Unlimited Higher Education Thread

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

ITT we bitch about/rejoice in All The Things having to do with our experiences with higher education.

I will start by complaining that I do not give a single wet fig about "understanding architecture", and this book is interminable. I'm only at page 85 and this week's reading is through page 155. I am dying inside with every word I read.

[Cain]

-

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm actually ignoring many of my readings at the moment.  Methods and Research seems painfully basic, and the other module is Terrorism 101 for people who didn't do it first time around.  A lot of this could have something to do with my big-ass library and three years of boredom to read it in.

I realize this is possibly terribly irresponsible of me and I may learn things I did not know by doing the readings as given to me...but I don't think that will be the case.

I am doing likewise... mostly because the research section in my bio book is really simple, and the next couple weeks of chem are just review. But this damn architecture book, I have a quiz on it tomorrow.

[Cuddlefish]

If I have to read Descartes one more fucking time, I'm going to turn into an evil demon.

[Kai]

Bitch about? I can't really complain. I get paid to do research, I keep my own hours, my adviser is laid back, my classes are minimal, and....

...my prelims are coming up.

Well, I guess that's one thing that makes me nervous. I have to come up with three (3) topics. My committee will gather, and they will proceed to pick one of those, altering it as they desire. I will then have 6-10 weeks to write a large review and research proposal of that topic, which is supposed to not be the focus of my dissertation. I am allowed no guidance from faculty during this period. At the close of those 6-10 weeks my committee will gather again, and I will defend said review/proposal. They will tear it apart, and barrage me with questions, both random and relevant. If I pass, I can then write the proposal for my actual dissertation research, which I have already started.

Besides the presentation I gave two weeks ago on plant stress physiology, it's minor details plus a major work.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If I have to read Descartes one more fucking time, I'm going to turn into an evil demon.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Bitch about? I can't really complain. I get paid to do research, I keep my own hours, my adviser is laid back, my classes are minimal, and....

...my prelims are coming up.

Well, I guess that's one thing that makes me nervous. I have to come up with three (3) topics. My committee will gather, and they will proceed to pick one of those, altering it as they desire. I will then have 6-10 weeks to write a large review and research proposal of that topic, which is supposed to not be the focus of my dissertation. I am allowed no guidance from faculty during this period. At the close of those 6-10 weeks my committee will gather again, and I will defend said review/proposal. They will tear it apart, and barrage me with questions, both random and relevant. If I pass, I can then write the proposal for my actual dissertation research, which I have already started.

Besides the presentation I gave two weeks ago on plant stress physiology, it's minor details plus a major work.

Well, the other option is "rejoice in", which I will also be doing a bit because my bio professor is awesome and I love going to class. 

You can nail your proposal, Kai, you definitely have it in you.

[Kai]

Bitch about? I can't really complain. I get paid to do research, I keep my own hours, my adviser is laid back, my classes are minimal, and....

...my prelims are coming up.

Well, I guess that's one thing that makes me nervous. I have to come up with three (3) topics. My committee will gather, and they will proceed to pick one of those, altering it as they desire. I will then have 6-10 weeks to write a large review and research proposal of that topic, which is supposed to not be the focus of my dissertation. I am allowed no guidance from faculty during this period. At the close of those 6-10 weeks my committee will gather again, and I will defend said review/proposal. They will tear it apart, and barrage me with questions, both random and relevant. If I pass, I can then write the proposal for my actual dissertation research, which I have already started.

Besides the presentation I gave two weeks ago on plant stress physiology, it's minor details plus a major work.

Well, the other option is "rejoice in", which I will also be doing a bit because my bio professor is awesome and I love going to class. 

You can nail your proposal, Kai, you definitely have it in you.

Well, I have a couple months yet before that confrontation, so I should be alright.

What sort of awesome is your bio class?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Bitch about? I can't really complain. I get paid to do research, I keep my own hours, my adviser is laid back, my classes are minimal, and....

...my prelims are coming up.

Well, I guess that's one thing that makes me nervous. I have to come up with three (3) topics. My committee will gather, and they will proceed to pick one of those, altering it as they desire. I will then have 6-10 weeks to write a large review and research proposal of that topic, which is supposed to not be the focus of my dissertation. I am allowed no guidance from faculty during this period. At the close of those 6-10 weeks my committee will gather again, and I will defend said review/proposal. They will tear it apart, and barrage me with questions, both random and relevant. If I pass, I can then write the proposal for my actual dissertation research, which I have already started.

Besides the presentation I gave two weeks ago on plant stress physiology, it's minor details plus a major work.

Well, the other option is "rejoice in", which I will also be doing a bit because my bio professor is awesome and I love going to class. 

You can nail your proposal, Kai, you definitely have it in you.

Well, I have a couple months yet before that confrontation, so I should be alright.

What sort of awesome is your bio class?

It is totally just the first of the intro to bio series, so far the awesome is that the professor is funny as hell. I haven't actually learned anything new yet. I have a feeling I'm going to really like this course, though.

So, I might be way off the mark but so far I've noticed that chemists tend to be reserved and OCD, and biologists tend to be expressive and, for lack of a better term, messy. Not literally, metaphorically; everything is complicated, and they LOVE it.

[Salty]

This semester it's Income Tax, which I failed last time due to a stressful living environment. And QuickBooks, which is syoer fucking useful, OMG!

Two years into applied business classes and I finally have something pertinent to my work.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

My most favorite thing about college was watching assholes binge drink themselves into the hospital.

My least favorite memories of college involve being unable to pay for it and getting turned down for financial assistance and grants.

[Kai]

Bitch about? I can't really complain. I get paid to do research, I keep my own hours, my adviser is laid back, my classes are minimal, and....

...my prelims are coming up.

Well, I guess that's one thing that makes me nervous. I have to come up with three (3) topics. My committee will gather, and they will proceed to pick one of those, altering it as they desire. I will then have 6-10 weeks to write a large review and research proposal of that topic, which is supposed to not be the focus of my dissertation. I am allowed no guidance from faculty during this period. At the close of those 6-10 weeks my committee will gather again, and I will defend said review/proposal. They will tear it apart, and barrage me with questions, both random and relevant. If I pass, I can then write the proposal for my actual dissertation research, which I have already started.

Besides the presentation I gave two weeks ago on plant stress physiology, it's minor details plus a major work.

Well, the other option is "rejoice in", which I will also be doing a bit because my bio professor is awesome and I love going to class. 

You can nail your proposal, Kai, you definitely have it in you.

Well, I have a couple months yet before that confrontation, so I should be alright.

What sort of awesome is your bio class?

It is totally just the first of the intro to bio series, so far the awesome is that the professor is funny as hell. I haven't actually learned anything new yet. I have a feeling I'm going to really like this course, though.

So, I might be way off the mark but so far I've noticed that chemists tend to be reserved and OCD, and biologists tend to be expressive and, for lack of a better term, messy. Not literally, metaphorically; everything is complicated, and they LOVE it.

Literally, as well. Both my graduate advisers' offices have been a mess. It kind of drives me batty. Neither could/can keep any semblance of order in their workspace (outside the filing system my master's adviser had). Maybe I'm a chemist at heart? Or just an old fashioned taxonomist who likes to ORDER ALL THE THINGS.

[Cuddlefish]

No complaints today, just some X-posts from my epistemology class forum, just in case there's any discussion fuel contained therein.

Response to Pat Churchland and 'Eliminative Materialism'

I have to say, in a very general sense, that I agree with Churchland. The idea of 'mind-body dualism' is preposterous on the following grounds. The claim that the understanding or origin of consciousness somehow lies 'beyond the physical realm' is problematic in more than a few ways. To name just a couple problems, we don't have to think too hard. For instance, if consciousness is somehow dictated by something that is 'above' the physical realm, how can it interact with the physical realm? That is to say, how can the non-physical affect the physical? Further, even if we ignore this issue, and we assume that consciousness is somehow physically dictated by a non-physical entity, then how can we prove it? Surely, we can't be expected to escape the physical realm to observe this non-physical entity or process, and even if we could 'escape,' we have no reason to believe that our measurement tools could function in a 'non-physical' realm, therefore rendering any degree of proof impossible.

All that being said, I think Churchland is getting a bit ahead of herself. There a lot of inherent issues of reductionist philosophies, and materialism of any type can lead to some bad juju (Just read some Hobbes and you can see this in action). But, my own personal objections to Churchland come with the reduction of the mind to a simple material. Now, no object exists in a vacuum, and a major part of how we understand and define objects is through their relations to other objects. That said, the problem of reducing 'mind' to 'brain' becomes problematic because, in order to understand 'brain,' we must understand the full context in which it exists. And that context is so utterly massive that to believe at any point that we've 'figured it out' would be foolish, as contexts change and certain interplays between objects are not always readily noticeable. Add to this that each person's brain is unique in form as well as 'content.' If one were to be looking for general laws of consciousness, then, at best, we would have only certain 'ceteris paribus' laws concerning individual brains.

All that aside, the reductionist idea of materialism, to me, is also problematic. Personally, if we are to reduce 'mind' to something physical, it does not follow that we must focus only on the 'material' of that mind. I would propose, instead, that we look more at 'processes,' as opposed to 'stuff.' A process of thought cannot be reduced to any individual physical material or component of the brain. An electronic impulse is not the 'thought' any more than the chemical transmissions are. The 'thought' lies in the entirety of the physical process, not the parts involved, hence non-material, but not non-physical. Also, when looking at it this way, we see that time plays a factor. So, even if we had a good working theory one moment, any change in context or process over the course of time would render our theory incomplete.

There's a thing I say from time to time, with varying degrees of seriousness (depending on the context): "In order to fully understand the human brain as it is, we would have to further develop our brains. But, by that time, any explanation we came up with would be no longer relevant, as our brains would be significantly different than the brains we had at first attempted to explain."

Response to Kuhn, written waaaaaaay past my bedtime:

Don't let the page count fool you, Khun's essay is dense. It's a little intimidating trying to write a mere forum post that even begins to give this piece proper consideration. This is due, in part, to the fact that this essay is not only a recap of a previous position of Khun's, but also a rebuttal to critics of that position, as well as a clarification of terms. Lot's to look at. That said, I'll try to keep my post related to the titular material.

Theory Choice - In a nutshell, this is what this essay is about. Khun highlights some areas in which standardized criterion fails to sufficiently determine which of two competing theories should be accepted. One example Khun used to illustrate such difficulties is that of the Copernicus's model vs. that of Ptolemy. Here we see that strict criterion can render itself near helpless. In terms of accuracy, the two competing theories were equally valid, in that they both served to make equally accurate prediction. In terms of consistency, Ptolemy's model was far more in line with the standards of what was at the time (basically, a physic that required a stationary, central earth). Khun's final use of this example shows us how different ways of evaluating certain criteria can lead to some difficulty. While Copernicus's model did not appear to be simpler, in that it did not provide any labor saving techniques, if looked at differently, it can be said that it was much simpler when compared to Ptolemy's, based on the lack of required epicycles. Or, to be put even simpler, Copernicus's model had 'fewer circles.'

Value Judgements vs. Criteria - To make a clumsy paraphrase of Khun's point regarding Criteria: A proposed criteria ought not be expected to function as rules or strictures to determine choice of one theory over another, but rather should function as a set of values that influence that choice (I'd planned on giving this a bit more, but clock's ticking. Moving on).

Objectivity vs. Subjectivity - (God, it's late). Just a quick comment on a point Khun makes on this topic. His clarification of his usage of the word 'subjectivity' takes a little bit of a wiggle, but I think the following quote is representative (at least to me, in my current head-space) of his point "Whether my taste is low or refined, my report that I liked the film is objective." The two are connected in an interesting way. I think an analogy I would make is that a requirement that a set of criteria be objective in its selection of a theory, in that it seeks to eliminate all subjective content, also eliminates the important subjective content that should be considered by a good set of criteria. I would liken this to a medical treatment that seeks to destroy a particular microbe, but in the process, destroys all of the 'good' microbes required to maintain good health.

I hope some of this makes sense.

[Cuddlefish]

Side complaint: 'Epistemology' is called 'Truth, knowledge and belief' at URI. They say they made this choice in terms because 'no one knows what's meant by 'epistemology.'" I would argue that no one knows what's meant by 'Truth, Knowledge and Belief,' either. So, way to go URI. Shoot for that lowest common denominator.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Side complaint: 'Epistemology' is called 'Truth, knowledge and belief' at URI. They say they made this choice in terms because 'no one knows what's meant by 'epistemology.'" I would argue that no one knows what's meant by 'Truth, Knowledge and Belief,' either. So, way to go URI. Shoot for that lowest common denominator.

Whaaaaaat

so they  think college students aren't capable of picking up one new vocabulary word? That makes zero sense.