OT: Made in Britain

Oct 28, 2018 66 Replies
Saved reading

Its more than just that, they have to understand it inside out enough so they can pick the way of explaining it that suits the target audience.,...

..I remember my sadly departed Cambridge PhD physics master, and I...he was explaining relativity and how there was no absolute frame of reference for motion - all was relative.

I had a thought. 'But what about rotation. A skater's arms and legs fly out when she spins, but what is she spinning relative to?'

There was a significant pause whilst he thought up the best reply

'The average fixed mass of the rest of the universe' he said.

WOW!

THAT is not only lknowing your subeckt but knowing your boy as well.

.

Too many 'experts' are third rate minds who haven't actually got to the stage of understanding everyone else, and then thinking for themselves.

To many 'experts' are simply parroting received wisdom.

Take Brian Cox as an example. Unlike my physics master he doesn't say 'this is how science makes a model of it, that seems to work'. No. He says 'this is how it is, trust me, I'm a physicist'

F*ck off, Brian.

Alice Roberts is fantastic. She knows what she knows, she doesn't pretend to know what she does not, she is smart and enthusiastic knows her stuff and is very easy on the eye.

I'd go ten rounds with her any day she offered.

Mary Beard?

Classic bluestocking. Ugly as sin but a mind like a razor.

Respect.

Only downside is she is a raving lefty.

Which goes to show that knowing one thing doesn't mean you are qualified to be an expert in another.

They probably couldn't make it worse than it already is.

yeah. Beard is a classicist. She knows Rome and Greece. not the beaker people...

Alice is an archaeologist specialising in bones.

Neal Oliver is pretty good to.

Compared with Baldrick....

who is simply dreadful.

Not really - that ends with the ice age. Study of *human* bones later than that is definitely under the archaeology umbrella

She's so good when she's on the telly I get a bone on.

Bill

There are some who are smart in a narrow sort of way. We had a programmer like that at CERN, an expert in RSX-11 IIRC. He could give you information, but essentially only if you phrased the question so that only a yes/no answer was required. He appeared to have no ability to give any other sort of answer. If you didn't phrase the Q that way, he'd just say Hmmm.

yes.

People who carry with them a context for theor field of study so they realise how it relates to other fields are very rare these days.

And there is a difference between memorising a lot of answers that someone else has found out, and being able to find answers for yourself.

You read paperes that seem to use the references to show how many learned papers the author has read, rather than to add context to the argument.

Thast a sure sign that the writer is in awe of other peooles knowledge and has none they can call their own.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

That's what they used to be.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

I think that's the point -they know SFA about any of the stories. Kate Aide had pretty strong views about the changing role of the newspresenter/reporter within the BBC

A best teacher who knows nothing about the subject matter?

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

They read an autocue whilst trying to sound intelligent.

The cable layer is the expert on all things media.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)" writes

So why pay them so much?

Good to know you're so easily fooled.

Everyone generally knows at least something about everything. In this context. And teachers generally were taught at one point.

And you think other presenters just make it up as they go along?

I suppose you think everyone who appears on camera gets paid a fortune. Shows what an idiot you are.

That is back when a lot of people actually knews stuff.

Today UI doesnt mean User Interface. It means Universal Ignorance.

Scialism mensas never having to think for yourselfe. We lkibe an a world of predigested factioids that are churned out by the political/industrial complex whilst the state schools encourage fact accretion - not how to think

Even academics are unbelieveably narrow. Very few scietists of my aquaintranbe ene know the basic metaphsyics on which their subject is based. Many of them in biolopgial or earth sciences do not really understand teh mathematical tools they use to do analysis. Climate change is a massive case in point. Most of what they do is crap and can be shown to be crap. But shown to who? Who can follow the arguments?

It is full blown idiocracy. The idiots now run everything and lacking any real world existential challenges, they stumble along lying to each other. Facts are what they are told by someone else.

It cant last. The sort of existential challenges we face - mass migration, economic collapse, infrastucture collapse - will require people that can think, or we will return to a new dark age. Probably islamic.

I suspect that is in fact what will happen. We are too much snowflakes to sytand and face the future.

Sadly most people are happy like that (or believe they are).

No one likes a smartarse.

No, but they had better respect one

Again, sadly not. "Da feelz" trumps "da facts" for all too many.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required