http://www.faithpopcorn.com/index.html
XPViking
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/531cc/531cc221f09437ff3975f9475b9856ff31d5821a" alt="Cool 8)"
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Linguistics is not my area, so I can not give you a good answer. I suppose yeah.Even so, how would you be able to objectively predict the development of something like language? Did any of these linguistic "scientists" successfully predict the rise of the butchery of the English language that is Ebonics?
What kind of predictions could you make about communication beyond "they'll like it" or "they won't like it"?Code: Select all
Sounds like you are talking about Adversting ? (You actually collect data, informaiton, etc to work with any publicitary campaing). But that is not science, its more a technique that is used. The Social Communication Science does not usually ask about tastes ^^ But if get Walter Benjamin for example, you will see that his theory about the effects of the art and copy do not fail when you use his theory to make a analyze of actuall hollywood model. (A side note, the study of Mass Communication have less than 100 year and they got a development exactly because they noticed the notion, the old theory did not worked to predict well the behaviador of the public and how the message affected them). About History...I remember people talking about the formation of european's Social-Democracy style back in the 50's and 60's already. The Globalism of the 90 was already discussed in the 80's...sometimes things just do not have the right name, sometimes people is just not aware of what exactly they are talking. The problem of most social sciences is that it mix too easily with political tendencies. Even if the scientist itself does not , those who use it does. And they keep alive controversies that should be put apart just of the sake of protection of the political ideals. It blew up with objetivity among many of the people who study and teach it in many universities (at least here in Brazil and I suppose, it is not different everywhere).
Exactly. Consider Grand Admiral Thrawn.The study of art and literature can lend insights into a culture - Red Imperator
Perhaps, but certainly people would eventually classify art and literature, if nothing else for the ease of trying to understand it. Note, I'm not saying that the act of classifying is indicitive of a person being scientific.The act of making art and literature into a formalized field of study is self-indulgent. - Darth Wong
Agreed. I think you mentioned it someone, either here or on your home page, that people who are in the Humanities shouldn't pass themselves off as scientists because for the simple fact that many of them lack the training and knowledge of the scientific method.If the scientific method is being employed, then it's a science. - Darth Wong
Anyone with a sense of balance, of which I am sorely lacking inDarth Wong wrote:Ice skating is easy. Anyone can accelerate to prodigious speed with minimal practice. It's controlled stops that are tricky: something you would probably discover only when hurtling toward an obstacle.
Perhaps you should see a doctor about that?Drewcifer wrote:Anyone with a sense of balance, of which I am sorely lacking in
Roller coasters make me sick, and not from fear; my inner ear goes nuts and it's "reverse engines!" time.
But luxuries can be usefull. Especially since they contain so much of our history.Darth Wong wrote:Poetry and literature, however, are luxuries, not necessities. Star Wars does not change this rule; it is also a luxury.
I think Mike's talking about stadying literature, like people who devote their lives to studying Shakespeare for some reason. Only a moron would argue that literacy and good essay-writing skills are a luxury. They are most certainly necessities.Zoink wrote:But luxuries can be usefull. Especially since they contain so much of our history.Darth Wong wrote:Poetry and literature, however, are luxuries, not necessities. Star Wars does not change this rule; it is also a luxury.
Being well versed in literature can help you achieve your goals in the society that exists now. I don't think anyone is trying to make a dilemna where we are forced to choose between the existance of literature and technological innovation (ie belittle science).
Someone who skips english class after grade 6 (grade 7 is where I started to write real essays and actual analysis of text) might not have as many tools/skills to achieve the goals they want.
Never felt the need; it doesn't affect my daily life in any way. I have exquisite hearing, I ride a bike just fine, flying (rarely) bothers me, and I can read in the car (when someone else is drivingDarth Servo wrote:Perhaps you should see a doctor about that?Drewcifer wrote:Anyone with a sense of balance, of which I am sorely lacking in
Roller coasters make me sick, and not from fear; my inner ear goes nuts and it's "reverse engines!" time.
The doctor would likely tell him not to ride roller coasters.Darth Servo wrote:Perhaps you should see a doctor about that?Drewcifer wrote:Anyone with a sense of balance, of which I am sorely lacking in
Roller coasters make me sick, and not from fear; my inner ear goes nuts and it's "reverse engines!" time.
Shinova wrote:I heard about one guy (real guy, not made up) who got accepted to CalTech. Apparently he was so good, CalTech offered to pay his WHOLE tuition during his entire stay there. So he went.
This guy is a genius. His school had a robotics team where they built robots that competed in tournaments and he wrote the entire software for that robot by himself and played a major role in the robot's actual design. That robot went on to win many competitions.
However, apparently in some kind of interview, he said something like, "Poetry, literature, and history are useless. Why study them?"
Comments? Is there a point where one can become too "scientific"?