Another Reason You Will Never Retire.....

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**nfe**

Just Tony wrote:
nfe wrote:

Spoiler:

Edited down because spoiler tags failed.

Reread the damn thread, I wasn't the one who was making the argument, I simply agreed.

I also am the one that said the stupid fething diploma wasn't worthless, just that all the information given to get said degree is readily accessible to anyone who is literate and has internet. I'm the one saying subsidizing college is a stupid idea because it would encourage even more worthless gak degrees getting passed out to people who aren't informed about their choices and saddles more debt on people that shouldn't be called upon to pay for someone's colossally stupid life mistakes.

All the information is not accessible without an institutional affiliation or masses of money, as I pointed out earlier.

Which degrees are worthless? Why?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
As for university costing too much, I’m sure some do, a lot of money seems to get wasted, but also when you break it down on a course by course basis it’s often not as bad as you might think when you consider the infrastructure, lecturers and tutors required, and academics usually are well but not extremely well paid (often the same skill set in industry would make them more money).

Depends on the country, the degree, and the institution, but many definitely do charge too much. No degree costs Ivy League money to teach. Few non-medical ones cost Russel Group money. Alas, those of us teaching them see very, very little of it, even in terms of research funding. High fees are primarily there to ensure institutions and senior non-teaching make vast incomes.

**AllSeeingSkink**

I’ve often wondered who makes all the money at universities, because all the wages at our university are open for anyone to see and none of them are terribly impressive. It seems, at least at my university, a lot of the money goes in to infrastructure, new buildings or renovating old ones, and a lot of ancillary stuff like security, grounds keepers, and so on. But maybe some folk are making money hand over fist, the only people I know who have made a lot of money at my university are a few blokes who operated their own businesses or consultancies from the university.

Or the people who contract for the uni. Like builders and electricians and whatnot seem to add a zero to their price when they see it’s from the university.

**Kanluwen**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I’ve often wondered who makes all the money at universities, because all the wages at our university are open for anyone to see and none of them are terribly impressive. It seems, at least at my university, a lot of the money goes in to infrastructure, new buildings or renovating old ones, and a lot of ancillary stuff like security, grounds keepers, and so on. But maybe some folk are making money hand over fist, the only people I know who have made a lot of money at my university are a few blokes who operated their own businesses or consultancies from the university.

Or the people who contract for the uni. Like builders and electricians and whatnot seem to add a zero to their price when they see it’s from the university.

It's usually the folk highest up, but it's not straight cash that is their "reward" for running the university. Things like a fancy car, paid for housing w/ staff, etc.

At least here in the US.

**nareik**

Would it be cheaper to found your own university and just contract a professor to outline a syllabus, then hire lecturers to deliver it through private tuition?

When i went to uni a decade or so ago we did not receive many hours of lecture or tuition. It was like an hour or two a day tops. Lots of break between semesters. Maybe a thousand hours of 'assisted learning' (lectures, tutorials, etc) across the course.

How much would it cost to pay the professor to outline a sylabus and for 1000 hours worth of time from lecturers compared to however much uni costs in the UK/US now?

What would the advantages of such intense 1:1 tuition be compared to a convensional establishment uni? What hoops would need to be jumped through in order to make such a 'homeuniversitied' course accreddited?

**nfe**

nareik wrote:
Would it be cheaper to found your own university and just contract a professor to outline a syllabus, then hire lecturers to deliver it through private tuition?

When i went to uni a decade or so ago we did not receive many hours of lecture or tuition. It was like an hour or two a day tops. Lots of break between semesters. Maybe a thousand hours of 'assisted learning' (lectures, tutorials, etc) across the course.

How much would it cost to pay the professor to outline a sylabus and for 1000 hours worth of time from lecturers compared to however much uni costs in the UK/US now?

What would the advantages of such intense 1:1 tuition be compared to a convensional establishment uni? What hoops would need to be jumped through in order to make such a 'homeuniversitied' course accreddited?

Teaching staff (even pure teaching contracts with no research) aren't just paid for contact hours.

If you had 1000 hours of contact time (though that seems pretty high) then the hours wprked by lecturing staff is going to be, as an absolute minimum, three times that not including marking or admin and assuming the basic content is largely written already. At university tutor rates at most Russell Groups that'll be paying around £17 an hour.

If you need to actually write the course you can probably treble the worked hours again.

**Easy E**

This is just another strain of "Experts don't KNOW more than what I FEEL with my gut." Therefore, education and expertise is worthless.

I am really tired of hearing this argument.

No one in the public would try to tell a CNC Machine operator how to run their machine better. However, a lot of people in the public feel that they can tell a scientist how to science better or a teacher how to teach better. Laughable.

**NinthMusketeer**

Just Tony wrote:
NinthMusketeer wrote:Guys, you are missing the subtle brilliance of Tony's post. He is demonstrating the difference first hand!

You think you're deep, you're not. For the record, my wife is in the medical field and can probably line you up with a good proctologist who can help you with where you need to stick your condescending attitude.

I admit it was indulgent on my part and in hindsight I should have have said it. But I also didn't expect it to go over your head, let alone by that much.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:
This is just another strain of "Experts don't KNOW more than what I FEEL with my gut." Therefore, education and expertise is worthless.

I am really tired of hearing this argument.

No one in the public would try to tell a CNC Machine operator how to run their machine better. However, a lot of people in the public feel that they can tell a scientist how to science better or a teacher how to teach better. Laughable.

So incredibly true. I will note that there is a political side that promotes such a mentality, but going further would mean getting into politics.

**AllSeeingSkink**

Easy E wrote:
This is just another strain of "Experts don't KNOW more than what I FEEL with my gut." Therefore, education and expertise is worthless.

I am really tired of hearing this argument.

No one in the public would try to tell a CNC Machine operator how to run their machine better. However, a lot of people in the public feel that they can tell a scientist how to science better or a teacher how to teach better. Laughable.

I tell our CNC machinists how they might run their machines better, they’ll also tell me how to design my parts better, so it’s a two way street, lol.

I think people should absolutely be sceptical of “experts”, I always start by assuming people are bullshitting me regardless of their qualifications, but self teaching is a lot more difficult than some might think, and without the structure of a university there’s not much way of knowing if people have actually covered the basics properly.

Easy E wrote:
This is just another strain of "Experts don't KNOW more than what I FEEL with my gut." Therefore, education and expertise is worthless.

I am really tired of hearing this argument.

No one in the public would try to tell a CNC Machine operator how to run their machine better. However, a lot of people in the public feel that they can tell a scientist how to science better or a teacher how to teach better. Laughable.

Reminds me of what Hegel said in The Phenomenology of Spirit:

If the ratiocinative attitude is a hindrance to the study of philosophy, the conceit that flaunts settled truths without any ratiocination is no less so. The possessor of such truths sees no need to come back to them; he makes them the foundation and believes he can not only express them, but also judge and dispute by means of them. In view of this, it is particularly necessary that philosophizing should be made a serious business again. In the case of all sciences, arts, skills, and crafts, people are convinced that a complex and laborious programme of learning and practice is necessary for competence. Yet when it comes to philosophy, it seems that the dominant prejudice is now that, although not everyone who has eyes and fingers, and gets leather and a tool, is thereby in a position to make shoes, everyone nevertheless immediately understands how to philosophize, and how to evaluate philosophy, since he possesses the yardstick for it in his natural reason—as if he did not equally possess the measure of a shoe in his own foot.—It seems that philosophical competence is made to consist precisely in lack of information and study, as though philosophy left off where they begin. Philosophy is often regarded as a formal kind of knowledge, void of content, and the insight is sorely lacking that, whatever truth there may be in the content of any discipline or science, it can only deserve the name if it has been engendered by philosophy; that the other sciences can try their hand as much as they like at ratiocination without philosophy, but without it they can have in them neither life, nor spirit, nor truth.

One of Hegel's rare times of being blunt and right to the point,

**queen_annes_revenge**

Isn't that something to do with the dunning kruger effect? I agree mostly with what's been said, however there are times where I believe its healthy to be skeptical of what experts say, particularly if those experts have agendas or financial incentive. Look at (former) Dr Andrew Wakefield and the vaccine-autism debacle.

**skyth**

There's a difference between being a reasonable skeptic and blanket ignoring science and treating it like an opinion.

When the 'expert' if going against scientific consensus, (Like Vaccines are good, Man-Made Climate Change is real, or Evolution happened) then there's very good reason to be skeptic and discount them.

But for the most part, scientists and teachers earned their ability and having a layman think they know better really devalues their hard work and contribution to society.

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Isn't that something to do with the dunning kruger effect? I agree mostly with what's been said, however there are times where I believe its healthy to be skeptical of what experts say, particularly if those experts have agendas or financial incentive. Look at (former) Dr Andrew Wakefield and the vaccine-autism debacle.

Well, don't get me wrong, I am not anti-skeptic, or anti-skepticism (in-itself). However, the skeptical approach should be employed with limits. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with questioning authority and lots "right" about it. However, to be radically anti-authority, in the sense of rejecting anything and everything "experts" say, is as nonsensical as simply accepting it without question.

So, as always, we are somewhere betwixt the poles of radical skepticism and radical dogmatism without a clear, quantitative answer to where we should necessarily, rightly, take a stance in the continuum. I don't have a solution for this problem, but my guess would, unsurprisingly, be that we should each be vacillating somewhere near the middle. Of course, in this process, we should likely be considering teleology, bias and resolving ourselves to try to be somewhat Bayesian. However, I'd be the first to admit I have a somewhat anti-stance stance on stances, a paradox I don't have the means to undo. However, I'd personally consider this position as fully tenible, since I don't ever really feel the need to resolve the paradox, "I" simply just am it's sort of dialectical process.

**Easy E**

H- I think the ancient Greek's simply called it the Golden Mean. All things in moderation.

Easy E wrote:
H- I think the ancient Greek's simply called it the Golden Mean. All things in moderation.

Yeah, although I think one can get into some "trouble" in applying that too overtly. To me, it's less about some sort of 50/50 split, but rather more a process where we apply both ends against the mean (and against each end).

**Bran Dawri**

Yeah, personally I tend to judge things on a case-by-case basis, somewhat adjusted by things I know, have experienced or how well it fits into what I know of how the universe (and our tiny corner of it) works.

**Steve steveson**

queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Isn't that something to do with the dunning kruger effect? I agree mostly with what's been said, however there are times where I believe its healthy to be skeptical of what experts say, particularly if those experts have agendas or financial incentive. Look at (former) Dr Andrew Wakefield and the vaccine-autism debacle.

As you say, former. He went against the scientific consensus and lied to get the results that met his personal belief. He was very quickly found out, discredited and lost all standing and accreditation. He is not an example of why you should not trust experts, quite the opposite.

**AllSeeingSkink**

deleted

**nfe**

If you aren't an evolutionary biologist then offering nuanced and comprehensive critique on peer reviewed publications on evolutionary science is almost certainly beyond you. If you aren't a biologist at all then that 'almost' is near-redundant. If you are unable to properly critique the material, your personal opinion on how convincing a certain paper is is pretty much worthless as you definitely do not have the assumed knowledge required to understand it sufficiently within the context of the literature. Even if you could, an individual paper's methodological insufficiency means exactly nothing re: the robustness of an entire field of science.

I don't even know where to start with 'I'm skeptical of the scientific rigor underpinning evolution because I read some papers from another field'.

**AllSeeingSkink**

deleted

**nfe**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

evolutionary science borders on pseudoscience

I think I'll leave it there

**AllSeeingSkink**

deleted

**Not Online!!!**

nfe wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:

evolutionary science borders on pseudoscience

I think I'll leave it there

Considering even the catholic church, a body so learn resistent that it is a wonder it stuck around imo, and i say this as a catholic

, accepts evolution as a fact. And considering that MOST critique comes out of creationist supposed counterexemple based upon complexity of creatures which literally goes something like this:

"the whip tail is so complex and therefore god must exist ergo evolution is bs!" until some palentologist finds another ancient fossil to point to gradual mutation and competition, at which point the generally switch to the next best organ, extremity etc. i kinda rest the point.

I'd wish though for an improved general education, would certainly help out.

**nfe**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
nfe wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:

evolutionary science borders on pseudoscience

I think I'll leave it there

Way to quote what I said out of context. Literally the next sentence I said was that I'm not a strict adherent to the idea that falsifiability is a black and white distinction for what is and isn't science.

But thanks for proving my point that people don't actually bother to reference original scientific research, and instead resort to opinion. It is YOUR opinion that I should blindly believe evolution because someone tells me that someone else who is an expert said I should believe it.

No it isn't. It is my opinion that you aren't capable of troubleshooting the theory of evolution and are at the mercy of experts. You can potentially identify issues in specific papers, but not the validity of a colossal body of literature.

Take it from someone who is actually in a research field, scientists are fallible, the system which we build our knowledge on is fallible. Even in fields based on falsifiable hypotheses and experimentation, it's been a point of critique on the scientific community that no one wants to re-prove another person's work so that our theories can end up built on far less information than they should be.

'Take it from someone who is actually in a research field'. Aye, sound mate. Want to compare PhDs?

Whilst you're at it, it may be worth considering why anyone should take it from you when you've spent several posts telling us why you shouldn't simply pay heed to experts.

Anyway, we're way off topic, so I will leave this hubristic silliness here.

**Haighus**

In my field, people try to re-prove stuff all the time.

Wakefield is the textbook example- loads of people tried to replicate his results, and all of them failed. It was a major part of what lead to his discrediting, alongside the complete lack of ethics in his study.

Basically any research produced by a pharmaceutical company is also treated with a healthy degree of scepticism too, until some independent studies have appeared.

**NinthMusketeer**

Well that's just it--even experts are treated with skepticism when there is only one instance of the thing in question. Further, any expert with integrity would be first in line to suggest if not outright request others test it themselves.

**Da Boss**

There are definite problems with how we construct knowledge with the scientific method, but mostly with the social structures surround it. The system of allocation of funding resources and the tendency not to report on negative results, as well as the volume of work being published and the paucity of resources allocated to checking said work. And of course the fact that the publishing of papers is gated off by profit making companies that rely on the free labour of others for peer review, and the supine way most academics accept this.

However, pointing out flaws in the process is not the same as saying the process is bad and we should ignore it. The process has flaws and we should address them, but it is still the outstanding intellectual achievement of our species and what our entire society is built upon. Without this method of gaining new knowledge we would all be absolutely fethed.

So I think contempt is the correct response to people who blithely go off on one about scientists and experts, but cannot back it up with much more than some internet research or a qualification in an unrelated field.

Several societies are currently being run by people with anti-science views and approaches. Lets see where it gets them.