Educated=Smart?

kleinjahr · 6th May 2006, 09:23 AM

Since when? Definitely agree with Randi on this un.

I recall an old story. Years ago, early 1900's, a group of professors from the premier European universities went to the Kalahari on an expedition to study the K'ung (Bushmen). They were trying to find out how intelligent the K'ung were( I said it was an old story). Anyway, the professors got themselves lost, out of food, no water. Along comes a little girl. They tried talking to her, she didn't understand Latin, Greek, French or German. The professors decided she, and her people must be pretty stupid. One of the professors starts making motions to indicate he's hungry and thirsty. Little girl giggles, plucks a straw, goes to a baobab tree and sucks water from a hollow. Then she pulls up some roots and starts eating them. So, who's stupid??

The best thing any education can do, is to teach you how to learn.

Tricky · 6th May 2006, 09:39 AM

The literature is rich with these anecdotes of uneducated people making fools of educated ones, and indeed it is true that the ability to learn has little to do with the availability of teaching. We all know personal examples.

But what is also true that in western societies where education is widely available, those who seek the most and gain the most from education tend to be more intelligent. This only makes sense because dumb people don't want to stay in a system where they cannot compete. It is also true that for various reasons, smart people sometimes don't stay in those institutions, but they are far more likely to do so. Thus, smart people tend to cluster in educated circles, even if it is not a 1-to-1 correlation.

We also know that there are some "educated fools" out there who have grasped the workings of the educational system without grasping the education itself. And it is true that there are many arrogant people who, because they are smart in one field, seem to think that they are smart in unrelated fields (see Pascal's wager).

What I dislike about anecdotes like the above is that they tend to denigrate education, making it look useless by setting up straw men of stupid and snobbish scholars who take ignorance for unintelligence. The story is total fiction, because a person who truly was smart would immediately know to consult local authorities on survival skills, even if that authority was one who had only learned it by rote.

A person who is truly smart, be he educated or otherwise, is incredibly aware of how much he does not know.

Jess · 6th May 2006, 09:48 AM

You know, I was thinking about this piece since I'm on the PhD track myself. I'm fairly sure that most people, taken away from a familiar enviornment, would have some difficulties adjusting. I don't think the issue is education so much as extreme specialization. Some people study a subject to the exclusion of all other knowledge. So it follows that a brilliant computer science who is suddenly lost in the woods may not function as well as a frequent camper without a degree. I'm not sure that this indicates that the computer scientist isn't smart, but rather that he doesn't have the same basic survival building blocks that the camper has. Presumably, the computer scientist has the ability to apply his knowledge to many situations. It just doesn't work as well when there's no technology involved. The camper too, presumably has his own wealth of knowledge that can be applied to a variety of situations. Let's just say that this camper doesn't do very well when he's confronted with a computer related problem. Neither are stupid, but both are limited by what they've learned.

Basically, the trick is not to be arrogant. No matter how much you know, there will always be more that you don't know.

This is where I avoid launching into my "late 19th century efforts to professionalize academics discredited the 'amateur'" rant.

And stop picking on us doctoral candidates...! *sob*

ETA: Well, Tricky already said it.

I just don't type fast enough.

ma1ic3 · 6th May 2006, 10:58 AM

Originally Posted by kleinjahr

The best thing any education can do, is to teach you how to learn.

Learning to learn is definitely a good thing. You can't go wrong with getting an education in the ability to more easily get an education.

I agree that being educated isn't the same as being smart. But do you really need a story about a lost group of professors being saved by a kid that eats roots to show that? Can't you just grab a bag of chips, turn on the TV and watch politics for a few minutes instead?

Patricio Elicer · 6th May 2006, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

We also know that there are some "educated fools" out there who have grasped the workings of the educational system without grasping the education itself. And it is true that there are many arrogant people who, because they are smart in one field, seem to think that they are smart in unrelated fields (see Pascal's wager).

I can't resist giving out names. Gary Schwartz, John Mack, Stanton Friedman?...... who else?

CFLarsen · 6th May 2006, 11:36 AM

Rupert Sheldrake.

geni · 6th May 2006, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

We also know that there are some "educated fools" out there who have grasped the workings of the educational system without grasping the education itself. And it is true that there are many arrogant people who, because they are smart in one field, seem to think that they are smart in unrelated fields (see Pascal's wager).

Pascal's wager was meant to show it was important to consider the question of the existance of god. It was not meant as an argument for beliveing in god or as a basis for faith

digithead · 6th May 2006, 01:34 PM

There are many forms of education beyond college...

All a Ph.D. degree signifies is a higher than normal capacity for repetition and boredom...

Also, the bell curve exists for all of us, so there are numbskulls at Harvard and geniuses working on the wrong end of a shovel...

JamesM · 6th May 2006, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by digithead

All a Ph.D. degree signifies is a higher than normal capacity for repetition and boredom...

Not sure I follow you. How is getting a PhD any more boring than working in a bank, say?

Jess · 6th May 2006, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by digithead

All a Ph.D. degree signifies is a higher than normal capacity for repetition and boredom...

No, no it doesn't. Though the experience may teach you to put up with extreme stupidity. Personally, I've found that there's a lot of politics involved in getting a PhD. If you're not in the right department, you could end up with a lot of stress and misery. However, if you're in the opposite scenario, the experience can be extremely gratifying. I will be the first to acknowledge that there are people without PhDs who are more intelligent than I am. This, however, doesn't mean that I haven't learned anything in the PhD process, nor does mean that I haven't worked dilligently. I'd like to think that I'm not spending my life pursuing something completely frivolous.

Tricky · 6th May 2006, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Pascal's wager was meant to show it was important to consider the question of the existance of god. It was not meant as an argument for beliveing in god or as a basis for faith

If Pascal meant to show the importance of considering the question, then he failed badly, because he neglected to first define the God that it was important to believe in. He made the unwarrented assumption that it was the God of Christianity and that this God would eternally punish all those who don't believe. All of his conclusions were based on that assumption. He never considered conflicting definitions of a God who would not punish, or of a God that would punish you for believing in the Christian version.

My point was that Pascal showed that being brilliant in one field (mathematics) does not mean your brilliance carries over into other fields (formal logic). In formulating his "wager, Pascal fell into the simple logical fallacy of begging the question, something that his mathematical training apparently did not deal with.

Was Pascal smart? He was certainly educated and clever at math. He apparently did not have that quality which I associate with smart people which is humility.

geni · 6th May 2006, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

If Pascal meant to show the importance of considering the question, then he failed badly, because he neglected to first define the God that it was important to believe in.

No this is where your argument breaks down. Pascal's wager wasn't meant to show it was important to believe. Merely that it was important to consider the question of whether or not the Christian god existed. Pascal recognised it was not a logical basis for belief.

Tricky · 6th May 2006, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by geni

No this is where your argument breaks down. Pascal's wager wasn't meant to show it was important to believe. Merely that it was important to consider the question of whether or not the Christian god existed. Pascal recognised it was not a logical basis for belief.

I strongly disagree. He did not just say it should be considered. He said it should be bet upon to be true. I don't have his quote handy, but I can dig it up if you like. He was not a dispassionate observer just trying to make sure every viewpoint was examined, elsewise he would have made similar statements about some of the other concepts of God.

geni · 6th May 2006, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

I strongly disagree. He did not just say it should be considered. He said it should be bet upon to be true. I don't have his quote handy, but I can dig it up if you like. He was not a dispassionate observer just trying to make sure every viewpoint was examined, elsewise he would have made similar statements about some of the other concepts of God.

Oh it was burried in the middle of a longer book but he did not claim it could be used as a basis for belife.

Tricky · 6th May 2006, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Oh it was burried in the middle of a longer book but he did not claim it could be used as a basis for belife.

Sounds like he realized his error later, but too prevent fundies from latching onto his "wager" as a cornerstone of their faith. Instead of burying it, he should have shouted it as loudly as he did his wager. It is like a newspaper printing a retraction on the bottom of page twenty.

geni · 6th May 2006, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Sounds like he realized his error later, but too late to have fundies latch upon his "wager" as a cornerstone of their faith.

Pensées was writen in the 17th century. Pascal had been dead for 7 years when it was published. contempory "fundies" would have been unlikely to use the argument

Quote:

Instead of burying it, he should have shouted it as loudly as he did his wager. It is like a newspaper printing a retraction on the bottom of page twenty.

He never shouted his wager. He never published it. It is burried in Pensées in a section where he is attacking those who refuse to wager at all. His argument is that agnostics are forced to get involved in the wager over the existance of the christian god. They have no choice in the matter they are makeing the wager.

Tricky · 6th May 2006, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by geni

Pensées was writen in the 17th century. Pascal had been dead for 7 years when it was published. contempory "fundies" would have been unlikely to use the argument

He never shouted his wager. He never published it. It is burried in Pensées in a section where he is attacking those who refuse to wager at all. His argument is that agnostics are forced to get involved in the wager over the existance of the christian god. They have no choice in the matter they are makeing the wager.

Then I am wrong about some of the things I said.

But Pascal is still wrong because even though agnostics may be "forced to get involved in the wager over the existance of the christian god", his statements about how they should wager on God is totally incorrect. By his logic, one would need to believe every story of a vengeful deity in order to give the greatest chance of saving one's soul. If he meant it to show that it is important to consider every viewpoint, he did a horrible job of showing that. It is a travesty of logic.

But we derail the thread. Pascal's wager has been discussed at great length on other places on this thread. My simple point was that Pascal might have been good at math, but not at logic. One would have to know a lot more about him to judge his intelligence from such scanty information.

Kiless · 6th May 2006, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

What I dislike about anecdotes like the above is that they tend to denigrate education, making it look useless by setting up straw men of stupid and snobbish scholars who take ignorance for unintelligence. The story is total fiction, because a person who truly was smart would immediately know to consult local authorities on survival skills, even if that authority was one who had only learned it by rote.

A person who is truly smart, be he educated or otherwise, is incredibly aware of how much he does not know.

(emphasis mine)
thanks Tricky. And here I was thinking i was in the wilderness in thinking similar...

Lord Muck oGentry · 6th May 2006, 10:51 PM

Gentlemen,
Here is what Pascal has to say about the Wager:

http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/course...scal_Wager.htm

Regards to all.

Polaris · 6th May 2006, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

What I dislike about anecdotes like the above is that they tend to denigrate education, making it look useless by setting up straw men of stupid and snobbish scholars who take ignorance for unintelligence. The story is total fiction, because a person who truly was smart would immediately know to consult local authorities on survival skills, even if that authority was one who had only learned it by rote.

It does kind of smack of the same tone as "the atheist professor", now that you mention it.

digithead · 6th May 2006, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by JamesM

Not sure I follow you. How is getting a PhD any more boring than working in a bank, say?

I should've said "self-inflicted repetition and boredom"...

Originally Posted by Jess

No, no it doesn't. Though the experience may teach you to put up with extreme stupidity. Personally, I've found that there's a lot of politics involved in getting a PhD. If you're not in the right department, you could end up with a lot of stress and misery. However, if you're in the opposite scenario, the experience can be extremely gratifying. I will be the first to acknowledge that there are people without PhDs who are more intelligent than I am. This, however, doesn't mean that I haven't learned anything in the PhD process, nor does mean that I haven't worked dilligently. I'd like to think that I'm not spending my life pursuing something completely frivolous.

You're right...

T'is my end-of-semester self-pity...

Two more years and I'll have the union card...

kleinjahr · 7th May 2006, 05:27 AM

I don't remember where I first read that little story. It sort of has the flavour of Kipling.What it does do, though, is point out the stupid attitude of the professors in the story. An attitude that is all to common amongst the entire populace.

With all due respect for those who have gone through the initiation rite called higher education, a sheep skin simply proves you passed those rites/exams. No difference, really, than the certification of an auto mechanic and yes there are stupid mechanics as well.
Ignorance is not stupidity, the refusal to learn is. Isn't that what this forum is all about? Isn't that where we have the most problem with the fundies, et al.?

Tricky · 7th May 2006, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by kleinjahr

I don't remember where I first read that little story. It sort of has the flavour of Kipling.What it does do, though, is point out the stupid attitude of the professors in the story. An attitude that is all to common amongst the entire populace.

Yes it does. Kipling was a great storyteller about the nobility of the uneducated, e.g. Gunga Din, The Ballad of East and West and many others.

Originally Posted by kleinjahr

With all due respect for those who have gone through the initiation rite called higher education, a sheep skin simply proves you passed those rites/exams. No difference, really, than the certification of an auto mechanic and yes there are stupid mechanics as well.

Here I disagree. The duration, quantity and difficulty of study must be considered when comparing certifications. Though the principle is the same, it is a matter of degree. (Awful pun absolutely intended)

Originally Posted by kleinjahr

Ignorance is not stupidity, the refusal to learn is. Isn't that what this forum is all about? Isn't that where we have the most problem with the fundies, et al.?

Indeed. But again, we all have areas of blindness and areas where we accept things unquestioningly. Fundies do it a lot more than skeptics, but skeptics do it too sometimes. Again, it is a matter of... no... I won't say it again.

BTW, kleinjahr, I see you are new here and I would like to welcome you to the forums. You seem to have a lot of good stuff to say, so I hope you stick around. Also, I like your topological forum name.

drkitten · 11th May 2006, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by kleinjahr

With all due respect for those who have gone through the initiation rite called higher education, a sheep skin simply proves you passed those rites/exams.

No, it signifies more, thank you.

It signifies mastery of a specific skillset as well.

The "bell curve" does NOT work for all of us at all things. There, are, for example, no bad violinists who play violin professionally for the Berlin Philharmonic. Not because there are no bad violinists, but because the people who hire for the Berlin Phil specifically select on the basis of their skillset.

There are similarly no quadriplegics playing violin for the Berlin Phil. If you can't move your hands and arms, you simply can't perform the necessary skill.

The skillset for a Ph.D. is research (and the skillset for a Harvard professor is continued, high-quality research). A sheepskin proves that you can do that research, along with all the other associated qualities. And one of those qualities -- or one with a very strong correlation -- is raw intelligence. If you're not "smart" enough to do research (whatever that means), you can't get a Ph.D.

Mojo · 11th May 2006, 11:06 AM

Originally Posted by kleinjahr

I recall an old story. Years ago, early 1900's, a group of professors from the premier European universities went to the Kalahari on an expedition to study the K'ung (Bushmen). They were trying to find out how intelligent the K'ung were( I said it was an old story). Anyway, the professors got themselves lost, out of food, no water. Along comes a little girl. They tried talking to her, she didn't understand Latin, Greek, French or German. The professors decided she, and her people must be pretty stupid. One of the professors starts making motions to indicate he's hungry and thirsty. Little girl giggles, plucks a straw, goes to a baobab tree and sucks water from a hollow. Then she pulls up some roots and starts eating them. So, who's stupid??

You're right, it is a very old story. Here's a paraphrase (I don't have the original to hand) of another version of it, from Punch magazine in the very early years of the 20th century. It was the caption to a cartoon. An early motorist has pulled up at a crossroads:

Motorist: "I say, you there. Do you know where that road goes?"
Yokel: "Nope."
Motorist: "Do you know where that road goes?"
Yokel: "Nope."
Motorist: "Well, what about that road, then?"
Yokel: "Nope."
Motorist: "You don't seem to know much."
Yokel: "Maybe not, but I ain't lost."

Lamuella · 11th May 2006, 02:56 PM

and of course, it is entirely possible to be educated stupid

hodgy · 11th May 2006, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Kipling was a great storyteller about the nobility of the uneducated, e.g. Gunga Din, The Ballad of East and West and many others.

I think that's not quite accurate. Kipling's 'noble' characters were often uneducated but that was incidental, he was essentially writing about the potential nobility and dignity of all men.

The protagonists in the Ballad of East and West were certainly not uneducated.

kleinjahr · 15th May 2006, 12:05 PM

Tricky:You, sir (or madam), are a pundit.

I've been around for awhile, just don't post all that often.

6th May 2006, 09:23 AM	#1
kleinjahr Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 235	Educated=Smart? Since when? Definitely agree with Randi on this un. I recall an old story. Years ago, early 1900's, a group of professors from the premier European universities went to the Kalahari on an expedition to study the K'ung (Bushmen). They were trying to find out how intelligent the K'ung were( I said it was an old story). Anyway, the professors got themselves lost, out of food, no water. Along comes a little girl. They tried talking to her, she didn't understand Latin, Greek, French or German. The professors decided she, and her people must be pretty stupid. One of the professors starts making motions to indicate he's hungry and thirsty. Little girl giggles, plucks a straw, goes to a baobab tree and sucks water from a hollow. Then she pulls up some roots and starts eating them. So, who's stupid?? The best thing any education can do, is to teach you how to learn.
kleinjahr Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 235

6th May 2006, 09:48 AM	#3
Jess Trachemys Scripta Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 107	You know, I was thinking about this piece since I'm on the PhD track myself. I'm fairly sure that most people, taken away from a familiar enviornment, would have some difficulties adjusting. I don't think the issue is education so much as extreme specialization. Some people study a subject to the exclusion of all other knowledge. So it follows that a brilliant computer science who is suddenly lost in the woods may not function as well as a frequent camper without a degree. I'm not sure that this indicates that the computer scientist isn't smart, but rather that he doesn't have the same basic survival building blocks that the camper has. Presumably, the computer scientist has the ability to apply his knowledge to many situations. It just doesn't work as well when there's no technology involved. The camper too, presumably has his own wealth of knowledge that can be applied to a variety of situations. Let's just say that this camper doesn't do very well when he's confronted with a computer related problem. Neither are stupid, but both are limited by what they've learned. Basically, the trick is not to be arrogant. No matter how much you know, there will always be more that you don't know. This is where I avoid launching into my "late 19th century efforts to professionalize academics discredited the 'amateur'" rant. And stop picking on us doctoral candidates...! sob ETA: Well, Tricky already said it. I just don't type fast enough.
Jess Trachemys Scripta Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 107	__________________ Hooray, I have a signature now! ...But what do I do with it...? Last edited by Jess; 6th May 2006 at 09:51 AM.

6th May 2006, 11:01 AM	#5
Patricio Elicer Obsessed with Reality Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Santiago, Chile Posts: 4,350	Originally Posted by Tricky We also know that there are some "educated fools" out there who have grasped the workings of the educational system without grasping the education itself. And it is true that there are many arrogant people who, because they are smart in one field, seem to think that they are smart in unrelated fields (see Pascal's wager). I can't resist giving out names. Gary Schwartz, John Mack, Stanton Friedman?...... who else?
	__________________ "Well, I've never discussed it before on the forum, but, Patricio, you're the real reason I didn't show up at TAM I. Once I found out you were going, I cancelled all my plans, knowing that you would likely hunt me down and ask me questions about English language usage. I finally decided that I wouldn't be able to handle the pressure of your questions ..." - Mr. Skinny on 5th April 2007.

6th May 2006, 11:36 AM	#6
CFLarsen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 42,804	Rupert Sheldrake.
	__________________ SkepticReport.com

6th May 2006, 02:26 PM	#9
JamesM Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,823	Originally Posted by digithead All a Ph.D. degree signifies is a higher than normal capacity for repetition and boredom... Not sure I follow you. How is getting a PhD any more boring than working in a bank, say?
JamesM Graduate Poster Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 1,823	__________________ "When we type away on discussion boards and post comments on our blogs, it feels like we’re sitting outside a pub in the evening sunshine with our attractive, cool friends – but we aren’t. That’s something we used to do before we got addicted to the internet." - Jon Ronson

6th May 2006, 09:39 AM	#2
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,338	The literature is rich with these anecdotes of uneducated people making fools of educated ones, and indeed it is true that the ability to learn has little to do with the availability of teaching. We all know personal examples. But what is also true that in western societies where education is widely available, those who seek the most and gain the most from education tend to be more intelligent. This only makes sense because dumb people don't want to stay in a system where they cannot compete. It is also true that for various reasons, smart people sometimes don't stay in those institutions, but they are far more likely to do so. Thus, smart people tend to cluster in educated circles, even if it is not a 1-to-1 correlation. We also know that there are some "educated fools" out there who have grasped the workings of the educational system without grasping the education itself. And it is true that there are many arrogant people who, because they are smart in one field, seem to think that they are smart in unrelated fields (see Pascal's wager). What I dislike about anecdotes like the above is that they tend to denigrate education, making it look useless by setting up straw men of stupid and snobbish scholars who take ignorance for unintelligence. The story is total fiction, because a person who truly was smart would immediately know to consult local authorities on survival skills, even if that authority was one who had only learned it by rote. A person who is truly smart, be he educated or otherwise, is incredibly aware of how much he does not know.

6th May 2006, 10:58 AM	#4
ma1ic3 Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Layton, Utah Posts: 359	Originally Posted by kleinjahr The best thing any education can do, is to teach you how to learn. Learning to learn is definitely a good thing. You can't go wrong with getting an education in the ability to more easily get an education. I agree that being educated isn't the same as being smart. But do you really need a story about a lost group of professors being saved by a kid that eats roots to show that? Can't you just grab a bag of chips, turn on the TV and watch politics for a few minutes instead?

6th May 2006, 11:50 AM	#7
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,552	Originally Posted by Tricky We also know that there are some "educated fools" out there who have grasped the workings of the educational system without grasping the education itself. And it is true that there are many arrogant people who, because they are smart in one field, seem to think that they are smart in unrelated fields (see Pascal's wager). Pascal's wager was meant to show it was important to consider the question of the existance of god. It was not meant as an argument for beliveing in god or as a basis for faith

6th May 2006, 01:34 PM	#8
digithead Thinker Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the Palouse Posts: 147	There are many forms of education beyond college... All a Ph.D. degree signifies is a higher than normal capacity for repetition and boredom... Also, the bell curve exists for all of us, so there are numbskulls at Harvard and geniuses working on the wrong end of a shovel...

6th May 2006, 03:56 PM	#10
Jess Trachemys Scripta Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 107	Originally Posted by digithead All a Ph.D. degree signifies is a higher than normal capacity for repetition and boredom... No, no it doesn't. Though the experience may teach you to put up with extreme stupidity. Personally, I've found that there's a lot of politics involved in getting a PhD. If you're not in the right department, you could end up with a lot of stress and misery. However, if you're in the opposite scenario, the experience can be extremely gratifying. I will be the first to acknowledge that there are people without PhDs who are more intelligent than I am. This, however, doesn't mean that I haven't learned anything in the PhD process, nor does mean that I haven't worked dilligently. I'd like to think that I'm not spending my life pursuing something completely frivolous.
Jess Trachemys Scripta Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 107	__________________ Hooray, I have a signature now! ...But what do I do with it...?

6th May 2006, 04:36 PM	#11
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,338	Originally Posted by geni Pascal's wager was meant to show it was important to consider the question of the existance of god. It was not meant as an argument for beliveing in god or as a basis for faith If Pascal meant to show the importance of considering the question, then he failed badly, because he neglected to first define the God that it was important to believe in. He made the unwarrented assumption that it was the God of Christianity and that this God would eternally punish all those who don't believe. All of his conclusions were based on that assumption. He never considered conflicting definitions of a God who would not punish, or of a God that would punish you for believing in the Christian version. My point was that Pascal showed that being brilliant in one field (mathematics) does not mean your brilliance carries over into other fields (formal logic). In formulating his "wager, Pascal fell into the simple logical fallacy of begging the question, something that his mathematical training apparently did not deal with. Was Pascal smart? He was certainly educated and clever at math. He apparently did not have that quality which I associate with smart people which is humility.

6th May 2006, 04:51 PM	#12
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,552	Originally Posted by Tricky If Pascal meant to show the importance of considering the question, then he failed badly, because he neglected to first define the God that it was important to believe in. No this is where your argument breaks down. Pascal's wager wasn't meant to show it was important to believe. Merely that it was important to consider the question of whether or not the Christian god existed. Pascal recognised it was not a logical basis for belief.

6th May 2006, 05:46 PM	#13
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,338	Originally Posted by geni No this is where your argument breaks down. Pascal's wager wasn't meant to show it was important to believe. Merely that it was important to consider the question of whether or not the Christian god existed. Pascal recognised it was not a logical basis for belief. I strongly disagree. He did not just say it should be considered. He said it should be bet upon to be true. I don't have his quote handy, but I can dig it up if you like. He was not a dispassionate observer just trying to make sure every viewpoint was examined, elsewise he would have made similar statements about some of the other concepts of God.

6th May 2006, 06:07 PM	#14
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,552	Originally Posted by Tricky I strongly disagree. He did not just say it should be considered. He said it should be bet upon to be true. I don't have his quote handy, but I can dig it up if you like. He was not a dispassionate observer just trying to make sure every viewpoint was examined, elsewise he would have made similar statements about some of the other concepts of God. Oh it was burried in the middle of a longer book but he did not claim it could be used as a basis for belife.

6th May 2006, 08:17 PM	#15
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,338	Originally Posted by geni Oh it was burried in the middle of a longer book but he did not claim it could be used as a basis for belife. Sounds like he realized his error later, but too prevent fundies from latching onto his "wager" as a cornerstone of their faith. Instead of burying it, he should have shouted it as loudly as he did his wager. It is like a newspaper printing a retraction on the bottom of page twenty.

6th May 2006, 08:27 PM	#16
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,552	Originally Posted by Tricky Sounds like he realized his error later, but too late to have fundies latch upon his "wager" as a cornerstone of their faith. Pensées was writen in the 17th century. Pascal had been dead for 7 years when it was published. contempory "fundies" would have been unlikely to use the argument Quote: Instead of burying it, he should have shouted it as loudly as he did his wager. It is like a newspaper printing a retraction on the bottom of page twenty. He never shouted his wager. He never published it. It is burried in Pensées in a section where he is attacking those who refuse to wager at all. His argument is that agnostics are forced to get involved in the wager over the existance of the christian god. They have no choice in the matter they are makeing the wager.

6th May 2006, 10:08 PM	#17
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,338	Originally Posted by geni Pensées was writen in the 17th century. Pascal had been dead for 7 years when it was published. contempory "fundies" would have been unlikely to use the argument He never shouted his wager. He never published it. It is burried in Pensées in a section where he is attacking those who refuse to wager at all. His argument is that agnostics are forced to get involved in the wager over the existance of the christian god. They have no choice in the matter they are makeing the wager. Then I am wrong about some of the things I said. But Pascal is still wrong because even though agnostics may be "forced to get involved in the wager over the existance of the christian god", his statements about how they should wager on God is totally incorrect. By his logic, one would need to believe every story of a vengeful deity in order to give the greatest chance of saving one's soul. If he meant it to show that it is important to consider every viewpoint, he did a horrible job of showing that. It is a travesty of logic. But we derail the thread. Pascal's wager has been discussed at great length on other places on this thread. My simple point was that Pascal might have been good at math, but not at logic. One would have to know a lot more about him to judge his intelligence from such scanty information.

6th May 2006, 10:18 PM	#18
Kiless Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,103	Originally Posted by Tricky What I dislike about anecdotes like the above is that they tend to denigrate education, making it look useless by setting up straw men of stupid and snobbish scholars who take ignorance for unintelligence. The story is total fiction, because a person who truly was smart would immediately know to consult local authorities on survival skills, even if that authority was one who had only learned it by rote. A person who is truly smart, be he educated or otherwise, is incredibly aware of how much he does not know. (emphasis mine) thanks Tricky. And here I was thinking i was in the wilderness in thinking similar...
Kiless Guest Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 6,103

6th May 2006, 10:51 PM	#19
Lord Muck oGentry Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 986	Gentlemen, Here is what Pascal has to say about the Wager: http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/course...scal_Wager.htm Regards to all.
Lord Muck oGentry Muse Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 986

6th May 2006, 11:02 PM	#20
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167	Originally Posted by Tricky What I dislike about anecdotes like the above is that they tend to denigrate education, making it look useless by setting up straw men of stupid and snobbish scholars who take ignorance for unintelligence. The story is total fiction, because a person who truly was smart would immediately know to consult local authorities on survival skills, even if that authority was one who had only learned it by rote. It does kind of smack of the same tone as "the atheist professor", now that you mention it.
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,167

6th May 2006, 11:21 PM	#21
digithead Thinker Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: On the Palouse Posts: 147	Originally Posted by JamesM Not sure I follow you. How is getting a PhD any more boring than working in a bank, say? I should've said "self-inflicted repetition and boredom"... Originally Posted by Jess No, no it doesn't. Though the experience may teach you to put up with extreme stupidity. Personally, I've found that there's a lot of politics involved in getting a PhD. If you're not in the right department, you could end up with a lot of stress and misery. However, if you're in the opposite scenario, the experience can be extremely gratifying. I will be the first to acknowledge that there are people without PhDs who are more intelligent than I am. This, however, doesn't mean that I haven't learned anything in the PhD process, nor does mean that I haven't worked dilligently. I'd like to think that I'm not spending my life pursuing something completely frivolous. You're right... T'is my end-of-semester self-pity... Two more years and I'll have the union card...

7th May 2006, 05:27 AM	#22
kleinjahr Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 235	I don't remember where I first read that little story. It sort of has the flavour of Kipling.What it does do, though, is point out the stupid attitude of the professors in the story. An attitude that is all to common amongst the entire populace. With all due respect for those who have gone through the initiation rite called higher education, a sheep skin simply proves you passed those rites/exams. No difference, really, than the certification of an auto mechanic and yes there are stupid mechanics as well. Ignorance is not stupidity, the refusal to learn is. Isn't that what this forum is all about? Isn't that where we have the most problem with the fundies, et al.?
kleinjahr Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 235

7th May 2006, 07:38 AM	#23
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,338	Originally Posted by kleinjahr I don't remember where I first read that little story. It sort of has the flavour of Kipling.What it does do, though, is point out the stupid attitude of the professors in the story. An attitude that is all to common amongst the entire populace. Yes it does. Kipling was a great storyteller about the nobility of the uneducated, e.g. Gunga Din, The Ballad of East and West and many others. Originally Posted by kleinjahr With all due respect for those who have gone through the initiation rite called higher education, a sheep skin simply proves you passed those rites/exams. No difference, really, than the certification of an auto mechanic and yes there are stupid mechanics as well. Here I disagree. The duration, quantity and difficulty of study must be considered when comparing certifications. Though the principle is the same, it is a matter of degree. (Awful pun absolutely intended) Originally Posted by kleinjahr Ignorance is not stupidity, the refusal to learn is. Isn't that what this forum is all about? Isn't that where we have the most problem with the fundies, et al.? Indeed. But again, we all have areas of blindness and areas where we accept things unquestioningly. Fundies do it a lot more than skeptics, but skeptics do it too sometimes. Again, it is a matter of... no... I won't say it again. BTW, kleinjahr, I see you are new here and I would like to welcome you to the forums. You seem to have a lot of good stuff to say, so I hope you stick around. Also, I like your topological forum name.
	Last edited by Tricky; 7th May 2006 at 07:41 AM.

11th May 2006, 10:55 AM	#24
drkitten Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Wits' End Posts: 21,647	Originally Posted by kleinjahr With all due respect for those who have gone through the initiation rite called higher education, a sheep skin simply proves you passed those rites/exams. No, it signifies more, thank you. It signifies mastery of a specific skillset as well. The "bell curve" does NOT work for all of us at all things. There, are, for example, no bad violinists who play violin professionally for the Berlin Philharmonic. Not because there are no bad violinists, but because the people who hire for the Berlin Phil specifically select on the basis of their skillset. There are similarly no quadriplegics playing violin for the Berlin Phil. If you can't move your hands and arms, you simply can't perform the necessary skill. The skillset for a Ph.D. is research (and the skillset for a Harvard professor is continued, high-quality research). A sheepskin proves that you can do that research, along with all the other associated qualities. And one of those qualities -- or one with a very strong correlation -- is raw intelligence. If you're not "smart" enough to do research (whatever that means), you can't get a Ph.D.

11th May 2006, 11:06 AM	#25
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,066	Originally Posted by kleinjahr I recall an old story. Years ago, early 1900's, a group of professors from the premier European universities went to the Kalahari on an expedition to study the K'ung (Bushmen). They were trying to find out how intelligent the K'ung were( I said it was an old story). Anyway, the professors got themselves lost, out of food, no water. Along comes a little girl. They tried talking to her, she didn't understand Latin, Greek, French or German. The professors decided she, and her people must be pretty stupid. One of the professors starts making motions to indicate he's hungry and thirsty. Little girl giggles, plucks a straw, goes to a baobab tree and sucks water from a hollow. Then she pulls up some roots and starts eating them. So, who's stupid?? You're right, it is a very old story. Here's a paraphrase (I don't have the original to hand) of another version of it, from Punch magazine in the very early years of the 20th century. It was the caption to a cartoon. An early motorist has pulled up at a crossroads: Motorist: "I say, you there. Do you know where that road goes?" Yokel: "Nope." Motorist: "Do you know where that road goes?" Yokel: "Nope." Motorist: "Well, what about that road, then?" Yokel: "Nope." Motorist: "You don't seem to know much." Yokel: "Maybe not, but I ain't lost."
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

11th May 2006, 02:56 PM	#26
Lamuella Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,480	and of course, it is entirely possible to be educated stupid
Lamuella Master Poster Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 2,480

11th May 2006, 04:33 PM	#27
hodgy Muse Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 945	Originally Posted by Tricky Kipling was a great storyteller about the nobility of the uneducated, e.g. Gunga Din, The Ballad of East and West and many others. I think that's not quite accurate. Kipling's 'noble' characters were often uneducated but that was incidental, he was essentially writing about the potential nobility and dignity of all men. The protagonists in the Ballad of East and West were certainly not uneducated.
hodgy Muse Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 945	__________________ Vestigia Nulla Retrorsum

15th May 2006, 12:05 PM	#28
kleinjahr Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 235	Tricky:You, sir (or madam), are a pundit. I've been around for awhile, just don't post all that often.
kleinjahr Thinker Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 235