from essential intelligence - these talented groups wouldn't solve problems like that of someone with a high IQ, although I feel someone with a high IQ can catch on to certain things such as learning playing music, though they (some) may not be naturally creative (i.e. creating masterpieces of their own). This answer [the distinction] should account for aspects I feel were underrated. So when we say "intelligence" we should be clear the type of intelligence we're speaking of; for instance, if we were measuring musical intelligence the test should require two individuals to create their own music rather than read and reiterate wherein someone with a high IQ may perform better because of their memory and recognition of musical note patterns- though I would be omitted because my condition would be an interference with the musical notes ha. As for the methodology: I cannot speak for others, but my psychologist issued various styles of testing and he also issued them at various times to accurately aggregate my scores to conclude an average. I might also add that the person should be evaluated in the fields that they know (e.g. if they haven't learned math then they wouldn't have the proper tools to solve equations even if their IQ is 200). 1
point
I think taking it a step further would be more appropriate. Two people who test out as IQ 150 may have a completely different set of aptitudes resulting in that score. Because of this (along with the points we've both made regarding what is and isn't included, and how the different factors are weighted), I consider IQ to be an innately misleading figure. It would be better, I think, to give test takers a rating for each tested category rather than an aggregated IQ score- some actually do this, but most don't from my (rather dated) experience. This would be beneficial to both the person taking the test, as well as anyone who may be interested in the results. No reason this has to be an either/or prospect either, as an aggregate score could still be provided. 1
point
I have little doubt that anyone who scores as high as 150 is relatively intelligent. The issue I have is when it comes down to a comparative thing. If one person has an IQ of 155, and the other person has an IQ of 160, could you say with authority that the person with 160 is more intelligent than the person with 155? I don't know if the system is accurate enough for that. Consider that you have a range of 16 points on the scores you've posted here. On most IQ scales, that's more than a standard deviation right there. My score ranged about 60 points, or four standard deviations on most IQ scales. I just don't think there is sufficient precision for the scores to be useful in their current form, unless only looking for extreme highs or extreme lows. A breakdown of Score X for problem solving, Score Y for memory, Score Z for pattern recognition, and so on and so forth, would be immensely more useful in my opinion. 1
point
I got a breakdown on two of the tests that I took, but most of them just gave me a score. The Mensa test was one of these, and was a pretty interesting one- I didn't take it online though, I went to a testing center of sorts, so maybe thats handled differently. I'm not even certain that those various sections should even be averaged, I'm of the opinion that some aspects are a bit more important than others, especially with consideration for areas that can be at least partially compensated for (such as memory). 1
point
They make our lives more efficient and allow us to do more for less. I was married to my ex-wife for 7 years. Every year I spent an average of $297 on her (includes dinners, birthdays, etc...) After purchasing an Oculus Rift and installing virtual reality porn, I eliminated the need for a wife. Now that we are divorced, I save around $300 a year on relationship expenses. 1
point
|
