Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (263471)	12/6/2005 9:03:39 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574006

"A larger problem is the arrogance of the liberal arts" Don't even get me started. At most, if not all, universities in the US, undergrads who are in a science or engineering track program are required to take a certain amount of humanities courses. At A&M, engineers are required to take Engineering Ethics, so they understand their responsibilities. In general, I don't mind this, although the implication that techies are lopsided science and math is usually wrong. Many tech types are history and/or literature buffs also. But, ok. However, despite the fact that our society is extremely dependent on science and technology, liberal arts track students aren't required to have any significant science or math. You see, science, math and logic is soooo hard for creative types, it just isn't fair. Besides, once they've mastered what passes for critical thinking in the liberal arts and humanities world, they are equipped to deal with anything. Which is so much bullshit. Historically speaking, many of the "name" artists and philosophers were also noted scientists and/or mathematicians and engineers. Besides, there is a great deal of creativity required to work in science, engineering and mathematics. The ones who are just little robots don't get very far. There is nothing to support the idea that there is a fundamental difference between the science and the the arts and humanities, both are expressions of humanity and culture.

To: Road Walker who wrote (263471)	12/6/2005 12:59:27 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574006

The best argument against "intelligent design" has always been humanity itself. At a time when only 40 percent of Americans believe in evolution, and only 13 percent know what a molecule is, we're an argument at best for "mediocre design." But put aside the evolution debate for a moment. It's only a symptom of something much deeper and more serious: a profound illiteracy about science and math as a whole. One-fifth of Americans still believe that the Sun goes around the Earth, instead of the other way around. And only about half know that humans did not live at the same time as dinosaurs. Intellectuals have focused on the challenge from the right, which has led to a drop in the public acceptance of evolution in the U.S. over the last 20 years, to 40 percent from 45 percent. Jon Miller, a professor at the Northwestern University medical school who has tracked attitudes toward evolution in 34 countries, says Turkey is the only one with less support for evolution than the U.S. I am stunned at these statistics. Are we a nation of illiterates? The sun moves around the earth? Maybe Bush is really what we deserve! ted

To: Road Walker who wrote (263471)	12/8/2005 3:51:05 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574006

RE: "Without some fluency in science and math, we'll simply be left behind in the same way that Ming Dynasty Chinese scholars were. Increasingly, we face public policy issues - avian flu, stem cells - that require some knowledge of scientific methods, yet the present Congress contains 218 lawyers, and just 12 doctors and 3 biologists. In terms of the skills we need for the 21st century, we're Shakespeare-quoting Philistines." -------------------------------------------------------- Great quote: judges, congressional leaders, presidents should be required to take math or engineering courses because so many decisions are based upon knowledge of science, statistics and math. The problem is the voting system for Congressional leaders, it isn't like corporate hiring - where you try to create a balance of talent on the team. Being a congressional leader is one of the few jobs that doesn't come with a list of requirements before you can apply. An engineer on IHUB posted a job adv for a s/c engineer and the requirements for the job was one page long - my thought was: the requirements to be a US President or congressional leader is significantly less than the requirements to be a s/c engineer. There's something wrong about the voting system because it doesn't establish requirements for knowledge necessary to do the job. Additionally, there's something broke with a system when men are making decisions about women. I'd love to see a completely new congress, President and Supreme Court where diversity was required so that men aren't making decisions for women like they do, which is the same thing as saying men control women. Given the disgust that Gen X and Gen Y women tend to have about the male-dominated system, I'm surprised there hasn't been any type of 60s style upheaval. Probably have to wait until a larger population generation comes into play. I definitely would love to fund constructive change. Great article.