Keith Whaley wrote: > >No, neither are we expected to discern what any given truth is, when our >analyzing skills are so under-developed. >That's what we're in university for. To develop ways ~ tools ~ for >separating >the wheat from the chaff... Ways to tell who the liar is, who the ignorant >one >is. Who's the inept "teacher." There are many. I know from experience. >Yet, when I was 18 and 19 I sure didn't. That experience came years >later... >
I find this interesting on several counts. First there are oodles (tech term) of highly educated individuals who still can't discern truth from falsehood (whether they were/are the teacher or student). Going to an institution of higher learning is no guarantee of somehow becoming intellectually superior (if such a thing actually exists). In some cases I think it may lead to the opposite result. That education was PAID FOR DEARLY, so I must believe everything I'm told. Second, I actually believe most 18 or 19 year olds SHOULD have the wherewithall to be able to sort out truth from falsehood, proven fact from conjecture. They definitely have more experience than a 3, 8, 12 year old. I agree that practice and experience certainly enhance one's ability. In the case of this professor, if any of his students believes what he says (I saw a television interview in which the claims came out of his own mouth), then they deserve to be booted out as well and their seats given to individuals possessing brains. As far as getting paid is concerned, if I were to go about my job, taking the time to explore every remote possiblility, design, methodology, for creating a product, and stood up with an approach that was so counter to what is known or believed to be true, I would shortly be unemployed. Tom C. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
