Where do you see the world 60 years? (Page 5)

ImmortalCow

Feb 23, 2013

ImmortalCow

NON-EXISTING!

Join Date: May 2012

Feb 23, 2013

A lot of tests do require memorization on a macro scale. This is a failure of education systems to adjust to the climate of the current technology and the availability of information. I've had to study units that are basically entirely memorization. I don't enjoy them, and it's useless. Why do I have to emulate google? The existing one is really good already.

Lushsmoke

Feb 23, 2013

Lushsmoke

Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2012

Feb 23, 2013

This will probably happen

1: The world becomes Very technologic That they accidently create some super crap that becomes a threat
2: The world is all ruined and just a dust land because of war (Example world war 3)

This is what I see

I'm ready for my daily dose of cringe ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

☼hanz0

Feb 23, 2013

☼hanz0

learning to doctor
don't bother me

Join Date: Feb 2008

Feb 23, 2013

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

A lot of tests do require memorization on a macro scale. This is a failure of education systems to adjust to the climate of the current technology and the availability of information. I've had to study units that are basically entirely memorization. I don't enjoy them, and it's useless. Why do I have to emulate google? The existing one is really good already.

Inclined to agree. I had a biochem exam last week that was almost purely "vomit up some minutiae you memorized 10 minutes before the exam," and it was just a complete waste of my time. I'm about 99% sure that actual scientists don't memorize shit like the exact stoichiometries of all the reactions in photosynthesis - if they need to know that for some reason they'll just look it up.

I'd much rather be a scientist who has to look some facts up but actually knows what to do with them than one who can say lots of words and numbers but hasn't got a fucking clue what they mean.

I realize that maybe it's harder to write tests where (God forbid) you actually have to apply concepts in novel ways, and I realize that those types of tests don't tend to be popular with students (Oh my god, we actually have to think about the concepts?!), but making people memorize and vomit up details that no self-respecting professional would bother memorizing is not the way to test one's ability to do anything worthwhile.

"i wish i could do that ken watanabe face where his eyes are really wide" -siku 2015
DONSELUKE, MASTER OF LAWSUIT
if you love america please sign this petition
B&B&B&

Regent101

Feb 24, 2013

Regent101

Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2013

Feb 24, 2013

I think nobody wants to post anymore because they are scared of Hanz0...

We're all going to Hell, we may as well go out in style
Death is a promise, and your life is a fucking lie

Kidflash13

Feb 24, 2013

Kidflash13

Member

Join Date: Aug 2012

Feb 24, 2013

Originally Posted by Regent101

I think nobody wants to post anymore because they are scared of Hanz0...

Maybe, or everyone who knows anything about anything can see what he just said was 100% true.

"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -Friedrich Nietzsche

Dayern

Feb 26, 2013

Dayern

Member

Join Date: Feb 2013

Feb 26, 2013

Originally Posted by ImmortalCow

A lot of tests do require memorization on a macro scale. This is a failure of education systems to adjust to the climate of the current technology and the availability of information. I've had to study units that are basically entirely memorization. I don't enjoy them, and it's useless. Why do I have to emulate google? The existing one is really good already.

I agree to a certain point in the first statement, "Educational systems" will be just making technology dependant studients if they adjust the education climate to the new technology. that's a big aberration.

Because if you don't "emulate Google", you'll make yourself a technology dependant person. think about a situation were internet dies... where do you get the information you seek?... books? Go ahead and read about a complex matter in a book, it'd be a easy task if you are used to do that, but if you only investigate in internet sites (where the info seems to be less complex and dense), it'd be surely a hard task. you'd eventually get sick of books. plus, the availability of information in a specialized book may be the same or higher than any site of internet, but it's harder to get to what are you going to read in a book than the internet. internet is in almost every place, a specialized book isn't in every place.

Your kind of claiming is just from a lazy person; Just "eat" all the information as much as you can, I'm sure that almost all scientists manage to learn shit like the exact stoichiometries of all the reactions in photosynthesis, that's why they go so far in life.

Last edited by Dayern; Feb 26, 2013 at 03:01 AM.

☼hanz0

Feb 26, 2013

☼hanz0

learning to doctor
don't bother me

Join Date: Feb 2008

Feb 26, 2013

Originally Posted by Dayern

Your kind of claiming is just from a lazy person; Just "eat" all the information as much as you can, I'm sure that almost all scientists manage to learn shit like the exact stoichiometries of all the reactions in photosynthesis, that's why they go so far in life.

Except not really.

Do you honestly think that real scientists have every little factoid about the systems they study memorized? No, great scientists are great because they're capable of processing and applying concepts in novel ways, not because they can vomit up words and numbers on command.

I don't bother memorizing minutiae because it reflects nothing about my ability to do anything worthwhile, as I've already said. If preferring to actually know science (Hey, did you know that I actually work in a biochemistry lab? Did you also know that not once have I been asked to memorize and then regurgitate a bunch of information? Instead, I have to do this weird thing called "analysis." It doesn't involve any rote memorization, and clearly that means it's not real learning!) makes me lazy, then so be it.

Last edited by hanz0; Feb 26, 2013 at 04:00 AM.

"i wish i could do that ken watanabe face where his eyes are really wide" -siku 2015
DONSELUKE, MASTER OF LAWSUIT
if you love america please sign this petition
B&B&B&

AzureMage

Feb 26, 2013

AzureMage

High Seraph

Join Date: Oct 2011

Feb 26, 2013

Originally Posted by Turtlenecks

The rest of your post isn't really worth mentioning, so I'm just going to respond to this part.

Kurzweill (world-acclaimed inventor and now (as of Dec 2012) the Director of Engineering at Google) has about a 85-90% success rates on all the predictions he's made about future tech over the last 20 years. He's amongst the most educated minds the human race has to offer. This is a smart, smart guy we're talking about. Smarter than you, in fact.

Kurzweil predicts the nanotechnology revolution to occur in the 2020's.

So, even though you did repeat yourself, I think I'm going to trust Kurzweil over you on this one.

Edit: for prediction facts.

Double Edit: For some reason AzureMage PMed me his response instead of posting it here. Since it's relevant to the discussion and has a nice morale message to it, I've posted our exchange below.

unnecessarily wide screenshot

I pm'd you because this discussion wasn't limited to this thread, I don't know why you prefer to have an audience, but I was trying to stop a back and forth from taking up pages of this thread. Basically what I was trying to say could most similarly be compared to what Dayern has said.

I hate debating in this thread mostly because when people are presented with a question they instantaneously retreat to google and drag back some theories, and proceed to hide behind said theory as it were fact and automatically viable, dismissing anything said to them. What needs to be understood is that in an opinion based thread especially about something as fickle as the future everyone's opinion is on equal terms research or not. Even if research is provided all it is, is someone else's opinion which is ultimately useless considering no person can see the future. I based my opinion on what technology we have and how mankind has taken a constant decline in morals and choices. You based yours on what some scientist thinks we will have in the future, and you seem to have the impression that, that somehow makes your opinion more important. Denying what someone else says simply because you don't believe it doesn't make them ignorant. It simply means that you're one of those people that just cover their ears and make noises to drown out any other opinions. Without understanding you cannot proceed, without fully understanding the situation you can never grasp it.

Turtle I hate debating against you for this very reason, you dismissed my opinion because you deemed it ignorant. I fully understand that research is needed in most cases, but I thought with shows like 16& pregnant and marijuana being pushed to be legalized that I wouldn't have to explain why mankind's morals were crumbling when anyone could simply turn on the tv and see. You didn't provide any facts relevant to the discussion all you've done was say that my statements were ignorant and make claims that life changing things are coming soon, which when concerning a topic that is beyond comprehension at the end of the day is nothing. Just an opinion same as anyone else's.

And I think nobody is posting here because it went off topic about 3 pages ago

☼hanz0

Feb 26, 2013

☼hanz0

learning to doctor
don't bother me

Join Date: Feb 2008

Feb 26, 2013