Public Education And Independent Self-Taught Research

[Polymath257]

Polymath, if you were a philosophical specialist, I would take your judgements seriously - but you aren´t, so I don´t.

If you were a mythological specialist, I would take your judgements seriously, but you aren´t, so I don´t.

IMHO: Educationally, historic and modern humans have studied themselves increasingly cosmologically stupid by disconnecting themselves from nature as such, and reading too many books of disconnected speculations and mental constructs.

THIS IS MY CONCLUSION ON THIS EDUCATION OP THREAD.

And if you were a specialist in physics, I would take your ideas seriously. But you aren't, so I don't.

 

[Native]

And if you were a specialist in physics, I would take your ideas seriously. But you aren't, so I don't.

I agree, you´re the one who is the physical specialist in the standing 96 % dark nothingness.

THIS IS MY CONCLUSION ON THIS EDUCATION OP THREAD.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree, you´re the one who is the physical specialist in the standing 96 % dark nothingness.

THIS IS MY CONCLUSION ON THIS EDUCATION OP THREAD.

And you have even less. Call someone when you have something substantial.

 

[Native]

Native Said:

I agree, you´re the one who is the physical specialist in the standing 96 % dark nothingness.

And you have even less.

Agreed once again, as I have NO DARK GHOSTS in my cosmological perception

THIS IS MY CONCLUSION ON THIS EDUCATION OP THREAD.

 

[Yazata]

Universities have two very different purposes. First, there's the educational function of imparting theoretical knowledge and practical skills. Since the 19th century and the rise of the PhD, that's been extended to research training as well.

And second, there's the certification function of certifying that a graduate possesses the expected knowledge and skills to an accepted level. That's what university degrees are supposed to convey.

I think that prior to the rise of universities, something that happened gradually and at a different pace in different subjects, scholars and experts in most subjects were self-educated in part, typically by reading, and in part they learned their skills by apprenticeship to skilled practitioners. That's the path that Michael Faraday took in the early 19th century, at a time when university training in science was just taking shape. Today there's all sorts of on-the-job training as well.

So personally, I favor the appearance of degrees by examination and portfolios. This would allow individuals who acquired their knowledge and skills nontraditionally to obtain the certification that society expects and represents education to so many. There are a number of colleges and universities in the United States that specialize in this and most American colleges and universities offer credit by examination/portfolio as options.

In France there's the VAE process, and so on.

Accueil - FranceVAE

One can certainly argue that today learning has become excessively institutionalized. I agree very much with that, which is why I'm interested (both personally and professionally) in alternatives like prior-learning-assessment.

 

[cladking]

One can certainly argue that today learning has become excessively institutionalized. I agree very much with that, which is why I'm interested (both personally and professionally) in alternatives like prior-learning-assessment.

I certainly agree but much worse learning has become focused unduly on specialization. In business departments always work against one another just as the work teams work against one another.

Nobody sees the forest for the trees.

Things have gotten very complex and there need to be translators trained to bridge the gaps.

 

[Native]

One can certainly argue that today learning has become excessively institutionalized. I agree very much with that, which is why I'm interested (both personally and professionally) in alternatives like prior-learning-assessment.

And:

Nobody sees the forest for the trees.
Things have gotten very complex and there need to be translators trained to bridge the gaps.

Thanks for your relevant replies.

My personal take is that the standing cosmology has lots of unsolved problems which cannot be solved by othodox thinking, hence ALTERNATE TAKES are much needed and these seldom comes from Universities.

Alternate and independent thinkers are logically needed and such persons should be highly and curiously welcomed and not met by downgrading comments of all sorts by the conventional debaters.

It´s hard enough in itself to think outsides the squared black boxes.

 

[Native]

 

[cladking]

Alternate and independent thinkers are logically needed and such persons should be highly and curiously welcomed and not met by downgrading comments of all sorts by the conventional debaters.

Sometime in just the last half a century insight, intuition, and inspiration have all become dirty words to science. They've always been dirty words to believers in science but now days there are more and more people who conceptualize science and experiment as belief systems instead of touchstones of reality itself. So of course anything that can't be mathematically expressed is frowned on and if it runs counter to doctrine then it becomes heresy.

It simply wasn't like this back in the 1960's. Generations of people have been formed in the image of Bill Gates. Only logic and math have any meaning at all and then only if they are manipulated by somebody with a doctorate in the relevant field. It never occurs to people any longer that reality is infinitely complex and infinitely interwoven and interdependent,. It never occurs to them that EVERY experiment that has ever been performed is relevant in every single instance and every single observation. It never occurs to them interpretations are dependent on axioms and definitions. It never occurs to them that man can be wholly ignorant of some subjects and this ignorance affects their observations as surely as all experiment and all of reality.

Scientists today are little better. Sure there are still great scientists but they are fewer and farther between. Most think they have all the answers and just don't care about anything outside their usually very highly focused little world. All they care about is the work that has come before and is the cutting edge of tiny little specialties that have no bearing on the big picture.

Much of the problem is really very simple: Scientists must make assumptions to proceed in their specialization and can't really understand anything that isn't inclusive of all of these assumptions. They simply are not even competent to judge something that is outside of the current paradigm. They would have to unlearn half of what they know to even judge it. Suspension of disbelief and stepping outside the box are similar talents and many can do neither. No amount of "empirical evidence" or logic can ever possibly sway them.

 

[cladking]

"Mysticism" in this sense is a positive thing and I like the video. When I complain about the mystics of science I'm referring to those who think "intelligence" or "evidence" underlie science.

Only experiment underlies true science and everything else is mysticism.

How we come up with hypotheses or invent experiment is a sort of magic that should not be questioned too hard lest we lose the ability. Sleeping, showering, staring into a campfire, and physical work are some of the most magical times. To each his own.

 

[Native]

Much of the problem is really very simple: Scientists must make assumptions to proceed in their specialization and can't really understand anything that isn't inclusive of all of these assumptions. They simply are not even competent to judge something that is outside of the current paradigm. They would have to unlearn half of what they know to even judge it. Suspension of disbelief and stepping outside the box are similar talents and many can do neither. No amount of "empirical evidence" or logic can ever possibly sway them.

Hi Cladking and thanks for your well elaborated thoughts, to which I fully agree.

 

[gnostic]

Much of the problem is really very simple: Scientists must make assumptions to proceed in their specialization and can't really understand anything that isn't inclusive of all of these assumptions. They simply are not even competent to judge something that is outside of the current paradigm. They would have to unlearn half of what they know to even judge it. Suspension of disbelief and stepping outside the box are similar talents and many can do neither. No amount of "empirical evidence" or logic can ever possibly sway them.

Actually all that describes “you”, except clearly you not a scientist.

Plus you don’t know what evidence is, nor what phenomena constitutes as evidence.

You just a some hacks of philosopher, and not even a good one.

 

[gnostic]

I don´t discuss personal experimental resources, but the very concept of learning. And Faraday would´t even be known today without having his philosophical skills in the first hand.

Skills which Maxwell acknowledge, and you really don´t.

No, are best known for his experiments and for his inventions, and he was able to communicate his concepts quite. Faraday was not for his philosophy.

And everyone admired Maxwell for building upon Faraday’s works, and representing them in the mathematical model on electricity and the EM fields.

Maxwell was also famous for physics, not for any philosophy he may have.

My personal take is that the standing cosmology has lots of unsolved problems which cannot be solved by othodox thinking, hence ALTERNATE TAKES are much needed and these seldom comes from Universities.

That’s funny.

You keep saying that there are problems with current model, and yet nearly 300 posts in this thread, you have not shown a single problem in the BB cosmology.

What you have shown that you don’t understand the physics of atmosphere pressures and friction of air, you don’t understand what a vacuum is, you have been corrected a number of times regarding to gravity.

But worse of all you cannot learn from your mistakes whenever anyone spotted your errors,

And. You keep talking about Newton, except the BB cosmology don’t rely on Newton’s original theory.

You do realize we are nearly a quarter of through the 21st century; we not living in the 17th century, when Newton published his work. The theory on motion and gravity have updated a little over hundred years ago, and they still on newer theoretical framework on gravity, called Quantum Gravity, one of them is your favourite YouTube lady physicist, Sabine Hossenfelder.

 

[cladking]

Actually all that describes “you”, except clearly you not a scientist.

And clearly you don't know science when you see it. This is simply because you assume science is right about everything so any "scientist" by definition must start and end at everything already fact. Science is wrong about a great many things and believers in science are wrong about everything.

Plus you don’t know what evidence is, nor what phenomena constitutes as evidence.

You could say that "science" is a life long quest to learn what "evidence" is. Otherwise we are just looking at a mirror and seeing our own beliefs in everything.

You just a some hacks of philosopher, and not even a good one.

I have to agree here. But the point of the thread is that every discipline needs fresh blood and outside perspectives. The point is that there are many ways to arrive at truth and to recognize it. Just because you believe you know everything is not evidence you've found truth. It is evidence that the search has failed. It is indicative of poor methodology and insufficient understanding of the parameters of the search.

 

[cladking]

You could say that "science" is a life long quest to learn what "evidence" is.

This is a very adequate definition of "science". All science is individual and all scientists are individuals. This is the nature of science from the individual perspective.

Of course believers in science find this strange and obscure because they believe that science is consensus. It is not. The reality is all ideas, all hypothesis formation, and all experiment invention is performed by individuals. All interpretation is performed by individuals. These individuals have never necessarily been trained in the fields in which they work or dabble.

Every individual has a unique way of thinking and a unique perspective. This is the one of the few strengths of the species (homo omnisciencis).

 

[Native]

Every individual has a unique way of thinking and a unique perspective. This is the one of the few strengths of the species (homo omnisciencis).

True. And a consensus can only be valid if ALL INDIVIDUALS observe the same phenomenon and agree on its meaning.

This is especially why I have the numerous very similar cultural/mythical Stories of Creation to express a valid collective cosmological telling, namely that:

We all live on the same planet Earth, in the same Solar system, in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same local part of the observable Universe.

All this is embedded in the human empirical mythological/religious knowledge since several thousands of years ago, even containing a telling of the pre-conditions and elementary principles of the Milky Way formation and the Solar System.

When interpreted in modern cosmological terms, the ancient world perception was cyclical of nature and this perception by far supersedes explainable the modern linear cosmological mental constructs and all its ad hoc biased assumptions.

Once upon a time humans had a common conceptual story made by both physical and spiritual observations – until public education became authorized, centralized, and spilt up into several scientific branches, which no more understand each other’s branches - or even its own origin.

 

[cladking]

True. And a consensus can only be valid if ALL INDIVIDUALS observe the same phenomenon and agree on its meaning.

"Reality" is what humans perceive it to be, I believe, axiomatically. It doesn't matter if we are wrong or not because we proceed on what we take as reality.

But it gets tricky because so much of what we perceive is dependent on language and the implications of thinking in abstract, analog, and symbolic language. We are simply wrong, we simply don't perceive actual reality when underlying assumptions are wrong. We must format reality to reflect our thinking and our language is not well suited to this task.

Ancient Language was metaphysical which meant that reality was by definition the same as perception. Of course people were highly ignorant in our terms but they saw what they knew to be real and nothing else except numerous anomalies. These seem to be difficult concepts for modern people but it does suggest that myth and ancient beliefs were underpinned by reality just as experiment underpins all of our reality. Indeed, it was this underpinning in reality that allowed the survival of species (homo omnisciencis) during the many centuries that religion held sway and there was no science.

Now people want to reject the ancient reality and the nature of life itself in favor of misunderstandings of experimental science; a misunderstanding that holds opinion and paradigms as reality rather than observation, logic, and experiment. Science in each of its specialties has become so complex that not even the best scientists are capable of holding it all in mind at once. The extent of human knowledge far exceeds even a group of scientists' ability to retain it. The status quo has become not only the way things are done but is enshrined by doctrine.

With "science" for sale to the highest bidder much of it has become self serving and very very dangerous. Mistakes and errors are embedded right into the system right along with gross inefficiency and the incompetence spawned by lack of understanding.

In each specialty this is hardly visible at all. Very few scientists will agree with any of these observations because of the nature of language, life, and the way we think. They see the reality of the specialty and are striving to advance it in terms of what is already established "fact" without seeing the big picture or the numerous anomalies caused by current dogma.

We just get more and more of the same. Outsiders and heretics no matter the extent of their training get no funding and are ignored. This is what's new in science. Ideas (hypotheses) once drove all science at all levels but now they are all ignored unless a Peer comes up with one and a Peer is likely to be excommunicated if the idea lies too far afield. Few will risk their career and income to even think about heresy. This is why Peers won't even answer their eMails.

We are locked into our current trajectory by both the rejection of ancient ideas and by the acceptance of a status quo that in many cases is obviously and patently wrong. We blindly accept beliefs that are likely to lead to our extinction because all belief kills and the species is becoming increasingly deadly and fragile.

 

[cladking]

Besides this, the ancient world perception was cyclical of nature and this perception by far supersedes explainable the modern linear cosmological mental constructs and all its ad hoc biased assumptions.

Yes!!!

It is our language and the nature of experimental science (reductionistic) to see reality as analog and linear where it is neither. Then just because the quantified logic that is mathematics is highly useful in modeling the manifested logic that is reality we believe that reality is beholden to mathematics instead of merely a reflection of it. From our perspective most of the big pictures are virtually invisible while we stare at the little pieces of it and mistake those bits for reality. And we do this while ignoring anomaly and everything that can't be reduced to experiment. We don't want to see such obvious truths because we want to believe we are at the very crown of creation rather than talking and confused monkeys.

Reality is better described as cyclical rather than linear. Reality is cyclical events and processes which occur in linear time.

We reject all the most important aspects of life and reality to maintain our holier than thou attitudes.

 

[cladking]

Reality is cyclical events and processes which occur in linear time.

We mistake the linearity of our thinking and of time for a linearity of reality that does not exist.

Once upon a time humans had a common conceptual story made by both physical and spiritual observations – until public education became authorized, centralized, and spilt up into several scientific branches, which no more understand each other’s branches - or even its own origin.

Indeed! People were probably able to see the nature of reality and deduce a great deal about it.

Either that or aliens mustta given us all the answers and we forgot them.

I'm not ruling out anything but there must be some logical reason ancient people had so much knowledge. There must be some logical reason that early homo omnisciencis venerated their ancestors and believed they were very very wise and powerful. There must be some basis for why science suggests there really was a single language and religions believe in the "Tower of Babel". There must be some logical explanation for why recorded history doesn't begin for many centuries after the invention of writing. There must be some reason our ancestors survived. There must be some logical means by which ancient people were able to invent agriculture and cities and then invent all the same myths all over the world.

Here we sit at the crown of creation ignoring most of the things that define life and reality. We even each tend to ignore every experiment except for one at a time. We mistake knowledge for understanding.

 

[Native]

Either that or aliens mustta given us all the answers and we forgot them.

I don´t believe in aliens as the source for human knowledge. This idea stems from a general scholarly and laymen lack of mythical insights of ancient knowledge and symbolism of astronomy and cosmology. These believers have taken "ancient forces of creation" literally as personified Sky entities in general and have in this way become "reversed superstitious".

I'm not ruling out anything but there must be some logical reason ancient people had so much knowledge. There must be some logical reason that early homo omnisciencis venerated their ancestors and believed they were very very wise and powerful.

And there is IMHO too, namely the very intuitive way of sensing everything physically and spiritually. It´s THIS genuine skill modern scientists and humans has mostly lost throughout the materialistic and technological developmentto such extent that modern humans have huge troubles understanding our ancestral outspring.

There must be some basis for why science suggests there really was a single language and religions believe in the "Tower of Babel".

As I suggested: Its becuase most modern humans have forgotten our common creation stories which spoke of the same cosmological origin and used the same symbolic language.

There must be some reason our ancestors survived.

I´m not sure what you refer to here.

There must be some logical means by which ancient people were able to invent agriculture and cities and then invent all the same myths all over the world.

I´ve already replied on the last sentence. If you live in a location where different grases grows and you discover some are eatable, you automatically notice how how seeds are spreading, and if you collect these seeds, you can grow your own crops.

Here we sit at the crown of creation ignoring most of the things that define life and reality. We even each tend to ignore every experiment except for one at a time. We mistake knowledge for understanding.

Sure so - and this has already been expressed by many of the native tribes when these were overrun by ignorant colonialist nations everywhere and they discovered how disrespectful and unnatural these inventors behaved on many accounts.