CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:11
Arguments:5
Total Votes:12
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Reply to FactMachine because FromWithin Banned Him (5)

Debate Creator

xMathFanx(1722) pic



Reply to FactMachine because FromWithin Banned Him

FactMachine (from another debate topic--"Has the Left..."):  

"It's unacceptable, even in universities while teaching advanced material they are still using the same rigid cookie cutter teaching style. You may or may not be surprised to hear this but I actually dropped out of high school at 16 and got a GED because I was sick of the sterile environment and the watered down material which often has an agenda behind it. When it comes to highly advanced subjects like quantum field theory how does a system like this even work? It seems that either:

A) No human actually understands string theory or quantum theory on any direct level and that these are merely our mathematical interpretations of a reality we can't comprehend or...

B) The above is still mostly true but with the addition of one simple dynamic, there is a human understanding of these things to an extent on more than just an abstract representative level and that the true understanding is closely regulated and only taught to an intellectual elite while the average university student is merely taught enough to land a job at CERN to serve the "elite" or write a few books for the masses without truly understanding the mechanics at work."

Add New Argument
2 points

@FactMachine.

You may or may not be surprised to hear this but I actually dropped out of high school at 16 and got a GED because I was sick of the sterile environment and the watered down material which often has an agenda behind it.

This actually doesn't surprise me for the reasons that Noam Chomsky often discusses. Namely, the education system is a system designed to indoctrinate the young. It is purposed to train people to be obedient, conformist, stay passive, don't think too much, don't raise any questions that wouldn't be "polite" to bring up. Furthermore, intelligent people tend to have a "problem" with challenging authority (particularly when the authority structure is not justified). Chomsky discusses that the system nearly/possibly intentionally has a lot of stupidity in it as a way to filter for obedience. For example, the assignments are incredibly stupid/meaningless and the only people who are willing to do it in order to pass the class and get to the next one are de facto more obedient than the ones who refuse to follow the commands because it is too stupid to take seriously/care about. Here is a link to Chomsky discussing this exact topic (and it generally aligns with my view): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFf60T2ZoI

Also, if you didn't already know, there are quite a few highly respected modern Intellectuals/Professors elite that either A. Dropped out of High School B. Finished High School but were not at all into their given subject at the time (high school) and pursued their education later on down the road after working for some years (in a "blue collar profession").

Here is a short sample list of the ones I am aware of and like the most:

(a) Lee Smolin- Theoretical Physicist; dropped out of High School, later on went to a small local college did well, was able to get into a decent sized Masters program at University of Cincinnatti where he did well again (high GPA), transferred to Harvard where he completed his PhD, did a Post-Doc at Princeton and has been an elite Physicist ever since

(b) Jana Levin- Physicist; dropped out of High School. Later got her PhD from MIT. Here is a video of both Smolin and Levin briefly raising the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sMBCTpsvH0 (skip to 14 minutes)

(c) Leonard Susskind- Theoretical Physicist. Went to High School but was not interested in Physics at the time. Started working as a plumber at age 16, continued this job for a number of years. Later, enrolled in the local school for college as an engineer student, finished with a B.S. in Physics. He did very well in his Undergrad, was able to get into Cornell for his PhD and has been an elite Physicist ever since. (If you searched enough, you can find videos of him talking about this personal journey)

Now, I wrote all this because I think it is important to understand that one is not confined to the "traditional path" for education and there is nothing holding a person who didn't do well in High School (or didn't finish High School) back from achieving any level of education/profession if they are willing to "claw their way up".

To briefly share my story (if you are at all interested), growing up I had never been exposed to Science/Humanities or intellectualism generally. My parents are typical idiots/ignorant fools who very much live in Mammal Snow Globe World and don't know anything about the world for which has been discovered thus far (they are very Right Wing Republicans btw, particularly my father). Therefore, I was being indoctrinated into Mammal World from my parents, teachers, my friends parents, and essentially every adult I knew growing up (along with my peers/friends). The best thing at the time my teenage brain could come up with to engage productively in was Athletics.

As a teenager, I put a lot of effort into physical training (as I subconsciously/consciously observed/understood the power this gives one in Mammal World). This was actually my first window into discovering how unbelievably, mind-bogglingly stupid the general population is (who watch sports "religiously" and worship said "elite athletes"). I started training when I was 16 1/2 years old (after Basketball season--which I dropped because I couldn't stand the authority structure of the Coach over the players) and by the time I was 17 and some months old (roughly a year of training--now a Junior in High School) I was built like the Terminator and could jump high enough to do strong Dunks consistently. Others clearly noticed this and a bunch of people started wanting to train with me. I kept training and progressing (at a similar pace, although after a certain point less than two years in I had to stop training for muscular size because it would have become excessive), by the time I was 20 getting close to 21 (then jumping/running way higher/faster and much stronger with no end in sight and settled on a range of physical build that was way above so called "elite" athletes; if you met me IRL, this is likely the first thing that would strike you about me) I began to realize that the Sports World was bullsh't, there wasn't a chance in hell that these people who were claiming to be training very seriously for 5, 10, 20+ years could possibly be doing so, as it only takes 1-2 years to get into advanced condition (by societies' standards). Also, this means that all of the 100s of millions or more Sports fans (most/many of which are full grown adults) are delusional, dumb as sh't, and clearly never worked for what they believe is important or else they would understand through personal experience that it does not take all that much work to achieve that level of physical conditioning. Thus, they are unable to reason through even the most trivial, basic intellectual problems.

I then turned 21, frontal lobe brain development kicked in, and found Science/Humanities/Intellectualism. I shifted my focus toward this (intellectualism) and stopped physical training for a couple years (which I have since picked back up and it gives one a lot of social power in Mammal World, which is actually helpful because people are much more likely to listen to me and be interested when I discuss intellectualism/science/ect. with them as opposed to a stereotypical "math guy" who does not get much respect in Mammal World). At the time (first turned 21), since I didn't care at all about school/education, I had about a 2.5 gpa at the local Community College. I took a semester or so off and did a lot of reading/researching with my initial window in being Popular Science books, library books, credible documentaries of various topics, watching lectures/talks from people like Dawkins, ect., and decided that it was important enough to go back to school to pursue to the best of my ability. I took about 1-1.5 years worth of classes at the Community College where I got mostly straight A's and some B's, turned my GPA around and got into a Penn State/U Texas/Ohio State level school for technical subject and am now (in my mid-twenties) about to graduate in good standing to go to a similar level school for Grad School or I may possibly go back to my school or a one standard deviation or so lower level school in order to continue/complete my Physics b.s. (note: I will be getting a Math b.s. and History b.a. soon, I got half-way into a Physics degree and had to put it on hold because doing Math & Physics simultaneously time proved to be too much work for me to handle) by trying to get higher marks in order to go to a higher level (better) Grad School program.

I'm actually well known/respect/stand out at my school by my Professors and peers due to the combination of a genuine interest/engagement with the intellectual topics along with my unusual athleticism that is a relic of my past (teenage years) and a higher level of "social intelligence/not being socially awkward" that many intellectual types seem to be lacking in. That is, due to the general populations idiocy, people who study Neuroscience, Engineering, Literature, ect. ect. may have been socially outcasted and/or bullied growing up/for the entirety of their lifetime because knowledge of Chemistry doesn't get one far in Mammal World although it is infinitely more useful than Football, while I never had these problems since I excelled at athletics, ect. I generally agree with much of the intellectual criticism of sports, however if you look at other Mammals in nature, "play fighting" is a crucial aspect in healthy social development which I think many intellectual types suffer from a lack of this key social development tool which builds the general "social awkwardness". So, even though I was/am pissed about lost time growing up when I should have been getting properly educated, it has had some benefits also.

FactMachine, I went into length about this because based on what I have seen of you on this forum, even though I have a limited profile of your abilities, (and I don't know what your current situation is), I can tell you there is no reason you should have to have financial problems in life or hold yourself back intellectually because you are quite capable of getting an Engineering degree say (and if you get an Engineering degree from a decent school, then you are financially set for life and in a position to explore other topics if you'd like later on at any level for which you would be willing/interested to work for). Honestly, I don't know if you have already studied some subjects independently, but there is a big jump from Pop. Sci. books to technical training that one should be aware of before enrolling in a program. Luckily, in our modern time, there are so many resources online that teach every given subject as to render effective "self-study/self-learning" more possible now than ever before. I would encourage you to consider whether this is something you would want for yourself or not (as I am not coming from a background that was necessarily very different than yours educationally).

Something I have considered is studying biotech and computer science, and of course I have considered getting a physics Phd because one of my goals in life is to make some major contribution to completing the Unified Field Theory. I have studied these things on my own to an extent and I am very familiar with the surface level "pop science" and have delved into the more technical material as well. The thing that I have trouble with ironically is mathematics. I am very good at abstract concepts and I have managed to figure a lot of things out about field theory without actually knowing much math. At some point it is very likely that I will pursue that kind of technical training but right now I am going down a more entrepreneurial path and trying to figure out as much as I can on my own. Just as you say studying math and physics at the same time is a lot of work, so before I go into any physics course I have some serious catching up to do in mathematics. I always had a wide range of interests, a general curiosity and a non-conformist anti-authority attitude, so I can't say there is a time in my life where I was exposed to intellectualism abruptly and had some sort of awakening. I was never forced to endure religious indoctrination until I was old enough to deal with it accordingly (when I was ten years old I lived with some relatives who where very religious and I actually started to take interest in the occult around that time) I have been through many ideological phases and believed in various forms of spirituality but I have been making a gradual progression towards logic and objective truth and I have considered almost every conceivable school of thought known to mankind. The more my frontal lobe has developed the more I have gravitated towards a scientific, mechanistic worldview and rejected all forms of superstition. In doing so, I have noticed that society is actually built around superstitious beliefs, and that humanity will have to learn to function as a society in a way that is compatible with reality, and incompatible with brainwashing, planned obsolescence, unnecessary environmental destruction and violence etc.

2 points

@FactMachine

The thing that I have trouble with ironically is mathematics. I am very good at abstract concepts and I have managed to figure a lot of things out about field theory without actually knowing much math...Just as you say studying math and physics at the same time is a lot of work, so before I go into any physics course I have some serious catching up to do in mathematics.

I believe you. In fact, reading the Pop Science books and truly understanding it (as well as the implications) is the first indication that one has high potential because they de facto can visualize, conceptualize, ect. at least at an "above average" level or higher (because obviously this does not describe the average person in our society or the world).

When I first "woke up", I was most intimidated by the Mathematics because I had essentially no training at the time (and from my perspective at the time, Physics looked like a lot of advanced Math just as a prerequisite that I was light-years away from understanding). As far as "a lot of catching up to do", when I went back to school, I started all the from Pre-Calc 1 (Pre-Calc is a two course sequence) and one year later I had completed Calc II, Physics I-II, Chem II, and my first Intro to Theoretical Mathematics course (I took summer courses as well as Fall & Spring semester). My point is, the Math is definitely going to seem to be the most intimidating aspect to learning Physics (and technical sciences/engineering more broadly) at first because it is the most foreign. However, once you dip your feet into it, you will begin to become progressively more familiar with the patterns, language, and internal logic of Maths that will build a comfortability with it. Although it will take quite a bit of study particularly at first, does not take all that long when you look back at it and after you begin to become accustomed to the language of Maths, then learning a new subject in Math will become nearly as simple as what it is like to read a new Pop Sci book or listen to a new lecture series, documentary, ect. and acquire the relevant information. So, even though when you progress in Math the actual material becomes increasingly more advanced, it is typically much more difficult to learn the base material rather than when you hit the more advanced topics since you are starting from an area of no experience.

I can tell you, it sounds like your background in Maths is not all that different than mine was when I first started, and from what I have seen, if I could do it--you can do it. Also, the sooner one gets a jump the better for various reasons. One, I have seen you say on CD before that you are still in your low twenties. That means your brain is still developing for roughly the next half-decade, and you can work that to your advantage greatly if you are able to learn some more Maths in the next few years or so because it will fundamentally re-mold your brain in very positive ways while it is still most malleable (before it "solidifies" more in your late twenties onward--there is a reality that you should be aware of that once your brain "fully develops" around the age 26ish, it does become much more "solidified" compared to when younger and learning Math if you had never been exposed to it before may prove quite a bit more difficult comparatively (by no means impossible since the brain is highly neuroplastic, however, in some ways it is like Foreign language, your brain has a window of time for which it is most receptive to this new information)). Basically, if you can learn at least Single Variable Calc (Calc I-II) by the time you turn 26, you would be doing yourself a huge favor that I guarantee you wouldn't regret.

Note: When I was double majoring (triple if you count History) in Math & Physics, one of the biggest problem I encountered in the Physics courses at that time was that we were expected to simultaneously learn new Math we had not seen before in order to solve the problems (that in-them-of-themselves were conceptually difficult). That is, having a comfortability with the level of Math needed for the problems is definitely a prerequisite to studying Physics technically. However, looking back, the level of Math expected of a Mathematics major is far higher than that of a Physics major, it is just in the more beginning stages you don't necessarily have much comfort with Math so trying to add that on along with conceptually understanding what is going on and frame it properly proves very difficult. Now that I know a great deal more Math, I'm sure when I go back to finish my Physics B.S. it will feel very different (far easier by comparison) because I will be able to focus on the conceptual aspects rather than the purely quantitative.

2 points

@FactMachine

Something I have considered is studying biotech and computer science, and of course I have considered getting a physics Phd because one of my goals in life is to make some major contribution to completing the Unified Field Theory.

Go for it. I know quite a few people doing CS, and of course Physics. There are some things you should know about the College process that I wasn't really told when I first embarked on this path (and I can elaborate on any of these points later if you have any questions) :

1. There is a clear hierarchy in Academia, and it is wise to understand the "Game" in order to best play it

2. No matter what your previous grades/schooling have been like, there are ways you can still get into virtually any level program for your Undergrad still (including the Elite level schools)

3. No matter what Undergrad program you go to, there are ways to go to virtually any Grad School Program

3. Even if your financial resources are limited, there are ways to get into good schools and be able to pay for it all the way up through PhD

4. The level of school you attend is going to greatly effect how difficult the courses are, and thus the GPA you will be able to get

a) Community College will be at a very reasonable level of difficulty as will a Public State School Program

b) A school around the 100-150 level (national rank) will definitely be noticeably more challenging than CC or State School (for the same program)

c) A school around the 50 level will be very challenging and completely different than CC or State School level

d) A school at the Elite level (roughly the top 20) would require one to be at an elite level for that stage in order to pass (top few% or so of people inclined for that technical subject at that level)

5. In the modern era, there are countless resources available that thoroughly teach any given technical subject area for free or a limited fee, and would prove to be an invaluable asset in learning said material (either for formal training/school or self-study)

2 points

@FactMachine

When it comes to highly advanced subjects like quantum field theory how does a system like this even work? It seems that either:

A) No human actually understands string theory or quantum theory on any direct level and that these are merely our mathematical interpretations of a reality we can't comprehend or...

B) The above is still mostly true but with the addition of one simple dynamic, there is a human understanding of these things to an extent on more than just an abstract representative level and that the true understanding is closely regulated and only taught to an intellectual elite while the average university student is merely taught enough to land a job at CERN to serve the "elite" or write a few books for the masses without truly understanding the mechanics at work."

I think both A and B are partially correct. That is, the number of people who truly understand Quantum Field theory on a deeper level (or similarly advanced topic) is extremely small while there are many more people who are able to do the computations involved. In fact, if you are familiar with the Physicist Sean Carroll of CalTech, he often discusses this.

As for B, I utilize MITOpenCourse frequently and can tell you that there is nothing fundamentally different about the way they are being instructed compared to my Uni. (a moderate level school). That is, although their tests are undoubtedly more difficult (on average) than the ones I am given, they are not saying anything in the lecture environment that would be enough to "bridge a gap" for people who don't understand the framework for which the course is taking place (which is many/most) and others who do understand the framework would still have to seek outside "self-study" and/or approach the Professor during Office Hours in order to get a more complete/true understanding of what is being taught (more than just the computations). That is, the school is teaching you to be able to do the computations (or other technical aspects) while only requiring a vague understanding of the topic on an abstract, visual level. Therefore, although individual students may have a strong hold on the abstract, visual concepts, this is rarely necessarily tested on compared to how heavily/rigorously technical/computational aspects are tested. Naturally, as a consequence of this, most students focus essentially all of their time on how do problem "X" because that is what is going to be on the exam rather than a verbal exam/conversation with the Professor in which it would definitely come out whether or not the student understands what is going on, what they are talking about or not (Note: this shifts in Graduate School where you are expected to have in depth conversations with the Professor/Advisor in order to justify your understanding/results).