Leaderboard

My wife started an internship at work where they would have a highly motivated girl of color in one of the inner city high schools get exposure to nursing for a summer. One of the girls selected wanted to pursue nursing after high school. She literally had no idea how to apply, where to apply, how to fill out applications, and could get no help from those in her family as they were just as clueless. My wife basically held her hand through the process. Then it turned out she needed remedial math and some other skills as the high schools didn't really make sure their kids were qualified to move on to the next grade in school. Schools in low income areas cannot afford tutors, resource teachers, computers or in some cases text books like they can in high income areas. My wife had little hope this girl would be successful. It is not that she was not motivated but that she was completely clueless as to how to go about doing it. She was never taught to study, never taught to deal with bureaucracy, buy school supplies, get around barriers to education, didn't know who to contact or what to say to them when she did. Why is it that when removing barriers to education is suggested, it is always the individual and their lack of personal responsibility that is at fault? What part does society play in this?

Most people aren't experts in any particular thing, and if they are then their competence is limited to a specific area. Yet we have a need to make decisions related to many subjects we do not fully understand, and in those cases we often rely upon authoritative people and organizations to guide us in that process. But how can we decide who we should trust? Governments have been malevolent and dishonest in the past, and scientists have gotten things tragically wrong. How should we as laymen decide where to place our faith? Because that's what trusting an authority ultimately is, faith.

I'm sorry to have to tell you that your video is a sorry mixture of fact and fiction that reaches some startling unsupportable conclusions. You will only confuse yourself at best and start to 'believe' junk Physics if you try to study from stuff like this. You question is, however a valid one that is worth a considered answer. The third spatial dimension is necessary in our physical world to achieve closure for a set of rotations. This is also why a fourth spatial dimension is not needed and we do not observe one.

I think ignorance is the real factor here. I think ignorant people rely more on their emotions to help them decide, and when they do that, it's unlikely an intellectual opposing argument is going to influence them. As I mentioned in another thread of yours, I think liberal and conservative are too loosely defined to be meaningful measurements, and actually keep us talking past each other.

If all humans were absolutely equal, we'd all say the exactly the same things, so we couldn't have discussions on this forum, or any other forum, as they'd all be the same.

That is far too vague and general. It means nothing to me. Can you describe the process of what you identify as "academic creation"? Applied science could be used to describe the majority of invention. What makes you think Tesla's approach was different? Many companies make the mistake of trying to sell what they make, rather than what the customer wants/needs. You appear to be about to embark upon a similar error. Rather than figuring out what you might be able to invent you should focus on the largest unanswered needs that could be addressed by new technology.

If MSC chooses to return (with perhaps a slightly thicker skin), then perhaps they will be willing to do a little legwork to prove that we should have a these suggested subsections inside of philosophy by providing us with some statistics of how many e.g. logic threads exist already. Maybe going back a year. Along with some examples so we can check the data. In addition, they could also tag their thread titles (e.g. Some title [logic]) so we can track what happens. With that and other suggested subsections (Meta-ethics, Metaphysics, Epistemology, logic, aesthetics and Phenomenology) You seem to be missing the point. I didn't say we don't apply logic, or that we don't understand logic. I didn't say you don't need to understand logic to do science. I'm saying we don't have to have discussions about logic in order to do good science, which is the kind of discussion you would expect in a logic subsection. You can say the same for math. Physics uses a lot of math But you can have physics discussions independent of the math section, because you don't need to contemplate the purely math considerations. You are using the math, but you are not discussing the math. You can say you need to integrate the force dotted with displacement to get the work — that's a physics question — but that's not a discussion about what a dot product is, or what an integral is, which is what you might discuss in mathematics. IOW, we don't have a mathematics section because you need it to discuss physics. We have a mathematics section because there is a lot of traffic in people discussing mathematics. Which is why "Without logic, no science" is a non-sequitur for making the case of having a logic subforum.

Aaaaarrrrggghhhhh!!!!! I though my previous post did a pretty good job of showing that just wanting it is not enough. The OP asked about what some of the barriers were to equal opportunity in education. You responded by suggesting lack of personal responsibility was the reason people could not get an education. You didn't once acknowledge there are indeed barriers to education in your first post. When I tried to point out some people do indeed run into barriers by giving an example I'm familiar with, you swung back around to 'it's there if you want it'. I don't mean to sound rude, but that is for another thread. This thread is about educational barriers that people encounter that are no fault of their own. You seem to be putting the blame on the victim. It is similar to trying to talk about police brutality against blacks and getting the response that black people deserve it for running, or trying to sell cigarettes illegally, or lots of other things.

I believe that you are refering to logic, if this is the case then you may be attempting to replicate de Morgan's theorum. In which case you are very close. What made you believe that this expression that you came up with is correct. May you missed a small step somewhere in your logic.

(if you're on Windows) did you try winsound.Beep? https://docs.python.org/3/library/winsound.html

Something like that? https://linuxhint.com/play_sound_python/#:~:text=Play Sound Using playsound,the audio filename for playing.

print("\a") The line of code plays the bell sound, which differ from environment to environment. It fulfils the requirements stated in OP: It is some code, producing sound or music. It is a small file (one line) and these type of sound files (where files are used) in the OS are usually small and contains a few seconds of sound. It works in text mode*; there will be a visible bell if audio is disabled in the terminal. *) I made a guess what "I am working in text mode" means.

I disputed the truth/validity of a moderators pride? Uhm... Okay. The mods here don't strike me as the sort to care if I disagree with them or not and I doubt they have plans for retribution. All I know is, I'm glad you're not a moderator.

Quino. R.I.P.

While female and male brains have differences, it would be difficult to pick apart what is truly biological variance between populations and what is cultural conditioning. I vaguely recall a study that found female hippocampi were on average smaller than in males, which was said to explain why men were better navigators. But we also know parts of the brain less used will atrophy. So is it a case of their hippocampi being intrinsically smaller, or a result of gender roles directing its use (or lack of)? When women have risen to prominent historical roles they have pretty much done as men have done - Wu Zetian, Boudicca, Hypatia (but maybe that's because they emerged in patriarchies). There is also evidence of early societies that while not matriarchal, were more balanced. The Spartans are a probably the best documented example, and weren't significantly different from surrounding societies. I've also heard it said men more readily pursue risky pursuits, perhaps leading to voyages such as Colombus'. Assuming this is a neurobiological difference, it wouldn't necessarily preclude risky behaviour from men. Remember Colombus was sponsored by both Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, with the former willing to sell some jewels to fund it (thoough she didn't need to). War would still be conducted by men on the field; aside from differences in physiology making men on average more suited to those demands, sending women to fight would be a flawed strategy. The Romans lost ~300,000 men to Hannibal in the Punic wars from a total population of ~3.5 million - thats a huge proportion. If they had all been women of child-bearing potential Rome would almost certainly have fallen. Overall i don't think there'd be gross changes to the patterns of war, economic cycles, spiritual practices, technological development etc - just a lot of changed details which are impossible to guess at. They say men are from Mars and women from Venus, but we all know they're both from Earth.

What are some of the barriers to providing equal opportunity to every one, within academia? Seeing a lot of ignorant and entitled posting lately, which doesn't even make a point to address this. It's a shame really, a lot of discouraging and disparaging comments being made about people, who through no fault of their own, simply are not offered the sort of education their disparagers have allegedly had and have no means of getting it.

Crikey, I'm not sure what that means, Phi - will you semaphore it by waving your spinnarettes at me on the Dark web, if you get my drift. Nudge, nudge.

Don't scientific academics gain descending degrees of renown by following these courses: 1. Making a major scientific discovery 2. Writing a popular book on science 3. Making brief guest appearances on a science-related TV show 4. Moderating a science forum where they slag off the the posters

I don't believe you keep a spider as a pet. Or actually know, or ever met anyone who does. I bet you just read about the idea in a book, didn't you?