English is a complete pile of utter bollocks.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by G_frog

So? that doesn't mean it can't be a science (though it probably isn't).

I was going to talk about it not being worth the effort, so why would they do it, but then I remembered it's an arts subject.

Oh, and WC3? Hester?

[ParraCida]

See, whereas every language is influenced by certain factors and evolves continually, the english language was basically pillaged and raped and the scars of this are still here today.

[Nodrog]

I thought we'd all agreed that falsification as a criterion for scientific theories was idealistic nonsense

edit: it would possible to study politics in a scientific way, but political science in its current state is a bit of a joke. An actual proper political science would probably be some bizarro mixture of behavioural psychology, sociology, economics and ethics. Currently there seems to be too much focus on the second, too little on the third, and almost nothing on the first and last.

edit2: Anyway, dont worry about it Deffeh; all the cool kids drop out of uni at least once. Youre only 17 anyway, its not like it really matters if you have to repeat first year (although youll need to find £1000 somewhere)

[queball]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm dreading what my sociology essay titles will be though. "Write a 20 page exposition of why Marx was great."

Easy. Just write in a tiny font.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I thought we'd all agreed that falsification as a criteria for scientific theories was idealistic nonsense

edit: it would possible to study politics in a scientific way, but political science in its current state is a bit of a joke. An actual proper political science would be some bizarro mixture of behavioural psychology, sociology, economics and ethics. Currently there seems to be too much focus on the second, too little on the third, and almost nothing on the first and last.

You just described my course heh. Now who's studying a useless subject! Wait, still me


It's also very possible to study politics scientifically. The point that you wouldn't get precise answers which would undoubtedly be right in all situations is stupid as science is not some formed of perfected subject with a collection of equations which explains everything.

[Nodrog]

You know, I did tell you both that your courses were a joke and youd hate them.

Not that I'm one to bring it up like.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

It's also very possible to study politicall scientifically. The point that you wouldn't get precise answers which would undoubtedly be right in all situations is stupid as science is not some formed of perfected subject with a collection of equations which explains everything.

Yeah. I think it would be possible to study most liberal arts in a semi-scientific way, with the obvious exception of philosophy (lol analytic philosophy lol) - its just that noone really does :(

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

Easy. Just write in a tiny font.

I hope god pisses on you from a great height when you die queball.









PS nod I actually like all my modules bar sociology which is the worst joke ever and thankfully a subject I don't have to touch with a 4500 foot barge pole after first year.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS nod I actually like all my modules bar sociology which is the worst joke ever and thankfully a subject I don't have to touch with a 4500 foot barge pole after first year.

replace sociology with statistics and youve pretty much descirbed my course too.

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

edit2: Anyway, dont worry about it Deffeh; all the cool kids drop out of uni at least once. Youre only 17 anyway, its not like it really matters if you have to repeat first year (although youll need to find £1000 somewhere)

i wont repeat it because i wont fail it. Ill probably just study and barely pass in a subject i dont know much about or like. Uni isnt about studying anyway, its about seeing how many bad substances you can cram dopwn yourself.

I have this english essay for tommorow. Im feeling slightly drunk though, and im just gonna shit out one and a half thousand words of turd and tell them to shove it up their bollocks.

Its for 5pm tommorow so im not out of time. But id prefer to go to subway. <3 subway

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Yeah. I think it would be possible to study most liberal arts in a semi-scientific way, with the obvious exception of philosophy (lol analytic philosophy lol) - its just that noone really does

Philosophy's got a bad beat because it's a collection of everything people couldn't be arsed actually separating out, uses a vast array of sometimes conflicting methods and is impossible to evaluate as a single concept without sounding like a ****ing idiot. Personal opinion of course!

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

i wont repeat it because i wont fail it. Ill probably just study and barely pass in a subject i dont know much about or like. Uni isnt about studying anyway, its about seeing how many bad substances you can cram dopwn yourself.

I have this english essay for tommorow. Im feeling slightly drunk though, and im just gonna shit out one and a half thousand words of turd and tell them to shove it up their bollocks.

Its for 5pm tommorow so im not out of time. But id prefer to go to subway. <3 subway

If you dont like the course and doubt youre going to like it ever, why not just change? Better now than halfway through second year and all that.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Philosophy's got a bad beat because it's a collection of everything people couldn't be arsed actually separating out, uses a vast array of sometimes conflicting methods and is impossible to evaluate as a single concept without sounding like a ****ing idiot. Personal opinion of course!

Overspecialisation is one of the top 5 things currently wrong with academia; dont be dissing having a stupidly broad bundle of concepts mang.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

replace sociology with statistics and youve pretty much descirbed my course too.

There's not exactly that much to dislike about counting duder.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Overspecialisation is one of the top 5 things currently wrong with academia; dont be dissing having a stupidly broad bundle of concepts mang.

I'm not saying don't study history and physics. But don't bloody pretend they're the same thing and try to explain them using the same specific methods.








PS Other four? If one of them isn't post-modernism I'll be very disappointed.

[LHC]

i read at this thread in awe of the daddygrownups

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

There's not exactly that much to dislike about counting duder.

this is what we done in my probability/stats lecture today

[Deffeh]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If you dont like the course and doubt youre going to like it ever, why not just change? Better now than halfway through second year and all that.

i have no intention of working when i leave uni assuming i live that long. so it really doesnt matter, idont want to be anything but a student

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS Other four? If one of them isn't post-modernism I'll be very disappointed.

Burn down teh GD, hand teh blessed admins, etc.

You can take your post-modernism, put it in your pipe and smoke it, Ebenezer.



I'll deal with all this tommorow.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I'm not saying don't study history and physics. But don't bloody pretend they're the same thing and try to explain them using the same specific methods.

The cool kids are doing historiography these days, history is for losers

PS Other four? If one of them isn't post-modernism I'll be very disappointed.

Its not, but one of them is probably applying methods from the physical sciences to liberal art disciplines (peer reviewed journals are one of the worst culprits here)

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

this is what we done in my probability/stats lecture today

No gay porn links on the forums for ****s sake.





PS History is great. Read The Third Reich - A New History by Michael Burleigh to understand why (totally serious here, I'm like 60 pages in and so far it's one of the best books I've ever read).





PPS Peer review journals are great. Only smart people get to talk in them and all those plebs who want their arguments judged on their merits are kept out

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

No gay porn links on the forums for ****s sake.
PPS Peer review journals are great.

Yeah, the 'publish-or-be-damned' paradigm has certainly worked wonders for academic philosophy oh wait

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Yeah, the 'publish-or-be-damned' paradigm has certainly worked wonders for academic philosophy oh wait

Minus five points for using the word paradigm without the words neo-anarcho-meta-pre-syndicalism.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

PS History is great. Read The Third Reich - A New History by Michael Burleigh to understand why (totally serious here, I'm like 60 pages in and so far it's one of the best books I've ever read).

I'm reading Hitler by Kershaw, and it's a bloody disapointment in comparison.

You'd think one book, dealing with state terror on a unprecedented level never before experienced in human history, and a biography of the orchestrator of said terror would actually be fairly even in the humor stakes; in actual fact Burleigh is much the superior writer in this respect.


The monotiny of Kershaw's depictions of Hitler's egoism gets to you after a while. In the end it's about the only thing you remember. It may even be about the only thing in the book, as far as I can tell.

[inf]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Agree.

Yes, when you attempt to use it.

[queball]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Its not, but one of them is probably applying methods from the physical sciences to liberal art disciplines (peer reviewed journals are one of the worst culprits here)

Getting physicists and geographers to talk to each other is expensive. If that expense means they each put out utter crap then that's the way it is.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by queball

Getting physicists and geographers to talk to each other is expensive. If that expense means they each put out utter crap then that's the way it is.

Im not sure how this is relevant to the post you quoted

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Im not sure how this is relevant to the post you quoted

Nod discussion in 'general confusion' shocker.


Why are you even bothered that someone makes sense? Never bloody stopped anyone round here before.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I'm reading Hitler by Kershaw, and it's a bloody disapointment in comparison.

You'd think one book, dealing with state terror on a unprecedented level never before experienced in human history, and a biography of the orchestrator of said terror would actually be fairly even in the humor stakes; in actual fact Burleigh is much the superior writer in this respect.


The monotiny of Kershaw's depictions of Hitler's egoism gets to you after a while. In the end it's about the only thing you remember. It may even be about the only thing in the book, as far as I can tell.

Monotonous books are great. I have this pile of books which I unfortunately read and made Rand seem like a great writer next to my bed*!













*In a pile under the staircase*













*sewerage system

[queball]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Im not sure how this is relevant to the post you quoted

You were saying scientific knowledge was misapplied?

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by queball

You were saying scientific knowledge was misapplied?

I thought he was saying scientific method was misapplied :equallyconfused:

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by queball

You were saying scientific knowledge was misapplied?

No, I was saying that its stupid to take the 'peer reviewed journals, publish or die!" paradigm that sort of works for the physical sciences and apply it as the de facto standard for all academic disciplines, whether its suited to them or not.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

Monotonous books are great. I have this pile of books which I unfortunately read and made Rand seem like a great writer next to my bed*!

You forget that Rand is one of the best fiction writers to ever live.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

You forget that Rand is one of the best fiction writers to ever live.

She had good themes and explored them well. However she was a pedantic, boring, repetitive tart (how many times have you read galt's speech nod?) Certainly not a tap on Burleigh who's actually interesting to read both in his subject material, the way he approaches it and his style of writing.

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

I thought we'd all agreed that falsification as a criterion for scientific theories was idealistic nonsense

I've read Popper, i've had reasonable exposure to science being done and the philosophical responses to his work - and philosophy of knowledge in general; as long as you bear in mind that it's (mainly) an epistemological account and not a sociological one falsificationism seems to be accurate.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by G_frog

I've read Popper, i've had reasonable exposure to science being done and the philosophical responses to his work - and philosophy of knowledge in general; as long as you bear in mind that it's (mainly) an epistemological account and not a sociological one falsificationism seems to be accurate.

Define what it means for a theory to be conclusively falsified.

[G_frog]

For it to be shown that a theory is incapable of accurately describing the phenomena it deals with, with the highest level of precision the theory entails.

So, Newton vs. Einstein next up right? bring it on.

[Weeks]

yeah init though init

[Dace]

!!!ATTENTION DEFFEH!!!

Originally Posted by Deffeh

Never had those choices in school.

Besides, i did like English once. Unfortunately, the english degree course is a creativity stifling unimaginative pile of crap.

Listen to this

Q.7
'That is not what i meant at all,/ That is not it at all.'
Write an alternative account of the love song of J Alfred Prufrock from the point of view of one of the women whose arms are 'braceleted white and bare' in the poem. This should be in prose; your version should relate to the original by picking up several specific references from it and working them into your account. It should not just mirror Eliot's poem all the same, but should look to add something of its own. Questions to resolve before starting include what class these women are, and in what period?

That pile of shit is what they call a "creative writing" option. Creative writing my ****ing ass, thats surely "restrictive writing". Im learning absolutely **** all from this Pretentious wank course, and thats what they serve me up to try and be creative with.

This is easy.

Morever it could be fun, FUN, FUN!

Just figure out whether the woman is a rich or a poor woman.

If she is a poor woman then make up a story in which she is a prostitute and just write a fun story about a hooker.

If she is a rich woman then make it so that she has an unloving marriage and screws about alot.

Either way ... "fun".

You just need a parallel story that can run alongside the original (ie how would a hooker/adulterer meet the author/main character of the original story).

If you think the guy who is setting the questions is being a dick then just keep with the Rankin winning formula of "all women are whores and should be treated as such" ... even in stories you write.

[Deffeh]

i did another question, and its probably the worst essay ive ever written. but i dont care, because my bollocks will still be bigger than those of my english tutor, regardless of what piece of shit essay i hand in

[Dace]

Originally Posted by Deffeh

i did another question, and its probably the worst essay ive ever written. but i dont care, because my bollocks will still be bigger than those of my english tutor, regardless of what piece of shit essay i hand in

Deffeh isn't bitter "honest".