So why do men have nipples?

[Tomk80]

You are very picky on the step one of my explanation. I guess that means you do not intend to proceed. Sigh, smart young people like to demonstrate that they can argue almost on anything. But, they do not understand what is the purpose of argument. And they, in most cases, get lost in their own arguments.

If you like to continue, give me a better (a more focused) reply. Otherwise, you may read my conversation with Gracchus.

Being critical of you is a bad thing? What kind of an argument is that?

 

[Tomk80]

y'all have about 0 patience, huh?

Snake oil salesmen rarely do.

 

[Hespera]

Snake oil salesmen rarely do.

????????? to whom do you reference to?

 

[Gracchus]

So, if I had a Ph.D. degree, I do can claim that I have received the highest education mankind can offer.

You can make the claim. You can claim you are Santa Claus.

The step two is a little complicate.

It is not "complicate". It is irrelevant. Anyone can make a claim. (I am Kal El from the panet Krypton.)

What is the "highest education"? Some might have learned more in one field, some in another. Some might have learned a great deal, but everthing they learned was wrong.

Answer your own ambiguous questions, instead of fishing for answers no intelligent person is going to give. In short: MAKE YOUR POINT!

 

[Tomk80]

????????? to whom do you reference to?

Juvy, who else? Sorry for being unclear.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Juvys use of the English language alone proves he does in no way possess a PhD, unless it is of the Hovind variety.

 

[Tomk80]

Juvys use of the English language alone proves he does in no way possess a PhD, unless it is of the Hovind variety.

But then, anyone who apparently holds up a PhD as the highest attainable level of education has never attained a PhD. Especially if that someone holds up achieving a higher grade as achieving a higher level of education.

What a tool.

 

[JediMobius]

But then, anyone who apparently holds up a PhD as the highest attainable level of education has never attained a PhD. Especially if that someone holds up achieving a higher grade as achieving a higher level of education.

What a tool.

Right. Yeah. The guy obviously doesn't have a PhD in English, so he must not have a PhD in anything. Ooh, and personal attacks! Real mature and constructive.

If you can't think outside of the box and understand what he's getting at, regardless of his 'syntax errors,' that's your own fault.

 

[Hespera]

You know, lowly, in the personal attacks he managed to get in i think it was six swipes at me, post before last. That is how he responded to my request that he write something that it is possible to understand.

I see you use sarcasm and personal remarks to say how personal remarks are unsuitable.

Juv made the statement that he has the highest degree of education that it is possible for a human being to have. Now, unless we are supposed to (accurately) second guess what that might mean, we just take it as written. What he writes indicates considerably less than the highest degree of education! Maybe it is good enough for Detroit jr high, but its definitely not college English.

If you have a formula for second guessing what the ambiguous means, well, you have a gift the rest of us dont have.

Its not unreasonable to ask him to clarify. A while back it went around and around because he kept insisting that "a plant is not a life". What is that supposed to mean?

Another thing...this forum gets all serious and sober and about the most ridiculous things. The guy makes an outlandish claim, then tries to play Socrates when called on it. If someone makes fun of him for that, its no more than he called down on himself.

He doesnt need you to defend him anyway.

 

[JediMobius]

You know, lowly, in the personal attacks he managed to get in i think it was six swipes at me, post before last. That is how he responded to my request that he write something that it is possible to understand.

I see you use sarcasm and personal remarks to say how personal remarks are unsuitable.

There have been thinly veiled derrogatory remarks in your posts to Juv the whole time. Whatever, I was making a point, go ahead and pick it to bits if you wish.

Juv made the statement that he has the highest degree of education that it is possible for a human being to have. Now, unless we are supposed to (accurately) second guess what that might mean, we just take it as written. What he writes indicates considerably less than the highest degree of education! Maybe it is good enough for Detroit jr high, but its definitely not college English.

Well, if that was in this thread, I missed it. Twice. Correction: what he writes indicates that his education is not a mastery of English, Biology, other sciences. . . I still want to see where the claim was made.

If you have a formula for second guessing what the ambiguous means, well, you have a gift the rest of us dont have.

Second guessing? I don't think you mean 'second' guessing, but it's an educated guess. I have problems with native English speakers having poor communication skills, (properly using a sentence, mixed colloquialisms, grammar that really could go one of two ways) but this guy, English is clearly not his first language - if it is, there must be a mental block in syntax. I've delt with a few people from different countries speaking english, and that's what I read into Juv's posts. He uses grammatical structure that english doesn't have, but it's decipherable enough to tell he's not being scientifically literal. Thus, when replies come that are literal/scientific, there's quite a gap in the discussion.

Its not unreasonable to ask him to clarify. A while back it went around and around because he kept insisting that "a plant is not a life". What is that supposed to mean?

Of course it's not unreasonable to ask for clarification. . . A plant is not a life - maybe that it doesn't have a soul?

Another thing...this forum gets all serious and sober and about the most ridiculous things. The guy makes an outlandish claim, then tries to play Socrates when called on it. If someone makes fun of him for that, its no more than he called down on himself.

He doesnt need you to defend him anyway.

I wasn't defending juv, I was criticizing the lack of communications skills in this thread. It seems there's more interest in juv's individual failings in fluency of the English language (and other failings as may be perceived) than there is in discussion of the actual topic of the thread. Case in point, my post(s) on page 16 which have now been burried by quarreling.

 

[Hespera]

Well, i surely dont want to quarrel with you, lowly!

it was in another thread far from this one that he made the claim. You notice he does not deny it, so yes, he did say it.

English is not my first language, but i will admit i started early with a mom who was an English instructor. I am very intolerant of bad English ,especially from those who are native speakers. My vice i guess, but thats how i am. Not that I am against to a bit of informality as in this post. And as for thinly veiled derogatory remarks..... guilty as charged.

You are right though, it is a serious case of communicaiton failure. Almost like little kids doing parallel play, near eachother but not really interacting.


Anyhow i think all he meant is that he has some sort of PhD, and that it should lend credence to what he says. What do you think?

 

[juvenissun]

You can make the claim. You can claim you are Santa Claus.

It is not "complicate". It is irrelevant. Anyone can make a claim. (I am Kal El from the panet Krypton.)

What is the "highest education"? Some might have learned more in one field, some in another. Some might have learned a great deal, but everthing they learned was wrong.

Answer your own ambiguous questions, instead of fishing for answers no intelligent person is going to give. In short: MAKE YOUR POINT!

I am sorry that I have a bad professional habit. I don't continue unless I get a good response from the one I talked to.

You are, in fact, right on the money. You pointed out the most critical question about learning and education.

However, if you read what you said one more time, would you be disappointed or even feel sad by the limitation of human learning? In my scenario, we evaluate what those 50 Ph.D. have accomplished at the end of the 30 years learning period, what then is the criteria of the evaluation?

Obviously, if any criterion is used, it must be one beyond the measurement of the amount (and the type) of knowledge. I always tell my students: College education does not mean to give you knowledge, but to give you method of getting knowledge. For undergraduate student, it means critical (logic) thinking and scientific method. Now, here is the next question for you to think about:

If a person already learned how to think critically and how to use scientific method to acquire knowledge (Ph.D. student or Ph.D.), what additional tool he can learn and use in order to educate himself better?

Use the same tool to repeat the same project can improve the quality of the product, but not to raise the product to a higher level. Those who have better tools not only can do a better job, but also can do a job of the next higher level. In order to be "better educated" beyond a Ph.D. level, one must hold the learning tool of the next caliber, which is better than those common ones, such as critical thinking or scientific method. Is there such a learning tool, if so, what would it be?

Step 3 will follow if I get a good response.

 

[JediMobius]

Well, i surely dont want to quarrel with you, lowly!

it was in another thread far from this one that he made the claim. You notice he does not deny it, so yes, he did say it.

English is not my first language, but i will admit i started early with a mom who was an English instructor. I am very intolerant of bad English ,especially from those who are native speakers. My vice i guess, but thats how i am. Not that I am against to a bit of informality as in this post. And as for thinly veiled derogatory remarks..... guilty as charged.

You are right though, it is a serious case of communicaiton failure. Almost like little kids doing parallel play, near eachother but not really interacting.

haha "We're in space!" "No, we're in the wild west!" . . . and there's a little girl playing 'house' near the sand box, being invaded by cowboys and astronauts. . . Sorry, I like metaphors.

Anyhow i think all he meant is that he has some sort of PhD, and that it should lend credence to what he says. What do you think?

Well, I'd have to see the actual post to have any idea, but in this thread he agreed and/or made the point that a PhD isn't the greatest extent to which a man can educate himself - though not in so many words. Oh well, one of these days I'll start a few threads with some interesting science I've come across through an Intelligent Design think tank. It's gonna take some weeding though, as they come from a perspective of God's authorship of creation to begin with as opposed to the naturalists who rely on pure chance that the universe just worked itself out.

By the way, it's in no way obvious that English is not your first language. In fact, you use the language more correctly than many of my friends, all of whom grew up in America - figures.

 

[Hespera]

Something tells me i know where this is headed.

 

[Hespera]

Above is regarding juv's post

 

[JediMobius]

I am sorry that I have a bad professional habit. I don't continue unless I get a good response from the one I talked to.

You are, in fact, right on the money. You pointed out the most critical question about learning and education.

However, if you read what you said one more time, would you be disappointed or even feel sad by the limitation of human learning? In my scenario, we evaluate what those 50 Ph.D. have accomplished at the end of the 30 years learning period, what then is the criteria of the evaluation?

Obviously, if any criterion is used, it must be one beyond the measurement of the amount (and the type) of knowledge. I always tell my students: College education does not mean to give you knowledge, but to give you method of getting knowledge. For undergraduate student, it means critical (logic) thinking and scientific method. Now, here is the next question for you to think about:

If a person already learned how to think critically and how to use scientific method to acquire knowledge (Ph.D. student or Ph.D.), what additional tool he can learn and use in order to educate himself better?

Use the same tool to repeat the same project can improve the quality of the product, but not to raise the product to a higher level. Those who have better tools not only can do a better job, but also can do a job of the next higher level. In order to be "better educated" beyond a Ph.D. level, one must hold the learning tool of the next caliber, which is better than those common ones, such as critical thinking or scientific method. Is there such a learning tool, if so, what would it be?

Step 3 will follow if I get a good response.

What the crap!? This is the most coherent use of the English language we've seen from you! Have you been holding out all this time? (Still some grammatical flaws though. . . )

Didn't early thinkers establish greater knowledge through debate? Socrates and his students? Thomas Aquinas even?

 

[Hespera]

Juv, I also noticed the improved English. i do appreciate whatever effort it took, really.
I consider it to be way more respectful when a person takes time to write clearly.

 

[juvenissun]

You know, lowly, in the personal attacks he managed to get in i think it was six swipes at me, post before last. That is how he responded to my request that he write something that it is possible to understand.

I see you use sarcasm and personal remarks to say how personal remarks are unsuitable.

Juv made the statement that he has the highest degree of education that it is possible for a human being to have. Now, unless we are supposed to (accurately) second guess what that might mean, we just take it as written. What he writes indicates considerably less than the highest degree of education! Maybe it is good enough for Detroit jr high, but its definitely not college English.

If you have a formula for second guessing what the ambiguous means, well, you have a gift the rest of us dont have.

Its not unreasonable to ask him to clarify. A while back it went around and around because he kept insisting that "a plant is not a life". What is that supposed to mean?

Another thing...this forum gets all serious and sober and about the most ridiculous things. The guy makes an outlandish claim, then tries to play Socrates when called on it. If someone makes fun of him for that, its no more than he called down on himself.

He doesnt need you to defend him anyway.

How sad.
He is not defending me. He is trying to teach YOU.

I started this sub-thread because I want to explain things to you. May be I made a mistake, just as it is described in the Book of Matthew.

 

[Hespera]

You made the statement that you have the highest degree of education that it is possible for a human being to have. That, as stated, is about as absurd a statement as it is possible to make about oneself.

That was where you made your mistake.

if you want to explain or rephrase your statement so that it does make sense, go ahead. i will listen. If you want to do your socrates bit and ask endless questions, dont bother.

 

[juvenissun]

What the crap!? This is the most coherent use of the English language we've seen from you! Have you been holding out all this time? (Still some grammatical flaws though. . . )

Didn't early thinkers establish greater knowledge through debate? Socrates and his students? Thomas Aquinas even?

On the surface, any debate still uses logic (plus knowledge) as the major tool. So I would say debate alone would not make one learn better than he already can. Any great scientist debates with himself all the time.