I’m curious to see how this plays out.
h/t Popular Mechanics
I’m curious to see how this plays out.
h/t Popular Mechanics
I believe this is what TRS refer to as a ‘chimp-out’. Can’t imagine why.
They are moral absolutes founded in religion.
I find it astounding how little self-awareness atheists display when they use those words, without a superhuman or divine arbiter. They don’t like the concept of a list they cannot edit, one with Encouraged (virtue) and Forbidden (vice).
The mere words themselves are religious.
The Good and the (D)evil.
They have no meaning as relative terms. It’s cute to see them try.
It’s as irrational as equating light and dark. One is the presence of bouncing photons, the other an absence. Nobody would mistake the two.
Humans are animals that may be noble. Morality is the lantern leading the way out of that primeval darkness.
Most supposed utilitarianism is incorrectly calculated. It is sum good over infinite time. As in, a perspective of low time preference, yet many examples you see falsely persist in giving short-termist examples. These short-term examples are, in fact, hedonic. They last as long as the feedback loop in the brain to motivate selfish action e.g. stealing food. OK, but what happens after? Once you are sated? These examples do not fit, they are not utilitarian, because true utilitarianism recognizes the ripple effect of long-term consequences. That is why Communism, while being collectivist and allocentric, is NOT utilitarian. Because it cannot be sustained without bloodshed and mass murder and rape. Communism is only utilitarian from the elite arbiter’s perspective. They’re literally playing God and this allows them, as human animals, to do great evil. See the connection here?
In case you think that was a petty example, the same holds true for atheist nations. They do not exist. They have never existed and sustained themselves. They are selected out by evolution, as was the neurobiology of faith selected for.
Nowadays we hear plenty of minority opinions as if they are fact. If they brought in direct democracy, gay marriage would have never passed in America. Many liberal causes are minority causes, they should be arguing against any and all utilitarianism.
It’s all ‘performance art‘. All of it.
What is performance art? Nobody knows.
What makes it good or bad? There are no standards.
Why do they do it? It makes a lot of money and allows rich people to avoid taxes. The Left don’t have a problem with that type of tax evasion scheme.
See also: Why is modern art so bad?
The course, titled “What Is the Good Life,” is now required for all incoming UF students—including those in STEM. Students from all majors read works like Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” and Hermann Hesse’s Siddhartha, take part in social justice exercises, attend museum exhibits and theater performances and even practice yoga.
Politics has no place in science.
In many instances, it interferes with clinical detachment. I don’t wanna hear my doctor’s opinion on the wage gap.
I bet the students hate it. Annoyingly the other course sounds good. Then…
“They’re so used to order and structure, and life isn’t like that,” Gillooly tells Quartz. “We’ve taken this notion of objectivity to the extreme.”
Their premise is false, liberal arts are bigger than ever.
And even if it were failing, it isn’t the duty of STEM to prop up the Arts.
If a student chooses a major, they should be allowed to study it in peace. These are adults. Sure, give them the option, but making it compulsory says one thing loud and clear: we don’t care what you want. Many students, these people are adults, want to keep their subject pure, and spend all their time developing mastery in it, this is a distraction, time away from studying the cutting edge. It weakens their competitiveness, say, with students in Japan.
Some institutions are trying to better integrate scientific thinking and the humanities by moving from STEM to STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts and mathematics). The movement, spearheaded by the Rhode Island School of Design, aims to place art and design at the center of STEM-based curricula.
Well they’re not biased.
Art is subjective. STEM is objective. They are sworn enemies. Offering the second art course is fine, draining STEM like a parasite because liberal arts is full is inter-subject war, they’d rather hack it up and destroy STEM than see them succeed.
There is one thing that would trip them up. Most scientists are deeply creative.
Many scientists practice an art as a hobby, as I’ve mentioned before. The scientists in STEM are perfectly capable of teaching arts without any ‘help’ from the liberal arts departments.
And if this goes one way, surely it should go both, and STEM should demand all liberal arts majors take just as many hours in STEM? IQ entrance requirements be damned, since they wanna put these people into Education, a retarded major by their average IQ. Hold them to the same standard too, we want to treat everyone equally…
Make no mistake, this is about control and money.
Next they’ll be telling scientists what is forbidden to study.
European troops = EU agents.
I take no delight in this, but put it this way: we’ve known for some time. The people who go in for these jobs want to work with children in a place with no cameras. We never thought we’d find evidence of them actually being caught, though. We’d heard rumours of child servants and only giving out charity donations on receipt of sexual favours.
Nice to see it come out. Poor kids.
OT: The vaccine brigade would do well to remember the field has problems…
Don’t expect that cure for cancer soon, the charities should be sued for false advertising.
This is mostly a pharma finding.
Something is rotten in the state of biomedical research. Everyone who works in the field knows this on some level. We applaud presentations by colleagues at conferences, hoping that they will extend the same courtesy to us, but we know in our hearts that the majority or even the vast majority of our research claims are false.
This paper linked: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124#pmed-0020124-b6
When it came to light that the biotechnology firm Amgen tried to reproduce 53 “landmark” cancer studies and managed to confirm only six, scientists were “shocked.”
Sure they were.