Skip Navigation

帖子
0
评论
375
加入于
2 yr. ago

  • they are definitely not taught to use critical thought and source evaluation outside of their very narrow area of expertise

    All of your examples are from "their very narrow area of expertise."

    But if you want a more comprehensive reason why I maintain that MD's and engineers are not taught to be as rigorous and comprehensive when it comes to skepticism and critical thought, it comes down to the central goals and philosophies of science vs. medicine and engineering. Frankly, it's all described pretty well by looking at Karl Popper's doctrine of falsifiability. Scientific studies are designed to falsifiable, meaning scientists are taught to look for the places their hypotheses fail, whereas doctors and engineers are taught to make things work, so once they work, the exceptions tend to be secondary.

  • exactly. For writing emails that will likely never be read by anyone in more than a cursory scan, for example. When I'm composing text, I can't turn off my fixation on finding the perfect wording, even when I know intellectually that "good enough is good enough." And "it's not great, but it gets the message across" is about the only strength of ChatGPT at this point.

  • It's decent at summarizing large blocks of text and pretty good for rewording things in a diplomatic/safe way. I used it the other day for work when I had to write a "staff appreciation" blurb and I couldn't come up with a reasonable way to take my 4 sentences of aggressively pro-union rhetoric and turn it into one sentence that comes off pro-union but not anti-capitalist (edit: it still needed a editing pass-through to put it in my own voice and add some details, but it definitely got me close to what I needed)

  • As a college instructor, there is some amount of content (facts, knowledge, skills) that is important for each field, and the amount of content that will be useful in the future varies wildly from field to field edit: and whether you actually enter into a career related to your degree.

    However, the overall degree you obtain is supposed to say something about your ability to learn. A bachelor's degree says you can learn and apply some amount of critical thought when provided a framework. A masters says you can find and critically evaluate sources in order to educate yourself. A PhD says you can find sources, educate yourself, and take that information and apply it to a research situation to learn something no one has ever known before. An MD/engineering degree says you're essentially a mechanic or a troubleshooter for a specific piece of equipment.

    edit 2: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with MD's and engineers, but they are definitely not taught to use critical thought and source evaluation outside of their very narrow area of expertise, and their opinions should definitely not be given any undue weight. The percentage of doctors and engineers that fall for pseudoscientific bullshit is too fucking high. And don't get started on pre-meds and engineering students.

  • Nickle

    跳过
  • I hate how accurate this feels

  • What do these pictures have to do with round bottomed flasks?

  • You're correct that the police like having the dogs as a pretext to search on flimsy/non-existent evidence, but it's not that the dogs are half-trained; they are very well trained to give false positives based on the officers' body language and attitude.

  • Kinda, but I still drink too heavily and partied hard throughout college and grad school. I mean, if you don't develop a new substance dependency or 2 over of the course of earning of a degree, does it even count?

  • And if you party long enough, you will inevitably become "that guy" at some point.

  • I've said it before and I'll say it again: in PF2, you can be any type of character you can imagine

  • I heard O'Brien's been hanging out with degens. Bad gas travels fast in a small ship.

  • I heard it was a sick targ

  • Agreed, that's my whole point. It was not the ideal way to get where we are, but it's how it happened. There was a... I don't want to say purpose, but "benefit," might be the right word.

    If we were designing things from scratch, then obviously religion would be left out. But it's an unfortunate accident of the evolution of consciousness and evolution of civilization that certain societal benefits were included with the magical thinking. Just like the health of the human gut biome is tied to the existence of the appendix, even through the appendix doesn't provide much in the way of direct benefits these days and can become inflamed and kill us.

  • The supernatural claims are just a byproduct of the mechanism that passed along the creation myths and cultural norms. It would be great if that wasn't how it happened, but it did. Rational people can agree at this point that the magical thinking is a net negative for society, but IMO, to ignore that there were some positives to come along with religion is the same sort of blind denial that religious folks use.

    It was a collective delusion to soothe ancient fears of a world we could not comprehend

    Agreed, but can't you see that that was an advantage during the formative ages of society and civilization?

  • I've said that, word for word. When I actually sit and think about it though, I think it's more like appendicitis. Religion once served a purpose (passing on of useful cultural norms and expectations), has become vestigial, and is now inflamed and likely to kill us (as a society and individually, in some cases)

  • On the other hand, if you're immortal and you can't manage to build a fair bit of wealth, what are you even doing with your time?

  • 已删除

    Permanently Deleted

    跳过
  • We share a birthday! Here's to one more trip around the sun

  • Autoionization and the reverse reaction are constantly happening in water, and when the reaction is happening at the same rate forward and backward the system is said to be "at dynamic equilibrium" (aka, stuff is happening, but there's no net change)

    In pure water, the equilibrium concentration of hydronium and hydroxide are equal, so it's said to be neutral. At room temperature, that equilibrium concentration is approximately 1*10^-7 moles per liter, which gives a pH of 7 (since pH is defined as the negative log _10 of hydronium concentration)

  • Kinda, but not really. Deuterium exists naturally in more or less the ratio as it has since the solar system first coalesced.

    Also, deuterium is a component of heavy water, but the term "deuterium" actually referred to the specific isotope of hydrogen where the nucleus consists of one proton and one neutron, as opposed to a single proton (which is the more common isotope)