<p>No. Physics is not metaphysics. I don’t know where you’ve been studying metaphysics, but please go back to 101. My professors would literally have smashed their heads against walls if you tried to tell them that. </p>
<p>Metaphysics: What is the concept ‘chair’; what is the concept ‘justice’; what is ‘free will’</p>
<p>Physics: Cannot and does not ever address questions of what is the concept ‘chair’ or ‘justice’ or ‘free will’</p>
<p>And no, that’s not what that paragraph says… At all…</p>
<p>“there is a tendency in our culture” - people do do this thing wherein</p>
<p>“to take physics as our metaphysics” - to ‘use’ physics as metaphysics. </p>
<p>“that is, to view the exact sciences as the long-sought description of the ‘true and ultimate furniture of the universe’” - they think physics just is metaphysics; or take the truth of physics to be the truth of metaphysics - i.e. take physics to be the ‘long sought after truth of the universe’… But no… That’s not physics… So no, as I’ve been saying, metaphysics is NOT physics and physics is NOT metaphysics.</p>
<p>I should read up on metaphysics? You’re kidding, right?</p>
<p>Jog my memory, who did you study metaphysics under? </p>
<p>Did you happen to go to NYU for philosophy and study under Peter Unger or someone of equivalent renown?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that isn’t really much of an argument. it isn’t because i say it isn’t. hence, i’m right :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh…UCLA isn’t exactly a joke on the philosophy scene. Tyler Burge is good friends with Ned Block (he’s actually thanked in Block’s most recent paper which i recently wrote a paper on.) And David Kaplan is credited in Naming and Necessity, and so is Keith Donellan. Not to mention that Kit Fine was on UCLA’s faculty for like 10 years…</p>
<p>you can take a look at our department here:</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCLA_Department_of_Philosophy[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCLA_Department_of_Philosophy</a></p>
<p>Also, studying metaphysics under someone of a certain renown doesn’t make you an authority on what that person said; nor does it make that person an authority on metaphysics (which is a HIGHLY controversial field to begin with.)</p>
<p>I’ve given arguments for my reasoning. you’re familiar with them right? ;)</p>
<p>Right. You’re clearly correct.</p>
<p>Metaphysics clearly asks questions about velocity, the cosmos, atoms, gravity, quantum mechanics, etc.</p>
<p>AND</p>
<p>physics clearly asks questions about free will and the possibility of a non-physical mind, etc. </p>
<p>How silly of me to think that metaphysics and physics were different, I mean, they do have the word “physics” in them; and the root “meta” clearly doesn’t mean “change of condition” or “abstracted from”; which means “metaphysics” clearly doesn’t mean “change of the condition of or from the physical” or “abstracted from physics” No, clearly not… How silly of me.</p>
<p>Considering I’ve studied metaphysics under, oh, I don’t know, a world-leading metaphysician, I’m going to go ahead and say that I know what I’m talking about. </p>
<p>And yes, I’m familiar with UCLA’s department. While it isn’t a joke, it’s not on the same level.</p>
<p>Just in case you missed what metaphysics is, here’s a simple to read wikipedia article:
<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics</a></p>
<p>Metaphysics doesn’t study, at all, the same things physics does. They aren’t even in the slightly comparable. Metaphysics: What is free will? Physics: What is gravity? </p>
<p>Last time I checked, physics doesn’t ask about free will, or the properties an object can posses, or the difference between a metaphysical simple (which is, by definition, non-physical) and a non-simple. Nor does physics ask questions like “how do objects persist through time?” because such a question has absolutely nothing to do with physics.</p>
<p>Only posting to say that the last posts must be the most interesting I can remember in a thread about rankings. I am enjoying reading the posts that have nothing to do with the NRC debate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>just in case YOU missed it:</p>
<p>[url=<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#Quantum_physics]Metaphysics#Quantum_physics[/url”>Metaphysics - Wikipedia]Metaphysics#Quantum_physics[/url</a>]</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Most definitely. I didn’t mean to imply that philosophy isn’t intellectual, just that it’s perhaps too intellectual for me to understand or to incorporate into my paradigm of research. Computationalism, while a philosophy, is much easier for me to understand.</p>
<p>Many people in my field are wary of philosophers, because they’ve long been part of the reason that AI has gone through winters and why there’s so much public distrust of the field. Especially because of the blowhards from Berkeley like Searle and Dreyfus. I think AI researchers’ view is neatly summed up by Feigenbaum: “That ball of fluff. That cotton candy!” ;)</p>
<p>You’ve got to be kidding… You’re trying to use quantum physics as proof that physics is highly related metaphysics? </p>
<p>No… Metaphysicians don’t ask “what is the probability that this particle will appear in this electron space?” Metaphysicians use quantum physics to debate determinism vs. indeterminism. Not to try to figure out quantum probabilities.</p>
<p>Again, I have no idea what metaphysics you studied. But apparently you learned a lot of math in it? And not a lot of philosophy?</p>
<p>In case anyone is interested in making claims about the relative qualities of universities based on actual data instead of speculation and prejudice, there is this publication called U.S. News and Report. </p>
<p>One of the main reasons one goes to college is to learn how to avoid the speculation that is so apparent in the above thread. And honestly, who cares which colleges are ranked where? If someone doesn’t enjoy discussing ideas, they’re not going to go to Columbia or Chicago - no matter how smart they are.</p>
<p>^ There is also PtonGrad’s contribution, above. If anyone believes his results will significantly change by adding linguistics, theater, or anything else … and you care … then go for it. Do your calculations, post your results, describe your method, and say why you think it’s a better approach.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Breaking out Wharton from the rest of Penn is pretty silly imo.</p>
<p>Are we going to do the same for NU’s Medill School of Journalism?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of those, only 2, Columbia and Caltech arre “definite” top 15; the other 3 can be substituted by other schools depending on the criteria.</p>
<p>Really, “rankings” can differ depending on the criteria.</p>
<p>From a few years ago…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Note: ranked programs according to USNWR</p>
<p>
There is no meaningful measure which compares universities you will find that will put Chicago, Penn or Duke outside the top 15. I am positive of this and I’ve seen them all: faculty rating, student body strength, faculty pay, selectivity, endowment per capita, class sizes, graduation rates, professional school placement, job placement, PhD production, etc. etc.</p>
<p>Top 15 schools:</p>
<p>No. of programs in top 10 (1-10)/top 20(11-20)/top 30(21-30)/ (total # ranked programs)/ PA score </p>
<p>Stanford 14-0-0 (14) 4.9
Harvard 13-0-1 (14) 4.9
Berkeley 13-0-0 (13) 4.8
Yale 9-4-0 (13) 4.8
Chicago 9-3-1 (13) 4.6
Princeton 8-3-0 (11) 4.9
MIT 8-1-0 (9) 4.9
Michigan 7-7-0 (14) 4.5
Columbia 6-7-1 (14) 4.6
UCLA 6-7-0 (13) 4.2
Penn 6-5-3 (14) 4.5
Caltech 5-0-0 (5) 4.7
Cornell 4-10-0 (14) 4.6
Northwestern 4-6-4 (14) 4.3
Illinois 4-2-5 (11) 4.0</p>
<p>Seems to me I see Chicago and Penn in the top 15 here. :-)</p>
<p>
That ranking you and k&s provided is a random compilation assembled using disparate sources of data by a CC poster, not an official ranking. The NRC, which is the leading authority on American academic departments, places Chicago at #8, Duke at #12 and Penn at #13 for the traditional Arts & Science core subjects as shown by PtonGrad2000.</p>
<p>When is Michigan projected to finally have a <30% acceptance rate? 
Maybe then, it can start playing with the big boys.</p>
<p>^^^As soon as they shrink their entering class size from 6,000 to 1,600. Really, it’s not that hard to figure out.</p>
<p>I prefer this listing from Princetongrad:</p>
<p>PtonGrad2000’s original post contained the quality assessment rankings that we should be using and they are as follows:</p>
<p>NRC Quality Assessment Rankings
For 32 Core Arts & Sciences Programs</p>
<p>100—Harvard</p>
<p>97.1–Princeton</p>
<p>89.5–Berkeley
86.8–Stanford</p>
<p>— gap—</p>
<p>62.0–Yale
61.8–Columbia
61.5–MIT</p>
<p>— gap—</p>
<p>48.6–U. of Chicago
47.3–U. of Michigan
42.6–Cal Tech</p>
<p>39.1–UCLA</p>
<p>Two students of Teacher College of New Jersey tried to finish a class project. The project was to train cockroaches to march. After a few weeks, they demonstrated to their professor what they had done: they asked the cockroaches to march forward, and the cockroaches did; turn left, the cockroaches did. The professor was amazed of what they had done and was about to give them an A. Then one of the students took one of the cockroaches and pulled its legs out. He put it back and asked that cockroach to do the same thing again, obviously the legless cockroach did not move. The student then told the professor what he had observed: the cockroaches used their legs to listen.</p>
<p>(1):
What is “Teacher College of New Jersey”? There is no such thing. </p>
<p>Do you mean “The College of New Jersey” - TCNJ? Because that does exist.</p>
<p>(2):
What do cockroaches have to do with anything?</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>TCNJ has indeed existed since 1746. Fittingly enough to this thread, it has been known as Princeton for a few years. Unless one wants to follow the parallel history of the State Normal School. Who knows there might be a NJ Teacher College in that checkered history.</p>
<p>Teacher(s) College might be a reference to that Marxist, Ayers-loving school in the next state.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The NRC doesn’t place Chicago, Duke, or Penn anywhere. Its compilers, after analyzing the data, thought better of that. So they presented their findings as ranges across multiple columns, each expressing a different way to compare graduate programs at these schools. </p>
<p>PtonGrad’s compilation is not an official ranking. It’s a selective compilation assembled using a subset of the NRC data by a CC poster. It may or may not be a reasonable way to aggregate the NRC data. That depends on whether you accept his choices and on how much variation we’d get from different choices.</p>