Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re GUY MACON
From: John Woodgate (jmw_at_jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk)
Date: 09/24/04
- Next message: Bob Stephens: "Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re GUY MACON"
- Previous message: Phil Hobbs: "Re: Crystal drift"
- In reply to: Mike: "Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re GUY MACON"
- Next in thread: Bob Stephens: "Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re GUY MACON"
- Reply: Bob Stephens: "Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re GUY MACON"
- Reply: John Woodgate: "Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re GUY MACON"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 16:34:33 +0100
I read in sci.electronics.design that Mike <mike@nospam.com> wrote (in
<7olltogimz8z$.vybemiiiyxyl.dlg@40tude.net>) about 'Ping Kevin Aylward -
re GUY MACON', on Fri, 24 Sep 2004:
>On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 13:27:51 GMT, Kevin Aylward wrote:
>
>> John Woodgate wrote:
>>> I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
>>> <salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote (in
>>> <qaw4d.64767$U04.25646@fe1.news.b lueyonder.co.uk>) about 'Ping Kevin
>>> Aylward - re GUY MACON', on Thu, 23 Sep 2004:
>>>
>>>> Although not having a degree by itself, is not a measure of worth,
>>>
>>> Right.
>>>> I
>>>> would suggest than those here with degrees, fully understand that
>>>> such a background as this, makes the candidate have no realistic
>>>> chance of making any worthwhile contribution or comments on
>>>> technical physics matters.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily.
>>
>> Not necessarily, but 0.00000000001% of a chance.
>
>With these odds, even if every person on Earth had failed to obtain a
>degree, the odds of one single person satisfying the conditions are less
>than 1 in 1000.
>
>Further, this incredibly low probability is purported to abruptly change to
>a vastly larger probability upon receipt of a degree.
>
Attribution is getting a bit difficult. Our Kev wrote the long decimal.
The probability doesn't change on *receipt* of a degree, since you can
buy one today on the net. What is necessary in order to be able to
contribute usefully to such a thread is an understanding of the basic
concepts and processes used in this field. This applies to ANY field
other than the most trivial.
How can such an understanding be obtained? Well, many people obtain it
by *studying* science at tertiary level. Some don't graduate, yet they
learn enough about the philosophy of science to count. It's also
possible, but much more difficult without a special aptitude, to obtain
the understanding by private study. I know two people who have done
this, one with more integrity than the other. Some people here may have
learned a bit about it from this thread; I hope so.
University degrees hardly existed before 1000 AD. The oldest university
is probably either one in Cairo or one in Fez (not that these were set
up by the people now disparaged as 'ragheads!). The first university in
Europe was founded in Bologna in 1088. Oxford (UK) dates from 1219.
This means that Greek science and philosophy, Greek and Roman
architecture, Roman military engineering and much of Arabic mathematics,
was developed by people who 'didn't have a degree'.
-- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. The good news is that nothing is compulsory. The bad news is that everything is prohibited. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk
- Next message: Bob Stephens: "Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re GUY MACON"
- Previous message: Phil Hobbs: "Re: Crystal drift"
- In reply to: Mike: "Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re GUY MACON"
- Next in thread: Bob Stephens: "Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re GUY MACON"
- Reply: Bob Stephens: "Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re GUY MACON"
- Reply: John Woodgate: "Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re GUY MACON"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|