Building a better biped: The easy answers

[Adios]

Good concept Pent. Don't you think the world is 'dumbing down' though? I mean people don't have to think as much anymore. Calculators were not allowed when I was in school for instance. 'Research' now mostly involves Google. Cars even tell you what to do and where to go.

Calculators, I'll give you.  I see college kids who can't do basic mental arithmetic because of this, and it blows my mind.  I TA'd for a special section of general intro physics, where all of the students were education majors, and I had this conversation happen during a study/review session:
"So how do you find the momentum of the block?"
"Times the mass and the velocity together."
"Right.  And what is the block's mass?"
"2."
"Yes, 2 kilograms.  And the problem says that the block is stationary, so what is its velocity?"
"... zero?" (Whenever you ask students an easy question, they think you're trying to trick them.  Always.)
"Right!  So if its mass is 2 kilograms and its velocity is zero, then what is its momentum?"
At this point the student pulled out a calculator and I very nearly flipped my lid.  Yes, this college student who plans on teaching impressionable young children pulled out a calculator to multiply 2 and 0, and then in all seriousness announced that the answer was, in fact, zero.  There was no "How silly of me!  I just used a calculator to multiply a number by zero without even realizing it!"  She saw nothing wrong using a calculator to solve 2 x 0.

Research, no.  The point of intelligence in research comes in understanding and interpreting the information you find, not finding it in the first place.  This is definitely a case where the means are largely irrelevant as long as you get the information you're looking for.  And skill, or at least know-how, is there too - people don't check the discussion page on controversial Wikipedia articles, they don't look at the cited sources to find more information (or even to confirm that it says what the wiki says it says.)  If they're looking for scholarly info, they don't check the list of references at the end of the book or article.  (Protip: if you check the references on a couple of related books/articles, and then look up the works that are in the overlap of the references list, you're almost guaranteed to find the most cited/referenced works on the subject you're looking for, which is probably one that you want.)

So if you were going to do a paper on architecture in your town you would go to the internet. Research like that used to involve getting the bottom of your shoes dirty.

[Juana]

There's nothing wrong with using the internet for research.


A good paper would require both actually visiting the buildings and doing research online. I'd add that there's places on a building you can't get a good look at from the ground or that you can't see from inside for one reason or another. Example: If I were to to a paper on one of our few cool buildings here, it would be an old bank building in downtown. Most of the upper floors are cut off from public access, not to mention the back vault itself, which is really cool (I got to go down there when I was at a wedding in the ballroom - we weren't supposed to be down there, but we went anyway). Online research would give me more information than just a pair of binoculars and my text book on the subjecct.

[Jasper]

Whatsname said it best.

The internet isn't a replacement medium, it's ANOTHER medium.

[Adios]

There's nothing wrong with using the internet for research.


A good paper would require both actually visiting the buildings and doing research online. I'd add that there's places on a building you can't get a good look at from the ground or that you can't see from inside for one reason or another. Example: If I were to to a paper on one of our few cool buildings here, it would be an old bank building in downtown. Most of the upper floors are cut off from public access, not to mention the back vault itself, which is really cool (I got to go down there when I was at a wedding in the ballroom - we weren't supposed to be down there, but we went anyway). Online research would give me more information than just a pair of binoculars and my text book on the subjecct.

I couldn't agree more. Using BOTH would make good research.

[Requia ☣]

While the net has largely replaced library research (and given the quality of the nonfiction in the county library system here, good riddance), I don't see how it would change something like going and visiting a given building.  If that was relevant before its still relevant now.

I'm not really sure what good it would do in the first place though, unless you're already well versed in architecture how would you know how to describe what you see around town? and if you are at that level, you probably have access to far better resources than can be found on the public internet.

[Requia ☣]

Good concept Pent. Don't you think the world is 'dumbing down' though? I mean people don't have to think as much anymore. Calculators were not allowed when I was in school for instance. 'Research' now mostly involves Google. Cars even tell you what to do and where to go.

Calculators, I'll give you.  I see college kids who can't do basic mental arithmetic because of this, and it blows my mind.  I TA'd for a special section of general intro physics, where all of the students were education majors, and I had this conversation happen during a study/review session:
"So how do you find the momentum of the block?"
"Times the mass and the velocity together."
"Right.  And what is the block's mass?"
"2."
"Yes, 2 kilograms.  And the problem says that the block is stationary, so what is its velocity?"
"... zero?" (Whenever you ask students an easy question, they think you're trying to trick them.  Always.)
"Right!  So if its mass is 2 kilograms and its velocity is zero, then what is its momentum?"
At this point the student pulled out a calculator and I very nearly flipped my lid.  Yes, this college student who plans on teaching impressionable young children pulled out a calculator to multiply 2 and 0, and then in all seriousness announced that the answer was, in fact, zero.  There was no "How silly of me!  I just used a calculator to multiply a number by zero without even realizing it!"  She saw nothing wrong using a calculator to solve 2 x 0.

That kind of thing was normal in physics long before calculators showed up.

[Adios]

While the net has largely replaced library research (and given the quality of the nonfiction in the county library system here, good riddance), I don't see how it would change something like going and visiting a given building.  If that was relevant before its still relevant now.

I'm not really sure what good it would do in the first place though, unless you're already well versed in architecture how would you know how to describe what you see around town? and if you are at that level, you probably have access to far better resources than can be found on the public internet.

Let me bring this discussion back to the point I was trying to make.
That which makes us weaker just makes us weaker.

Look at a car that can now parallel park itself. A car that has rear sensors that will stop your car. I know these CAN be good things once in a while but what is it really doing to us as humans? At what point are we going to say enough, we have to rely on our own efforts, our own thoughts?

[Juana]

While I agree with you on things like car sensors (though god knows I could use them, since I suck at parking), the internet has not, imo, made us weaker like you're suggesting. If anything, it has sharpened my BS detection when filtering information.

And, as I said before, you could make the same argument by saying that library catalogs were making our predecessors weaker. It's just a tool.

[Adios]

While I agree with you on things like car sensors (though god knows I could use them, since I suck at parking), the internet has not, imo, made us weaker like you're suggesting. If anything, it has sharpened my BS detection when filtering information.

And, as I said before, you could make the same argument by saying that library catalogs were making our predecessors weaker. It's just a tool.

Clarification:
If I wanted to write about China I would go there. NOT VIRTUALLY.  I would get off my ass and go to China. I would mingle with the people. I would shop their markets. I would eat their food and drink their drinks. I would (gasp) TALK with them.

Hawk,
Sooooooooooooooooo last century.

[Requia ☣]

And how many people did that last century?  Last century people would have read other people's books about China.  Original research, like you're talking about, hasn't changed much.  It's the secondhand research (which is all most people have the resources to do) is what the net changed.

[Adios]

I give up.

[Golden Applesauce]

While the net has largely replaced library research (and given the quality of the nonfiction in the county library system here, good riddance), I don't see how it would change something like going and visiting a given building.  If that was relevant before its still relevant now.

I'm not really sure what good it would do in the first place though, unless you're already well versed in architecture how would you know how to describe what you see around town? and if you are at that level, you probably have access to far better resources than can be found on the public internet.

Let me bring this discussion back to the point I was trying to make.
That which makes us weaker just makes us weaker.

Look at a car that can now parallel park itself. A car that has rear sensors that will stop your car. I know these CAN be good things once in a while but what is it really doing to us as humans? At what point are we going to say enough, we have to rely on our own efforts, our own thoughts?

I meant to talk about GPS since you tangentially mentioned it earlier.  I own a GPS unit, and I have owned one for longer than I've had a car (strictly speaking, I still don't technically own a car) and it makes navigation possible.  I have a terrible sense of space and no sense of direction.  I have trouble finding my way back to the waiting room after a doctor's appointment.  But even for people with a normal sense of direction, there is one huge benefit of the GPS: you can miss turns.  If you're traveling in an unfamiliar area with just a list of directions, which turns to make and when, and you make a wrong turn or miss one, you're screwed.  You either have to backtrack until you're back on your old route headed in the right direction (which can be devilishly tricky with lots of one-way streets, or if you have to make an additional detour for construction on the way back) or pull over somewhere, get out your map, and figure out where on that map you are.  With a GPS that plots routes for you, it automatically notices when you've made a wrong turn and re-plots a route that gets you back on track.  This means you can miss turns with impunity: if you're in the wrong lane and can't turn safely, rather than being forced to choose between cutting through lanes of traffic and being hopelessly lost, just keep going!  The handy GPS will uncomplainingly find you a new path, no matter how much you need to detour around something.

<snip>
Yes, this college student who plans on teaching impressionable young children pulled out a calculator to multiply 2 and 0, and then in all seriousness announced that the answer was, in fact, zero.  There was no "How silly of me!  I just used a calculator to multiply a number by zero without even realizing it!"  She saw nothing wrong using a calculator to solve 2 x 0.

That kind of thing was normal in physics long before calculators showed up.

Really?  Did they get out a slide rule and then announce that the problem was unsolvable because there is no logarithm of zero?

edit for I suck at quote tags.

[Requia ☣]

No, but physics people didn't generally know what to do when it came to solving simple arithmetic.  (Einstein was famous for this).  In that particular case the answer would (even today sometimes), be listed as m*v, without any attempt to determine what that is.

[Golden Applesauce]

While I agree with you on things like car sensors (though god knows I could use them, since I suck at parking), the internet has not, imo, made us weaker like you're suggesting. If anything, it has sharpened my BS detection when filtering information.

And, as I said before, you could make the same argument by saying that library catalogs were making our predecessors weaker. It's just a tool.

Clarification:
If I wanted to write about China I would go there. NOT VIRTUALLY.  I would get off my ass and go to China. I would mingle with the people. I would shop their markets. I would eat their food and drink their drinks. I would (gasp) TALK with them.

Hawk,
Sooooooooooooooooo last century.

You're not as behind as you think - if I wanted to write about China, I'd just talk to my roommates.  Okay, right now I'm at home for summer break and they're still staying near the university, but I can still IM them.  (with the magic of the internet!)  If I wanted to get a sample of the news articles being published in the various provinces in China (and I could read Chinese) I could read local news articles from sources distributed across the largest country in the known universe from my laptop an ocean away.  With the internet, you can start a real-time conversation - potentially with voice and video - with anyone in the world who has an internet connection.

This very forum is that.  We have active members from every country in North America, and at least the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, and I think Israel and Australia.  There's at least one guy from Brazil who periodically stops by.  We can get first hand accounts of events on three continents - and this is a pretty niche forum.  I've probably played chess with people from five, if not six, continents.  I can play video games with people who spell "hahaha" "jajaja" or "kekeke" or with characters my computer doesn't even recognize.  (Koreans are murderous at StarCraft, btw, which was developed by Canadians and then played pretty much everywhere - I learned about it from my Brazilian neighbors.)

[Kai]

Heres a thought:

I'm a biologist, a professional scientist. I'd say I'm pretty intelligent, and I think most people here would agree.

I am currently unable to wrap my head around why the ball in the op isn't $.10 and I don't think it's that I just got up a few minutes ago.

Would you say now that I'm stupid?

Maybe someone can explain it to me, but as long as that person is taking a holier than though stance because their mind works better with mathematical logic than mine I wouldn't care to hear it. In the same way people wouldn't like it if I took a holier than thou stance when it comes to gestalt on the spot identification of organisms.