<p>@cormy3 - shameful? What was shameful about it? Come on, answer me, don’t be a coward. Respond to what I said. There was nothing shameful about it. You’re just being a typical better-than-thou type who didn’t want to respond to what I had to say so your only response is to call it shameful so you can write me off. That’s cute dude. Common sweety, you’re a God-of-College, you can respond to a little pseudo-intellectual bug like me, can’tcha?</p>
<p>If you take a look at this thread, it’s obvious I’m not dodging anyone. However, I’m not your psychologist. Come back when you have a coherent post.</p>
<p>so yet another thread devolves into a name-calling/flamethrowing war. classy work, ladies. let’s face it, this kind of thread could go on for hundreds of thousands of pages and no consensus would ever be reached. better luck next time (i.e. in 3 days when this exact topic comes up again)</p>
<p>What’s incoherrant about my post? Both posts were easily coherrant. Yes, I focused on more than one topic in my first post but there was nothing incoherrant about it. If you misunderstood my post, clearly you lack the critical reasoning skills to comprehend them. But here, I’ll give baby his bottle and explain a few things:</p>
<p>Linear A - One of the two ancient Greek languages, it has yet to be translated. In case that doesn’t make sense to you it was an insult on your self-precieved ability to learn any language given enough time.</p>
<p>“Face your death” - Many Philosophers would say that everything we do is out of a fear of death. So I was merely implying that your incomprehensable need to have the bigger dick by saying your major was better than everyone elses’ was out of an internal fear of death. Hence, face your death. </p>
<p>The Nucleus Accumbens is the area in your brain responsible for releasing dopamine in such a way that it “tags” certain things like sleeping, eating, having sex as “life-sustaining” drug addiction happens because the drugs effect on this brain region and causes your brain to “tag” the drug as being “Life-sustaining” thus, you get cravings for it.</p>
<p>Substantia Nigra is an area of the brain responsible for releasing dopamine that helps with movement. Too little and you get Parkinsons, too much and you get Tourettes. Like the Nucleus Accumbens both of these are Neuropsychology terms, I wouldn’t expect you to know them. The comment about locked-in syndrome was that this is a signifigantly worse version of Parkinsons where you just don’t have the ability to move, at all, caused when the Substantia Nigra is destroyed completely.</p>
<p>So what part of my post was incoherrent? Was it the use of terms? Wasn’t it you that said you could EASILY learn social sciences? I guess Neuropsych doesn’t fall under that, does it? Or if it does in your book, you can’t learn the social sciences as easily as you thought eh?</p>
<p>
Best known as logicians. I already addressed this, but I will repeat: formal deductive logic is very mathematical in nature and involves endless derivations. What about Kant, Hobbes, or Locke? Hobbes actually made contributions to physics and geometry.</p>
<p>The fact that applicants may be permitted under special conditions doesn’t exactly scream shoo-in to me, or even probable acceptance, when compared with top applicants who have a bachelor’r or master’s degree in philosophy.</p>
<p>Your argument was that being able to read a textbook with absolute precision is a skill that would easily transfer over to the humanities. Do humanities majors not also have to read large bodies of text with precision? The only difference is that while math and science textbooks spell out how to do the work, philosophical texts are often shrouded in complex and/or extended metaphors that often require a great deal of outside knowledge to understand. What experience do mathematics and science majors have that would allow them to decipher such texts with equal-to-or-greater-than accuracy than humanities majors who have been doing so for quite some time?</p>
<p>
If one had adequate experience in advanced mathematics/sciences in addition to a humanities majors and wished to pursue a career in the sciences, one could very well be considered at a number of schools. For instance, if I were a philosophy major applying to a graduate program for physics, and had taken 400-level math and physics courses, I would still have a chance of acceptance at a number of schools. One’s undergraduate degree does not necessarily determine one’s career.</p>
<p>Also, I don’t see anyone arguing that a humanities major with minimal experience in math and/or science would be accepted to Harvard for physics. Why do you keep bringing up this point?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you’re this ignorant, why do you even post? This is an honest question, and I’m hoping for an honest reply.</p>
<p>Russell, Frege, and Wittgenstein all rank in the top 10 most influential philosophers of the 20th century. I’m not even going to pull up any particular ranking, because this is without doubt, and you can ask any of your philosophy professors. Yes, they did work in logic, but they did a hell of a lot more. I hope you realize that the whole discipline of philosophy as it is known today owes its existence to these three figures. And they are not even close to the only important figures in philosophy with natural science backgrounds that I can bring up. Where are your philosophers from the past century that have no connection to the natural sciences? Isn’t it absurd that I have to ask?</p>
<p>For godssake, Bertrand Russell won a Nobel Prize in Literature. What do you have to say to that? That he’s a logician?</p>
<p>You also have a very ignorant view of what a logician does, by the way, as if their work is to solve millions of proofs, exactly what you happen to do in your intro logic class, instead of publishing papers about the foundations of entire logical systems and founding new ones. What a self-centered little boy you are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said shoo-in. I meant it’s a special privilege that philosophy majors do not enjoy in the natural sciences. Prove me wrong, come on. Your fancy talk and long sentences have far exceeded what substance you have to offer. Sad.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re talking about specific skills in terms of “outside knowledge” of “extended metaphors”. I meant the basic, component skills of general success in a humanities field. The component skill of reading comprehension allows you to acquire the specific skills of understanding metaphors and arranging a wide base of content knowledge. I don’t want to talk about specific skills because that would be absurd. Of course there’s going to be difficulty transferring from one field to another, no one said there wouldn’t be. Yet it’s still possible to do for certain types of transitions, namely from science to humanities, while relatively unheard of for others, which was my point.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you saying a philosophy major with minimal experience in math/physics would have commensurate chances applying to a math/physics PhD program? Or do you concede that if you are to have minimal experience in a field that you’re applying to a PhD program for, it’s far better to have a math background and apply for philosophy? Get to the point. You’re bloviating. Pathetically.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because, in the limited space provided to briefly describe the admissions criteria for Harvard philosophy, the admissions committee deemed it worthwhile to highlight a special exception to being well educated in philosophy: high achievement in a quantitative field.</p>
<p>Is the same kind of leniency provided for students of philosophy applying to physics/math fields – or not? Just answer and stop talking.</p>
<p>Itachirumon:</p>
<p>You sound like a very disturbed person, so I’ll respond lightly out of fear for your mental well-being.</p>
<p>My contention was never that a science major would be able to do all those things or understand right away all your jargon. Just that they have great potential to succeed in those fields if they chose to, and that this ability is not reciprocated by humanities and other majors.</p>
<p>Your thoughts are incoherent because you don’t understand very basic points, yet you go on and on in often unrelated ways. And please, please learn how to spell ‘coherent.’</p>
<p>
When did I ever say that? Why do you insist on pulling inferences from my posts that were never implied?</p>
<p>I’m just going to remove myself from this idiotic topic. Good day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point is that if you weren’t saying that, then your windy paragraph doesn’t fully controvert my point. You would just be flapping around with your long twisty sentences. Thanks for confirming.</p>
<p>The issue remains: “Is the same kind of leniency provided for students of philosophy applying to physics/math fields – or not?” My experience answers an emphatic NOT. I find the idea that, on the Harvard physics website, there would be a special exception enumerated for “non-physics grounded but philosophically educated applicants” quite ludicrous. Which would implicate philosophy as being lower on a hierarchy with the natural sciences in the eyes of graduate schools.</p>
<p>So: “Is the same kind of leniency provided for students of philosophy applying to physics/math fields – or not?”</p>
<p>I boiled everything down to a simple question for a simple boy. I can’t make it any clearer. Yet you dodge.</p>
<p>So yes, I think as well it’s time for your removal from this thread. Alas, the magic well of knowledge, from whence came your shrouds of complex and extended metaphors, has all dried up. Bye bye now!</p>
<p>hey, bro, ****</p>
<p>@cormy3 – Me? Disturbed? Because I’m annoyed that little buggers like you think you’re better than everybody else?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which is, OF COURSE saying that they’re BETTER, which is what you tried to claim you weren’t saying. You’re an ass sweety, pure and simple. I’m not the mentally deficient one here. I understand your basic argument and I was sarcastically pointing out why it’s flawed. I’m so sorry your great mind doesn’t comprehend sarcasm and yet manages to nitpick over me mistakenly adding an extra r in coherent. If you can’t understand what I’m saying to you and feel that my thoughts are incoherent then… well, I can’t really help you now can I? Seems like it’s a problem on your end, not mine. I’m pretty sure everybody else here understands what I was saying just fine, you’re the one who lacks the critical reasoning and associated skills to comprehend my very basic argument.</p>
<p>…Or you’re just being willfully ignorant because, again, you’ve kind of got your head so far up your sphincter that you’re dissolving that lovely…“haircut” of yours. </p>
<p>Lemme spell it out for you honey: I could easily run through your “world” if I chose to, I’m just as comfortable in Chemistry and Biology as I am Psychology, Literature, Philosophy/Logic and History. Physics? Arguably less so but it’s not really my cup of tea. I’m pretty sure anybody else here who cared to could do so as well. But gee golly, if we’re ALL of us gonna be in those “true” majors that don’t make us “pseudo-intellectuals” then who will run the stores, and the post office, and the bank, and the grocury store? And everything else? You know, cause if you’re not in a natural science, biz econ or some such, you’re an idiot and wasting your time, right? Am I right cormy? Social Darwinism, “Survival of the Fittest” Zeig Heil and all that, ne?</p>
<p>Another engineering/science major showing his phenomenal social skills. At least my humanities education will help me interact with other humans a lot better than cormy can - even if I don’t make six figures and (even worse) cormy thinks I’m stupid :(</p>
<p>EDIT: I just realized this is the same guy who started that flame war about ‘liking ideas but not literature’. I think someone’s a little sore because he couldn’t handle finishing an entire book and had to give up on his humanities ambitions…</p>
<p>eewww… books</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Math requires instruction? What exactly do you mean?</p>
<p>Does reading a textbook by yourself count as instruction?</p>
<p>"Most natural science majors could excel in the social sciences and humanities. But the converse is not true. Most social science and humanities people, in my experience, would not be able to excel in the natural sciences. "</p>
<p>As a Chemical engineering student from a top 20 engineering program, i really don’t understand where you are getting this idea from. You brought up SAT scores to show that the average Engineering/Sciences student is, on average, more “intelligent” than humanities majors. Engineering and Sciences attract a VERY self-selecting crop of students. Therefore, SAT scores will naturally be higher due to the fact that a lot of under achieving students tend to pick majors in the humanities due to the fact that they perceive said majors as “easier”. If you eliminate those “slacker students”, partiers, MRS. degree pursuers, the intelligence of students in both areas tend to be more or less equal. Due to higher standards just to get into engineering schools/sciences, you don’t typically see such students pursuing these degrees, and those that do get weeded out quickly.
That said, as an engineering major, I’m required to take courses in history, anthropology, political science and psychology to fulfill general ed. requirements. Sure these courses are easy, but that’s due to the fact that they are LOWER level classes-introductory level college classes which tend to be easy, just like classes such as general chem, introductory bio etc. Most engineering and sciences majors never take courses in the upper division of these courses and have very little/no exposure these subjects, and im baffled as to how someone with such little experience can claim potential proficiency in these areas. I for one would probably become insane if I had to write 10-20 page papers on a consistent basis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>yes, “zeig heil”</p>
<p>(you’re sad)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>keep guessing</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that bolded part is the case, that supports my point entirely. I absolutely agree majors are self-selecting (how the hell would they not be – they’re randomly assigned?). This, in addition to the differential in skills development provided by each, would go a long way to account for the hierarchy that I have long noticed and in this thread posited. Thank you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thank you again. </p>
<p>The fact is that I know many, many humanities majors, and some social science majors, who find the intro versions of math, chem, physics to be very hard. They find calculus impossible and usually opt for an intro to mathematical thinking type of course. If you looked at the humanities analogue for these basic, almost remedial type of courses – intro to critical thinking, or some such – you won’t find many math or physics major. Rather, you’d find even weaker, likely pre-professional majors like criminal science or legal studies. The hierarchcy keeps on going.</p>
<p>A second point is that whereas there is a huge dividing line between lower-division sciences and upper-division, there is rarely such a line in the humanities. The result is that even if most humanities majors found calculus to be easy, they would most likely still find complex analysis to be prohibitively difficult. On the other hand, those who can breeze through an intro to history course would not suffer the same attrition rate entering upper-level history courses. Is this not so? Hence there is an inequality between someone finding intro to history easy and someone finding intro to chemistry easy, in terms of what a future in those respective fields can be expected to hold for that person.</p>
<p>^There he goes again, claiming that intro courses for math/natural science courses are “remedial” and humanities majors would have trouble with them. How do you navigate with your head THAT far up your ass dude?</p>
<p>Aren’t you the one who was only ever able to understand the reading in your English course(s) after referring to secondary sources…?</p>