Quote:
Originally Posted by banger316
First off dumb dumb why are you attacking me when you have not even taking a position on what the thread is about. You clearly did not read my posts, and are misrepresenting what i was saying so i will repeat it slow for you. In today's world there are many resources for information such as science books and peer reviewed journals that have accredited scientists/teachers who write for them also some of those scientist/teachers do podcasts about science. Then there are websites also ran by scientists/teachers, and no not just wikipedia smarty pants.
A college education is important however going to college does not equal knowing the material. I for example do not need a college education to understand the large hadron collider. If you do that is fine i have always had a knack for science it was one of my better subjects so the material comes easier to me than perhaps for someone like you.
|
First, the disconnected nature of information online makes it inferior to college. Second, while the breadth is there, the depth is lacking. Third, college is as much about discipline as it is about knowledge, another thing lacking online. Fourth, you aren't going to get access to the majority of those peer reviewed journals without a college affiliation. Last, you aren't going to know what to read once you get access to those journals, much less understand what is there. Those journals are people's phD papers, not freshman year undergrad material. I'm not even going to address the podcasts, at best it's declaring the discovery channel is comparable to a physics class.
I work with scientists, even going to places like Viet Nam on field surveys, I've studied the crap out of a narrow field of science to the point that I am told I am one of the 20 foremost experts on Southeast Asian amphibians. I know all there is to know online about the subject, and I can tell you with authority that I know next to nothing compared to the college graduate phD scientists I've worked with. I can also tell you with authority that what is available online is crap.
Just for laughs, though, I'd love to see you write a proposal for an LHC experiment and submit here for us to examine.
In the meantime, take a chill pill. Nobody here cares if you are smart, we care about what you have to say. So far, most of what you have had to say is that other people are dumber than you for believing an actual education is better than the internet, and you've consistently delivered that message with some of the worst grammar I've seen. Clearly not the kind of precise language abilities that would allow you to wade through science journals. Clearly not the experienced internet savvy to slip past even the lamest grammar nazi in a debate, either.
What are we supposed to believe about you when you write like this?
Here's what I think: You are about 17-19 years old, either half assing college because you haven't picked a major yet or, as a deflection mechanism, you dismiss college altogether because it's expensive and you didn't have the grades for a free ride.
I think you never studied and easily got Bs in high school, maybe with a consistent A in science or math class, and you are trying to justify your academic inability as laziness brought on by boredom caused by your low level dummy peers lagging so far behind you. In the end, though, it's still
your academic inability.
"Child."
"Dummy."
You still haven't learned how to deliver a message, either. Posturing, your own ego, they still weigh you down, trip you up. The messenger is still more important than the message to you.
How close am I?