RE: [tips] The Safest And Most Dangerous Schools In the U.S.!!!
BTW, Bob Sternberg is no longer at Tufts University; he is now at Oklahoma State University, as Provost and Senior VP (I have to say that I'm quite surprised that Tufts University was listed #1...would like to hear more about the methodology - like Mike P., I really wonder how much these findings are attributable to reporting bias). Scott Scott O. Lilienfeld, Ph.D. Professor Editor, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice Department of Psychology, Room 473 Psychology and Interdisciplinary Sciences (PAIS) Emory University 36 Eagle Row Atlanta, Georgia 30322 slil...@emory.edu (404) 727-1125 Psychology Today Blog: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-psychologist 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-140513111X.html Scientific American Mind: Facts and Fictions in Mental Health Column: http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciammind/ The Master in the Art of Living makes little distinction between his work and his play, his labor and his leisure, his mind and his body, his education and his recreation, his love and his intellectual passions. He hardly knows which is which. He simply pursues his vision of excellence in whatever he does, leaving others to decide whether he is working or playing. To him - he is always doing both. - Zen Buddhist text (slightly modified) -Original Message- From: Mike Palij [mailto:m...@nyu.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 8:54 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Cc: Mike Palij Subject: [tips] The Safest And Most Dangerous Schools In the U.S.!!! The website The Daily Beast has done some research using the campus security and crime data for 2006-2008 for colleges in the U.S. and have constructed lists of the 50 safest colleges and the 50 most dangerous colleges as well as specialized lists such as CRIME IN THE IVY LEAGUE! U.S. colleges are required to collect and report criminal incidents (e.g., robberies, rapes, etc.) every year and I suspect that most Tipsters have seen the annual report for their schools though I admit that I am deeply skeptical of the accuracy of the numbers reported. The data used are incidents reported to campus police or the local police and not whether a conviction was obtained for the crime. It might be a worthwhile exercise to discuss with students how these results might be inaccurate, whether they feel comfortable reporting an incident to the college, and so on. Anyway, the lists, in the form of an annoying slideshow format, can be found here -- follow the links: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-09-14/50-safest-colleges/full/ Some notable results: Most Dangerous College in the U.S.: Tufts University (Boston) (Robert Sternberg must be so happy to have moved here) Most Dangerous College in NYC: Columbia (Given that CUNY's City College is about 20 blocks north of the Columbia campus in what some might argue is a rougher neighborhood Columbia's special status as the only college in NYC to be designated as dangerous may indicates either a more comfortable atmosphere to report crime or a really wimpy student body -- draw your own conclusion). Safest College in the U.S.: Cardinal Stritch University (Milwaukee, WI) (If one had asked what kind of college would be the safest, my first guess would not have been a Catholic university but that's only 12 years of Catholic grade and high school experience speaking). Believe it or not, 5 of the safest colleges are in NYC. According to rank, they are: #3 Long Island University, Brooklyn Campus (Brooklyn?? Realy?!?) #8 Fashion Institute of Technology (located in the Chelsea area, Manhattan) #12 Touro College (unclear which location is involved) #14 Pace University (located across the street from City Hall in Manhattan) #30 CUNY's Hunter College (there are multiple locations in Manhattan but all are along the East Side with the main campus in the richest area of Manhattan) Again, results are only as good at the data that is used and I have some doubts about the reliability, validity, and accuracy of the crime reports used but, what the hell, it's still fun to BS about this this stuff. ;-) -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: slil...@emory.edu. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9b2fn=Tl=tipso=4877 or send a blank email to leave-4877-13509.d0999cebc8f4ed4eb54d5317367e9...@fsulist.frostburg.edu This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
I sometimes engage in a speculative exercise with my students - imagining what might have happened had the Dark Ages not intervened between the Greek Miracle and the Renaissance (of course, it wouldn't have really been a rebirth). Seriously - where would science and technology be today had progress been more continuous? I am thinking Star Trek ;) At 04:25 PM 9/15/2010, you wrote: Marc Carter wrote: Those old guys were *smart*... If ever you hear of a concentration of philosophical, scientific, and artistic talent like there was in Athens between, say, 450 and 350 bc (a city of about 100,000 back then) move there and start drinking the water, breathing the air, and eating food grown from the surrounding ground. Something pretty astonishing was happening back then. (And when you consider that geniuses like Aristarchus and Archimedes came a century later during the Hellenistic decline... ) Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 mailto:chri...@yorku.cachri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == -Original Message- From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.camailto:chri...@yorku.ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:49 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Just for the record, Aristarchus of Samos outlined a heliocentric model of the universe 1700 years before Copernicus. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 mailto:chri...@yorku.cachri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == = Marc Carter wrote: Good points, John. It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you could better explain the motions of the planets; it was Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but hated them -- circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do), and Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits. Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more than seven heavenly bodies in his observations of the satellites of Jupiter. He gets the blame because he was the one who provided evidence for the notion that things weren't as the Ptolemaic system would have it. m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts Sciences Baker University -- -Original Message- From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edumailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the relationship between distance from the sun and time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 GALILEO GALILEI: I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail) is sent by Baker University (BU) and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: mailto:chri...@yorku.cachri...@yorku.ca. To unsubscribe click here:
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Well, there are not many historians on tips, so I'm probably safe speculating about the Greek miracle. Since IQ cannot change dramatically over the course of a few thousand years, I assume the amount of raw brain power available in a given time/place is relatively constant. My guess is that the Greek miracle hinged on(1) wealth. these were slave-owners(2) climate. they were free to mingle and gather and argue for lengthy periods of the year sans hats and mittens in (3) cities. Also, maybe the rise of academies/colleges permits a continuity of thought between generations, as well as collection (oral as well as written), or record, of the intellectual debates of the time. I like to think smart people have argued pretty effectively for thousands of years around campfires, but the arguments need to be preserved and passed on to posterity. == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 == - Original Message - From: Jim Dougan jdou...@iwu.edu To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) tips@fsulist.frostburg.edu Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 2:29:12 PM Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? I sometimes engage in a speculative exercise with my students - imagining what might have happened had the Dark Ages not intervened between the Greek Miracle and the Renaissance (of course, it wouldn't have really been a rebirth). Seriously - where would science and technology be today had progress been more continuous? I am thinking Star Trek ;) At 04:25 PM 9/15/2010, you wrote: Marc Carter wrote: Those old guys were *smart*... If ever you hear of a concentration of philosophical, scientific, and artistic talent like there was in Athens between, say, 450 and 350 bc (a city of about 100,000 back then) move there and start drinking the water, breathing the air, and eating food grown from the surrounding ground. Something pretty astonishing was happening back then. (And when you consider that geniuses like Aristarchus and Archimedes came a century later during the Hellenistic decline... ) Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 mailto:chri...@yorku.cachri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == -Original Message- From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.camailto:chri...@yorku.ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:49 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Just for the record, Aristarchus of Samos outlined a heliocentric model of the universe 1700 years before Copernicus. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 mailto:chri...@yorku.cachri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == = Marc Carter wrote: Good points, John. It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you could better explain the motions of the planets; it was Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but hated them -- circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do), and Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits. Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more than seven heavenly bodies in his observations of the satellites of Jupiter. He gets the blame because he was the one who provided evidence for the notion that things weren't as the Ptolemaic system would have it. m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts Sciences Baker University -- -Original Message- From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edumailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the relationship between distance from the sun and time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
I'm thinking that the dark ages weren't so dark and science is a natural outgrowth of thoughtful Christian theology. So, without the dark ages and Christian theology, science wouldn't be anywhere. --Mike On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Jim Dougan jdou...@iwu.edu wrote: I sometimes engage in a speculative exercise with my students - imagining what might have happened had the Dark Ages not intervened between the Greek Miracle and the Renaissance (of course, it wouldn't have really been a rebirth). Seriously - where would science and technology be today had progress been more continuous? I am thinking Star Trek ;) At 04:25 PM 9/15/2010, you wrote: Marc Carter wrote: Those old guys were *smart*... If ever you hear of a concentration of philosophical, scientific, and artistic talent like there was in Athens between, say, 450 and 350 bc (a city of about 100,000 back then) move there and start drinking the water, breathing the air, and eating food grown from the surrounding ground. Something pretty astonishing was happening back then. (And when you consider that geniuses like Aristarchus and Archimedes came a century later during the Hellenistic decline... ) Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 mailto:chri...@yorku.cachri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == -Original Message- From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:chri...@yorku.camailto:chri...@yorku.ca] Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 2:49 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Just for the record, Aristarchus of Samos outlined a heliocentric model of the universe 1700 years before Copernicus. Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 mailto:chri...@yorku.cachri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ == = Marc Carter wrote: Good points, John. It was really Copernicus who gave us the notion that you could better explain the motions of the planets; it was Kepler who worked out elliptical orbits (but hated them -- circular motion required no explanation, but ellipses do), and Newton who invented gravity to explain the elliptical orbits. Galileo gave observational evidence that there were more than seven heavenly bodies in his observations of the satellites of Jupiter. He gets the blame because he was the one who provided evidence for the notion that things weren't as the Ptolemaic system would have it. m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts Sciences Baker University -- -Original Message- From: John Kulig [mailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edumailto:ku...@mail.plymouth.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:44 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? Yeah, I agree! (sort of, but ...) My understanding (haven't read the original) is that Copernicus (Latinized from the Polish name Kopernik) was theoretically embedded in the medieval way of thinking which was to try to fit the available data into pre-existing medieval-style thinking. I believe he showed that either a geo or helio-centered universe could be made consistent with existing data. Galileo deserves a tremendous amount of credit for pushing science forward, but look to Kepler's three laws of planetary motion (1609/1619) for a real data-driven science (Tycho Brahe's data though), moving from the perfect circles of medieval thinking to elliptical orbits. But in empirically derived laws, he saw a different sort of perfection, mathematically, such as the relationship between distance from the sun and time to orbit (3rd law I believe) ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 GALILEO GALILEI: I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reasons, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail) is sent by Baker University (BU) and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply
[tips] new use for iPhones in classes
I usually prefer blackboards over PowerPoint for lots of reasons. Today in my mind, brain, evolution class I sketched out a neuron, replete with labels and ions and resting synaptic action potentials, and a synapse and the names of a few neurotransmitters/modulators. At the end I started to erase, and a student rushed down and yelled please don't erase it yet!! and he proceeded to take a few pictures of the blackboard with his phone. Not sure how I feel about it. Ideally, I want students to listen think during lectures, and then organize their notes accordingly. I guess I don't care if they snap pictures of my blackboard to help them study. Do we have a generation of people who feel that anything they need to know can be obtained by a click or a snapshot? I mean, my blackboard is mostly a rough outline, and I would have to see a student rely on a grainy iPhone pic the night before the exam anybody think of any reason to allow this? Well, I had one - they can try to pull out the phone during exams, a iPhone cheat cheat. I'll have to make sure phones are not out during exams ... == John W. Kulig Professor of Psychology Plymouth State University Plymouth NH 03264 == --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4896 or send a blank email to leave-4896-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
RE: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
I agree that the dark ages weren't as dark as we tend to think, but I'm not sure that thoughtful Christian theology had a great deal to do with the development of science. Theology studies the nature of God (a non-natural entity or entities) via revealed truth (not by observation). Although one or two of St. Thomas's arguments might have used nature to justify belief in the existence of god, I don't see how it leads to science (as we know it now). I can see Humanism (a shift in focus to the temporal human condition), Copernicus, Brahe's excellent observations, Bacon's development of induction, Kepler's frustrations, Galileo's application of math to things in the world (and his observations), and Newton's invention of gravity as key points in the development of modern science. Newton is really the first modern scientist. I'm not sure where I see the thoughtful theology part. Where do you see it? (I'm not being argumentative; I'd like to know things better.) m -- Marc Carter, PhD Associate Professor and Chair Department of Psychology College of Arts Sciences Baker University -- -Original Message- From: Michael Smith [mailto:tipsl...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2010 2:08 PM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong? I'm thinking that the dark ages weren't so dark and science is a natural outgrowth of thoughtful Christian theology. So, without the dark ages and Christian theology, science wouldn't be anywhere. --Mike The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail) is sent by Baker University (BU) and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify Baker University by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4901 or send a blank email to leave-4901-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
Re: [tips] Galileo Was Wrong?
Well, I didn't mean anything very deep. Just that the first scientists were all very religious men. Bacon, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and Darwin for example. They saw (like Aquinus) that an orderly, rational, lawful universe was a reflection of those qualities of its creator. And studying nature was a way of glorifying God and coming to know the mind of God more fully (by discovering the divine order) since his creation reflected at least some of his qualities even if only on a lower level. So science was the result of a worked out theology. One might even call science practical theology since these men believed their investigative activities were glorifying God through the application of one of his crowning gifts: reason. --Mike --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5n=Tl=tipso=4911 or send a blank email to leave-4911-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
