Right on brother. I agree.
Right on brother.
Most of what Faraday did was tinkering around with things that he did not fully understand, it was Maxwell who created the basis of all modern theories of electromagnetism from the data. Wozniak had an ECE degree from Berkeley, Musk has an economics + physics degree from Upenn, Bill Gates was a published scholar www.sciencedirect.com/.../0012365X79900682 they might be dropouts but nobody would consider them lacking in education. Funny thing is, being a dropout Bill Gates never trusted his company to another dropout. Dude actually tried to kick Allen (the other dropout) out, and succeeded. He only recruited people with a degree to actually build things and manage things, same with Zuckerberg, Musk, Jobs etc. (you can apply for a job at their companies websites if you dont believe me) In fact Bill Gates handed CEO position to his classmate Steve Balmer who a) scored higher than him in Putnam competition b) graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. It's important to realize most people don't believe education is the only `cause` for skill and intelligence, that belief might get uneducated people seething with inferiority complex, but it is merely a strong `correlation`, awareness of this strong correlation is the basis of the criteria in modern job market/entrepreneurship. Online courses are a meme, and only work for people who already had a degree and knew the method of questioning/learning. Most people take MOOCs are people with degree studying another field, I am TA for one of those courses about Machine learning.
@IlyaTheImpaler "Most of what Faraday did was tinkering around with things that he did not fully understand" so literally every single scientist that has ever lived? That's quite literally the point of science, to observe and try and understand that which you do not. Further more as you yourself pointed out, it was his work that allowed the modern theories of electromagnetism to be created, again like every single other scientists that has ever existed and ever will hence the very famous quote of men standing on the shoulders of giants.Elon Musk did not become intelligent from education, he had already taught himself how to program by the time he was twelve so suggesting his education had something to do with his success is inaccurate (I misstated, I misread and thought that he had only graduated college after his success with bitcoin and his first software company).As for the rest my statement still stands, education is not the same as intelligence and it never will be. In fact one can argue that education currently holds you back as data has shown that one, its far over priced, two that most don't even get a career in their major, and three they actually leave university/college more ignorant then when they entered (as we have been keeping track of this since the 50s. They have seen a decrease in reading comprehension, knowledge of civics and history etc. Its so sever that Harvard students entering the university scored consistently better then those graduating.).
@IlyaTheImpaler So again, education is not the source of intelligence or skill that it is claimed to be and in most cases those who judge others on education do so only to justify their own investment in education and to prop themselves up. Again, we have ample examples of revolutionary technology and businesses and discoveries being made by people who never went to college (again, like bill gates who dropped out of Harvard to start Microsoft or Richard Branson who also never went to college etc. etc.).I'm not saying you cannot go to college or university, I'm merely pointing out that it has nothing to do with intelligence nor does it have anything to do with success in life as again, many have been quite successful without it. Their are a few things its still good for but over all in this day and age its predominantly used for elitism, to have the privilege of telling the world how much better you are then others, hence so many trying to disregard the many people who have been intelligent and successful without it (because it then cannot be justified as a source of "intellectual superiority", its just a training facility).
No, that is not how people do science, not in this era. Scientists do something else after tinkering with what they don't understand, distinctively different from Faraday. They build a model that could be used to logically deduce their data and they understand that model. There is a huge difference between doing science and gathering data about the unknowns, make up some names for some pattern, call it a `law`, then name it after yourself. That's not an acceptable practice in modern era, that job can be automated by basic algorithms taught to first years such as linear regression.To make it easier to understand, the situation with electrodynamics is this:Imagine someone threw a stone on a pond and it made some splashes, and there's this dude who goes around studying all the details of the pond surface, how the water splashes around, how the ripples spread etc. He gains great fame in 'discovering' bazillions of rules about the shapes of the ripples: this looks like an ellipse, that looks like a parabola, that looks like a circle, etc. how they all represent the beauty in God's work (this first dude was a hardcore Christian). And then there's another dude who postulates about the existence of the stone, he writes one single equation about the stone hitting the water, explains all the patterns found by the first dude, and predicts where to find the stone at the bottom of the pond. I would say the second guy understood the phenomenon. That's Maxwell.
I think Faraday's a great experimentalist, and what he did could be considered good science in 18th century, but today, it's more `data accounting` than `science`. It took many other people to turn his work into usable equations we have today. We should be thankful because that means there is progress. Data accounting is important work, I don't want to dismiss Faraday's inventions, but I don't support laymen fetishizing the science when it suits their opinion. Newton, for example, did the experiments, formulated the theory, and even created the new field of math in the process. Faraday just doesn't belong to the same category.About the Harvard survey I dont think there's any actual study done by people who know statistics. It's likely just some biased survey done on cherry picked samples. It's the difference between blogposts and scientific articles. When people write blogs or articles for some news website they don't care about peer reviews or scientific standards. What you can know about this world are mostly statistical, and statistics says education is an essential criteria when a random person look at another random person. It's the correlation. You don't look at random guy without a degree and think there's a chance he's a future Bill Gates, but if he graduates from Harvard you know there's a high chance he is intelligent, there's a smaller chance he's not. To think otherwise is just simply irrational and it also means you ignore data and is clearly biased. The infrastructure of the modern world from the website you're using to your OS and your smartphone, they are built and maintained by people who are produced by the education system. I've literally never seen anyone use their education to dismiss uneducated people but I've seen plenty of uneducated people who have done nothing useful dismiss the education system and complain about elitism lol
I mean, to summarize, my whole point is, just reread your post: you've found less than 10 examples in the last 200 years among billions that (after some serious mental gymnastic) can support your hypothesis that `no education` and `skill/intelligence` can go together, but you have also ignored 99.99999% of the data where `education` and `skill/intelligence` do go together, then you conclude that, `education` and `skill/intelligence` are in fact, unrelated. LOL.Let's just ignore the huge issue with putting people who went to Harvard then dropped out under `no education` category. This could be used as a textbook example of confirmation bias, and what happen when one doesn't understand the concept of statistical correlation.
@IlyaTheImpaler No, scientists still tinker with things to figure out how they work. Some times they end up looking for one thing and finding something completely different in the process. This is science, it is data driven but that data is acquired through observation and experimentation. As for the survey its done by the united states government and its not bullshit. We have been keeping tabs on this for about 70 years and they have shown that this is the case because unsurprisingly talking to a person in a specific building has no baring on intelligence or ability. I'm not saying that education is meaningless, I'm saying that claiming its the only path and if you have it your intelligent is provably false. www.nysun.com/.../
What do you mean "no" 😂 I clearly wrote that just observing and experimenting is not enough. You need to have a model that gives you hypotheses and predictions. No model = no science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modellingIt seems your idea of scientists comes from pop sci tv channels. They like to romanticize the case such as scientists finding some surprise cure for cancer while microscopically photographing bee penis or something like that. But in reality, especially in this big data era, you don't lack data, you would spend more time building mathematical models to explain the huge amount of data you have. Building models might be a foreign idea to Faraday, but to a modern scientists it is indispensable.About that article, I was expecting something more than a news article, but fine. Basically it says if you test specialized university graduates on their ability to remember useless trivia, they do worse than the high school graduates, wow! This might sound shocking to you, but the ability to memorize history trivia is irrelevant to intelligence. Okay? so don't try to memorize so much, it might make you feel good that you know some trivia that Harvard graduates forgot, but it does nothing for your problem solving skills, the actual useful skills.
The language of the report and the content of the quizzes suggest these people at this Intercollegiate Studies Institute are heavily biased and don't understand the basics about education. The lack of proper polling statistics and error margins show that these guys either don't know how to conduct a scientific study or they just don't care about science, they seem to care more about how to propagate their political agenda. It's even written in the article that historians themselves doubt these quizzes, why would you want your future chemical engineers or medical doctors to spend your `taxpayer` money learning some trivia irrelevant to their profession? I can tell you right now that STEM majors take zero history class, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg took zero economic/history class too, they probably dropped out before they had to take it lmao. It will always be that way. Despite all that, Harvard graduates are evidently more useful to the world than the history buffs from this Intercollegiate Studies Institute. How many Nobel Laureates, entrepreneurs or scientists has the Intercollegiate Studies Institute produced since 2007? 😂 "talking to a person in a specific building has no baring on intelligence or ability"I dont think you have any idea what actually goes on in a real university sir, I can give you a map and you probably wouldn't be able to find out how to get to a class through which gate.Also no one claims `its the only path and if you have it your intelligent`, that's a silly conclusion. I was just pointing out how confirmation bias and not knowing what correlation means can lead to equally silly conclusion such as `education has nothing to do with intelligence or skill`. I don't believe all people without degrees are stupid, but all I've talked to have showed serious effort in resisting to learn new things. Regardless of what you tell them, their points still stand, indeed, their thinking always `stand`, because that's the opposite of learning.
@IlyaTheImpaler I mean no, just because you said it doesn't make it so. We do tinker, we still tinker, they just found something that could be used to cure all cancers and it was while looking for something completely different and they still don't understand how it happened. That's directly conflicting with your statement but that is how science work you try to understand things, then you collect your data. Just because its not how you would do it or how many others do it doesn't mean its not science, that's just absurd. Listen I don't care if you went to college or not, if you want to try and use that as an excuse to validate yourself go for it, but its never going to change the facts which I have presented you and you have yet to be able to refute (from those who have become insanely successful not going to college to people who haven't gone to college furthering science). Their is no argument here, this was just an objective statement not an opinion. If you want to argue that formal education can get you into a better position in the long run vs. not using it fine, that's an argument that can be made (and one that I wouldn't necessarily disagree with depending on what they went to school for), but arguing that you need formal education to matter or to be successful is objectively false and their is no arguing against that.
The situation is simply that you said `no` when I presented the full picture of what everyone agreed to be scientific methods https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling , and insist that doing half of what everyone agreed is still science. If you see what I wrote contradicts your vision of what science is, it's because you only see half (If I'm being generous here) of what the scientists do when they deal with things they dont understand: Even if they don't understand `cancer` they still need to understand the mathematical model they're using to predict the effects of `the cure` on different target species (e. g from rats to humans). A mathematical model was what Faraday lacked, it's also what his predecessors like Galileo and Newton (both lived centuries before Faraday) did NOT lack. It is not be possible to do physics in the modern era if you lack a model. It's from that model that scientists get their hypothesis and their predictions, so they can test these predictions against experiments.What you presented aren't facts, they are half facts at most. Those people are successful yes, but if there are two categories: `educated` vs `uneducated`, it is your opinion that Bill Gates or Elon Musk or Zuckerberg belong to the `uneducated` group together with lumberjacks, janitors, strippers etc. From the half facts premise you draw the conclusion that there is `marked lack of intelligence to presume that education had anything to do with skill or intelligence `. That conclusion was refuted simply by looking at statistical correlation, which I pointed out in my first reply. It also follows from your conclusion that Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs etc (all of whom clearly look for skilled intelligent employees) ALL lack intelligence when they only recruit people with degrees lol
See, I'm just quoting you and use logic and statistics. You seem to think I was arguing that "you need formal education to matter or to be successful" (I repeatedly pointed out that this was not my point) or that I was validating myself lol more like I was validating logic, science and statistics. Perhaps what you want to say is "it's possible to be successful without a formal education", but what you wrote was "formal education has nothing to do with skill and intellect". The former claim is agreeable, the latter claim is a demonstrably wrong statistical claim. I think this will be the 3rd time I'm repeating this: your conclusion only follows if you ignore 99.999...% of the data. Your conclusion is not a fact, half of your premise are facts. Since there is no point in refuting someone who treat their opinions as facts, I'm gonna stop here.by the way look at this if you like facts: patentlyo.com/.../many-patents-issued.html looks like our college alumni are doing pretty well in the Silicon Valley (so I validate myself by data, okay 😂). If you find something new in what I wrote (e. g scientific methods or the history of electrodynamics or statistical correlation to measure how two things relate) you can simply update your knowledge, don't think of it as arguing against someone 😂. That, sir, is the way to gain knowledge if you're not formally educated. We're good, yea?Adios ✌
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions