namelesstavern.net

Apparently, a lot of universities do not teach much about Physics to their students...

http://www.popecenter.org/clarion_call/ ... ml?id=1843

This really surprises me, since apparently my limited undergrad knowledge surpasses most current Ph Ds in Physics.

This isn't just Physics either. English without Shakespeare?

Our college system apparently is going to the dogs..

he makes a good point, in that people majoring in physics should learn some fucking physics. but i just have to scratch my head at some other stuff...

that link wrote:The physics faculty’s increasing ignorance of basic physics is starting to show up in their research, as I describe at length in my recent book, The Physics of Christianity (Doubleday, 2007). I show that, across all disciplines, a collapse of belief in Christianity over the past several decades among university faculty has been accompanied by a collapse in the belief that there is fundamental truth which should be imparted to students

ell oh ell

There's a lot of theories to become familiar with if you want to be a Physicist, which is one of the things I'm considering going to grad school for.

I find it interesting that when it talks about general relativity not being a required course...

This is in spite of the fact that general relativity has been known to be the correct theory of gravity for almost a century.

Known to be the correct "theory?" I was under the impression that a theory can never be proven correct, it can only be proven incorrect, which, as I understand it, relativity has been at the atomic level. Relativity helps to explain gravity as we experience it fairly well, which is why it has had so much acceptance, but it is definitely not entirely correct.

Anyways, I don't think relativity should necessarily be a required course in physics. It depends on what area of physics you're specializing in. If you're going for a broad general knowledge of physics, then yes, you probably should become familiar with it, as well as every bit of info you can find on quantum gravity and whatever else is out there. To be honest, general relativity isn't a difficult concept and I do not think an entire course dedicated to it is necessary. Perhaps a course on scientists of the last century which integrated Einstein into part of the curriculum would be better.

When I was an Astrophysics major, the relativity was CERTAINLY covered, but it was an element of an overall phsyics course, not a cours in and of itself. Indeed, while relativity certainly is very good at describing gravitation on a macro level, it doesn't work at all at the scale that quantum mechanics covers. (and visa versa). So, relativity certainly is not the be-all end-all of gravitational theory, as some way to reconcile it with quantum theory is still necessary.

I actually agree with Kaiine on this: Whether or not relativity should be required as a full course (rather than as 1 subject over a yearlong more general physics course) should be based on what area of physics you're going into. If you're going into dedicated quantum mechanics or perhaps string theory, relativity isn't as important.

What I *DO* reject, utterly, is the notion that somehow a decline in christian-worshipping physicists has had the slightest infinitesimal difference in what is covered in different university's physics curriculum. That's absolute nonsense and silliness in the extreme.

-Arlos

Kaiine,

You’re thinking of a hypothesis. But, what you’re saying can be applied to a theory as well.

The word “theory” is the most misused term of scientific lingo.

The flow of science is pretty simple:

Observation --> Hypothesis --> Theory --> Law

First you make an observation, you see a phenomena that you want to better understand. Say you notice a feather falling to the ground, or a leaf, whatever. You’ve just made an observation. From that observation you develop a hypothesis, which really is nothing more than an if / then statement: “If something goes it, then it must come down.” Now, your next step is to develop a series of experiments to disprove the hypothesis. If you fail to disprove it and after enough data has been amassed (proof to further validate the hypothesis) it eventually becomes a theory. After more proof has been collected to the point the theory can no longer be refuted by at-present technologies or knowledge it becomes a formal law.

“Theory” gets misused more than any other term by laymen who don’t know any better.

I got a question for you scientific folk. I have a friend who got her PhD in mathmatics (i know rite!) and basically her last few years of study had to do with some knot theory. The mathmatics of a knot I shit you not. Anyway, I acted really interested and what-not (ha) and remember asking her if she came up with any "big" break-throughs or solve any huge problem of the universe. It was a while ago but I recall her saying something to the effect that modern sciencists don't work on complete problems, just very specific things and kind of bump things along a tiny bit. This means no "one" person ever solves a problem or comes up with a "huge" breakthrough, instead they work in concert. So if some scientists work toward a common goal what happens if they go a ways down and realize that it's a dead end or a bit off?

Then they go back to the last point they can find where it wasn't a dead end yet, and try something different. Research scientists require an insane amount of patience. You have to experiment, parse results, plot data. Check against your working hypothesis. Sometimes that goes on for years before they get to a point where they're ready to publish.

-Arlos

That's what I thought, man that's got to suck.

It was doing so well until this. :P

Similarly, a degree in physics from an American university is no guarantee that the student with this degree understands basic physics. The physics faculty’s increasing ignorance of basic physics is starting to show up in their research, as I describe at length in my recent book, The Physics of Christianity (Doubleday, 2007). I show that, across all disciplines, a collapse of belief in Christianity over the past several decades among university faculty has been accompanied by a collapse in the belief that there is fundamental truth which should be imparted to students.

It's the culture of post-modernism that's taken a stranglehold on academia that's the root of it all. Saying christianity is the cause is almost as bad as saying that the decrease in pirates across the globe has caused the increase in global warming (THINK ABOUT IT). Particularly when talking about science...

The people who are supposed to teach and give knowledge now instead say that the mind if incapable of knowing anything, nothing is right or wrong, and that tribal cultures are equally or more important than the industrialized world. Zzzz.

In my God-awful high school I took Physics in the tenth grade. Here is what I learned:

C6H12O6=glucose.

And that's chemistry.

It all starts at the bottom.

I honestly believe that teacher’s unions are the root cause. Piss poor teachers are protected and virtually can’t be removed from the classroom. Moreover, teachers don’t just teach anymore it seems. They use their classrooms to indoctrinate “their” kids with either their conservative or liberal ideologies – instead of just s’ingtfu and teaching ‘rithmatic, reading and ‘riting.

Our schools have been pumping out poorly educated, unprepared people for years. Well, when the high schools are pumping out morons year after year – who do think eventually starts filling the roll of professor?

You want to save the future of our universities, or I should the quality of? You want to better the quality of education in our public schools? Get rid of the damned teacher’s unions first and foremost.

I realize this opinion wont be overly popular with the more liberal-than-I posters here, but think about it. Unions are destructive whether it’s the United Auto Workers, or the AFT – they’re not out for the best interest of the whole, they’re only out for themselves and 9 times out of 10 they’re so riddled with corruption they make the mob look a Sunday school choir.

Silly, Diekan. Don't you know school is only there for socialization?

While social teaching injected into the class room where it doesn't pertain directly to the subject matter does have a negative effect I think that is only part of the problem. Arlos touched on this a bit. The reality is that as mankind as a whole amasses greater and more detailed knowledge, students as well as teachers need to focus their area of expertise. A jack of all trades, master of none might be flexible but as fields narrow in scope due to the sheer amount of material in each, the jack of all trades won't be very effective. Still the basics should be taught, but then again what if those basics have no real application into the narrowed field? How many people take required classes for a degree that really have little to no application to the actual field to which that degree applies.

Lueyen wrote:While social teaching injected into the class room where it doesn't pertain directly to the subject matter does have a negative effect I think that is only part of the problem. Arlos touched on this a bit. The reality is that as mankind as a whole amasses greater and more detailed knowledge, students as well as teachers need to focus their area of expertise. A jack of all trades, master of none might be flexible but as fields narrow in scope due to the sheer amount of material in each, the jack of all trades won't be very effective. Still the basics should be taught, but then again what if those basics have no real application into the narrowed field? How many people take required classes for a degree that really have little to no application to the actual field to which that degree applies.

Well the fields have narrowed. I can tell you for a matter of fact that biology (because this is the discipline that I hold two degrees in) has been greatly narrowed. Maybe 30 or 40 years ago you could be a “biologist,” not anymore. You’re either a geneticist, a microbiologist, a virologist, an entomologist, so on and so forth. More still, you’re not just a “microbiologist” (my branch of specialization) – but you may focus solely on one particular strain of bacteria, or a one particular virus. Even still you can break it down even further and spend your entire career studying ONE aspect of that bacteria or virus.

However, with that said – the basics are still the basics and they are still essential before you can even consider moving into an area of specialization. The Kreb’s cycle is still the same, photosynthesis is still the same, the basics of a cell are the same, learning nomenclature is still necessary… so, just because the fields do narrow down into individual and often very distinct fields doesn’t reduce the importance of the basics in the least. A “jack of all trades” is valuable in the classroom at the high school and elementary level – because you need that initial exposure to the basics and the “big picture.” It’s only when you get to college that you can and should start narrowing down the path you want to take. And, even then a lot of said narrowing comes post-graduation when you’re out working your chosen field.

I would also say that while many of the courses we take in college may have nothing to do with our chosen fields of study they ARE no less important. Those other courses are what make for a well rounded individual.

I would tend to agree Diekan, save for maybe the last statement to a degree. Basics for the most part should be what is learned in high school. For the most part college should be the specialization. Unfortunately it seems more and more up to colleges to go back and "review" what people failed to learn in high school.

Partially its due to our high schools being setup from the lowest common denominator, versus being wide open and really about education.

I like the idea of high school stopping at 10th grade. Essentially, one should be able to read, write, and understand basic math, social science, and basic life skills.

Everything past that should be job training, college, or something in the non federal regulated realm that is about helping to open things up so those who should go to college are working towards that goal, and those who shouldn't will get the job skills to be able to earn a wage via relevent training.

Fucking unions...the United Mine Workers of America is the one I have to be around for coal, and they are fucking pieces of shit. Lazy, greedy, pieces of shit.

Of course, they counter that without the unions, mine workers would still be using canaries as safety devices.

Unions, as a concept, are a great idea. They provide a way for the average employee a chance in negotiations vs big business. Collectively, you can afford much better lawyers and have a much bigger weight and impact than you can as an individual.

Unfortunately, many of them have morphed from their original charter and are now business themselves, and seem to exist solely to make money from their rank and file membership. That or they are so fixated on short-term wage values, etc. that they are not reactive to teh fact that sometimes you need to make concessions for the industry or busines as a whole to survive.

Dunno what can be done to fix the problem, really. Indeed, in some cases, people won't want to fix it as the pay & benefits they get from their current union are outstanding.

-Arlos

Yeah Zeek, I hear that every day. 50 years ago when hundreds of miners a month, like my grandaddys brothers (great uncles?), were dieing in roof falls and explosions, the Union came along and helped make way for the safe(r) mines we work in today. But now, unfortunately, all it does is promote lazy and greed from a lot of guys. Years and years ago, it saved the industry and countless lives, now its not hardly needed (IMO)

Dont get me wrong, Im not looking down on every single guy that goes union mine, because Ive been to dozens and dozens of union mines and met some good hard workers. They are the ones that join for help with benefits and retirement and things. But the majority of them are outright lazy pieces of shit. They cant work later if something important needs done (comes with the job, no surprise - work needs done, get it did) and the company is losing thousands of dollars an hour, they turn in shifts all the time, always looking for that free check. Fuck making the people who will give me a paycheck and food on the table survive! He did my 30 minute repair job for me, give me a shift!

And, unions are seriously affecting the quality of education high school and elementary school kids are getting. I can understand the one-time need for unions to deal with coal mining workers and so forth – but teachers? Why the fuck do they need a union?

Unions put themselves out of work time and time again – we’ve seen it. Prime examples are the airlines and the auto industry. They’re greedy. I’ll be the first to say that I think the cost of living in this country is ridiculous and driven by pure greed. With that said I know and understand why people demand higher and higher wages, but come on… 30 dollars an hour to sit on your ass and turn a screw on an assembly line? 250,000 a year to fly a plane? It's understandable that the demand for higher wages for the purpose of simply surviving or at the very least enjoying life, within reason, increases. However, far to often the demand is for wages that are far beyond what one needs to survive or live a reasonable life. Unions are wonderful tools for gouging the shit out employers and ultimately causing the inevitable demise of the company.

The problem with teachers unions, as I’ve said before, is that they make it impossible to get the shitty teachers out of the classroom. They’re also pretty successful at blocking legislation that would allow parents to decide where to send their kids (the whole voucher issue). They serve no other purpose than further catalyze the destruction of our education system.

Teachers unions should be first on the list to go.

Unions = greed~

Ha Diekan! You repeat that last gem in a Democrat's convention and they will cut your nuts off and run them up the flagpole.

Diekan wrote:And, unions are seriously affecting the quality of education high school and elementary school kids are getting. I can understand the one-time need for unions to deal with coal mining workers and so forth – but teachers? Why the fuck do they need a union?

Unions put themselves out of work time and time again – we’ve seen it. Prime examples are the airlines and the auto industry. They’re greedy. I’ll be the first to say that I think the cost of living in this country is ridiculous and driven by pure greed. With that said I know and understand why people demand higher and higher wages, but come on… 30 dollars an hour to sit on your ass and turn a screw on an assembly line? 250,000 a year to fly a plane? It's understandable that the demand for higher wages for the purpose of simply surviving or at the very least enjoying life, within reason, increases. However, far to often the demand is for wages that are far beyond what one needs to survive or live a reasonable life. Unions are wonderful tools for gouging the shit out employers and ultimately causing the inevitable demise of the company.

The problem with teachers unions, as I’ve said before, is that they make it impossible to get the shitty teachers out of the classroom. They’re also pretty successful at blocking legislation that would allow parents to decide where to send their kids (the whole voucher issue). They serve no other purpose than further catalyze the destruction of our education system.

Teachers unions should be first on the list to go.

You should check out the average wage an auto worker makes in comparison to say a japanese or a s korean auto worker. you will see why americans are having a hard time competing.

Actually, it's not the wages, it's the benefits, retirement, and other additional costs which are crippling US Automakers.