BF2S Forums Wal-Mart to hire 100,000 veterans

I know Doctors, they aren't intelligent.

If any subject requires learning by rote its medicine.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I know Doctors, they aren't intelligent.

If any subject requires learning by rote its medicine.

LOL ok

another profession the engineer doesn't rate.... damn... it's looking lonely at the top, huh? professors aren't intelligent, they're just lazy and rich brats; doctors aren't intelligent they're just rote-learners; i'm damn fuckin' sure you ain't gonna suck a lawyer's dick; what other high-level, 5+ years-to-qualify professions are there for you to denigrate?

and cybargs, all biology subjects are easy? ok pal. ok. i'm sure you'll fly through your biosci degree at cambridge. oh no wait. i see no difference between the 'rote learning' of low-level biology and the 'rote learning' of low-level mathematics, to be honest. they're both administered through the catechistic repetition of large, dull, textbooks. if you think biology at a high-level at university is simply 'rote' learning, why doesn't physics or maths fall to the same gross over-simplification? again: a fundamental error and bias where a certain type (hint: insecure) can't concede that another subject can be difficult on its own merits.

the point is that medical schools have pretty high entry standards, and are pretty damn competitive (in the UK you can need up to 5 A's to get into one; oxbridge require 3-4 A's). at least over here, anyway. you don't just skip into the medical profession because it's "easy" and you're not "intelligent". maybe not super-intellectual humanities intelligent, all deep and philosophical, and maybe not super-problematical engineering intelligent, all superman and world-saving, but to say it doesn't take intelligence to become a doctor (or a vet), is pre-tty fucking rich. i can think of about 95% of 'real life' professions in the hierarchy that require less brains, less learning, less knowledge.

it's cool though cybargs yeah, just go to stanford med school when you're done with your dumb degree. seeing as its easy it'll be a surefire easy way to get citizenship, right? you'd be stupid not to do to it. geddit? stupid... NOT to... do it.

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-22 03:25:25)

Medicine is just another example of a profession maintaining high wages for its members by restricting access to training and licensing - there's nothing difficult about medicine, its been proven often enough that an expert system coupled with a competent technican to take the measurements and feed in the data will do a better job than the average Doctor.

Cybargs wrote:

I never said biology subjects are easy, but most of it is done by rote memorization.

you are clearly not familiar with the biology syllabus at any serious research-intensive university. yeah, cambridge biology/biosci... 3/4 years of rote memorization! wonder why more people aren't going. and so much for new discoveries, research, and innovation in biology - one of the most exciting fringes of modern science! so much for trans-humanism, biotechnology, ever-improving medicine and pharmacology! biology is just a rote-memorization course for dullards, right? what makes your subject more intrinsically difficult than biology? all you do on here is repeat the dictums you have learnt - by rote - from your second-rate professors, the shit they have spoonfed you in some mediocre lecture somewhere. what super uber-mensch skills does your course demand that a high-level biology course wouldn't? i'm confused. don't you basically do a tourism degree?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Medicine is just another example of a profession maintaining high wages for its members by restricting access to training and licensing - there's nothing difficult about medicine, its been proven often enough that an expert system coupled with a competent technican to take the measurements and feed in the data will do a better job than the average Doctor.

dilbert... if you want to view the medical profession that cynically, of course you can. you sure seem to view every single other 'high profession' in the world as cynically as that-- without ever turning the glance inwards at your own, of course. very rich, and the same bone-headed routine, over and over. reason would suggest that medicine has high entry-standards because the cost of training and investment is very high, thus demanding a certain commitment and quality of candidate. reason would suggest that the pay is very high because it is a very important, high-risk job, that requires a lot of knowledge and familiarity with the field to perform effectively. reason would suggest doctors are paid highly because they play a valued role in society - and are thus recompensed for it. but no, it's a closed shop, purposefully restricted because they're "afraid" of being shown-up as charlatans and quack doctors, right? just like academia is a closed shop, a relic of the 'class system', where the rich and wealthy go to quaff port and chuckle at the common folk. everything's just a big conspiratorial closed shop, eh! damn. sure sounds like the bitter rantings of someone that was locked-out of a respectable middle-class lifestyle in his home country... so is now living in exile with his parents abroad. yep, the facts all check out. cynicism rules the day!

... is the reason engineers are paid so much a closed shop, too, then? because they are nigh-on unemployable everywhere else? graduate employment-by-subject ratings sure suggest that (engineering and compsci graduates are the least employable of any uk degree). looks like you guys are running a rigged game, for fear of being unvalued everywhere else on the job market! i know if i ran a business, i'd rather employ a veteran or a hipster before an engineer. i'd rather employ war man than an engineer. you guys are the worst.

ah, yes, dilbert... you're ranting again. it's cute when you spill out loads of irrational stuff. it makes you look unhinged in public. all those firsts from oxford in clerical jobs are probably living in their own place, keeping rent and a functional adult life, at least? not spilling bile on stranger's life choices on an internet forum, whilst hunched in their mom's wood-paneled basement... no? and aren't those basement jobs in the civil service, you know... the NORMAL and FAIR way of getting into the service? it's a job where you spend your life and work your way up. so are humanities grads all shirt-pulling nepotists, or are they contemptible peons doing paper-work? you've got to start somewhere: is it with your uncle's business-associate, or as the humble office donkey? both are laughable, according to you. a strange little delusional world you live in, dilbert.

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-22 04:32:39)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Medicine is just another example of a profession maintaining high wages for its members by restricting access to training and licensing - there's nothing difficult about medicine, its been proven often enough that an expert system coupled with a competent technican to take the measurements and feed in the data will do a better job than the average Doctor.

tbf, engineers have created societies and licensure schemes to limit access too. We've begun replacing high priced doctors with Physicians Assistants for routine stuff though.

Interestingly America is suffering from a glut in nursing. Too many fighting for too few jobs. Can't blame someone for trying to get into the field though. My half sister has a nursing degree with a associates and makes $80,000 a year.

Should have been a nurse. Smh

aynrandroolz wrote:

kennedy: history, political philosophy, bs. international affairs, harvard havaghd.

fixed

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique wrote:

one tries to promote a holistic method of care, drawing from various disciplines and fields of knowledge; the other is an exact science.

Its remarkable how little you know about non-hipster subjects - engineering is not a science for a start.

it's remarkable how little you, a grown man-child, know... evidently full-stop.

engineering isn't a science? oh. it isn't based on empiricism and the scientific method, as its core? guess the encyclopaedia and wikipedia are wrong. everyone and everything is always wrong, except you, isn't it dilbert!!!! it's going to be an entertaining show of pedantry to see you weasel this one. will your rhetorical squirming evade the fact that your "engineers are better than doctors: planes don't fail as often as medical care" analogy was perhaps the most retarded thing said on this forum all week? ahahaha.

you behave and debate like a baby. cootchie cootchi coo!

in a sense, though, you're right... it's not a science. for a very limited and special minority, like you, it's a religion

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-22 05:33:15)

aynrandroolz wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique wrote:

one tries to promote a holistic method of care, drawing from various disciplines and fields of knowledge; the other is an exact science.

Its remarkable how little you know about non-hipster subjects - engineering is not a science for a start.

it's remarkable how little you, a grown man-child, know... evidently full-stop.

engineering isn't a science? oh. it isn't based on empiricism and the scientific method, as its core? guess the encyclopaedia and wikipedia are wrong. everyone and everything is always wrong, except you, isn't it dilbert!!!! it's going to be an entertaining show of pedantry to see you weasel this one. will your rhetorical squirming evade the fact that your "engineers are better than doctors: planes don't fail as often as medical care" analogy was perhaps the most retarded thing said on this forum all week? ahahaha.

you behave and debate like a baby. cootchie cootchi coo!

in a sense, though, you're right... it's not a science. for a very limited and special minority, like you, it's a religion

Eh, there's just as much art to engineering as there is to anything else really. Engineering is honestly more of an art than a science. Yes, we use science and mathematics as the foundation of our art, but it's an art nonetheless. Depending on the scale of the project, you have to balance a million little details in order to get a working finished project. And not everything an engineer touches is something that he builds from scratch himself, when you're working on older projects a lot of it is educated guesswork. Do you think when a building inspector walks into a home that he calculates the weight of the house before making suggestions to improve the structural integrity? No, he does estimates and chooses the best one.

If you move away from systems and get down to finite element analysis, then you can look at what doctors and engineers do in much the same way. Human functions have been almost as exhaustively tested and mapped as the lattice structure of steel. We both have manuals to tell us how long we should expect a certain part to last based on the wear and tear the part goes through. But it's going beyond those finite elements and looking at all of the dependent systems that turn both into an art. We just have nerdier tools.

aynrandroolz wrote:

everything with some degree of technique and specialism is an "art" in that sense though. that's just a semantic umbrella term meaning "something refined", connotationally. engineering is a science. your method for work and all of your basic principles and rules are derived from the scientific method. the fact not many planes fall out of the sky is because you can model everything on a computer, with every variable mapped out in advance, with every load-bearing weight and material attribute taken account of. a plane is mechanical. a human body is 'mechanical' is a roughly analogous sense, yeah, and the root-level of biology certainly has 'mechanical' processes. but a patient sat in a doctor's chair, or lying in a hospital bed, is quite a different problem to approach than the testing and designing of a plane. in a plane's design, everything is scientifically and rationally planned out, accounted for, means-tested. you just can't do that with a patient diagnosis. the analogy is nowhere near workable.

to say "engineering is closer to an art than a science" is either stupid, blithely self-aggrandizing, or both. that's like saying 'agricultural science is an art'. just because something takes a lot of technique and esoteric knowledge, it doesn't mean it's an art. it's like a doctor protesting that what he does "has science at its core, but is so elaborate that it's an art". sorry, i don't regard my GP to be a poet. engineering is fucking scientific, for christ's sake. the fact you guys are going to side-track down this semantic wormhole shows what pathetic responses you have to the original - and ludicrous - arguments put forth by dilbert.

as an aside, it's ironic yet again how this mentality is displayed. i've spoken about it here before: scientists and engineers love to hate artists and humanities kids, but then they love to confer themselves with a 'poetic' quality. real art is a load of bollock; what you do is the real art. 'tis a funny little irony. you supposedly loathe all of that nonsense, but then strive through a whole means of dubious commonplaces to term what you do in your everyday work as 'art'.

If that were true you could take any freshly minted engineer and throw him into high level design work. No, the guys that have been doing the job for 40 years are generally the guys you want, even though they came into the world well before the invention of the personal computer and the pocket calculator, even though they cost 10x as much on an hourly basis.

Do you think that the world is isolated from mathematics? No, most of the best painters and musicians had a working knowledge of math and how it impacted their work. I'm not saying they sat there working out formulas and calculations in their head, but they used the tools nonetheless. Why do first year art students spend months drawing hands? To get the mathematical proportions correct so that the hand looks realistic. Do you think an engineer, when he sits at his desk working in his CAD or SolidWorks program completely ignores the form of the thing he is creating? No, even if he is a strict utilitarian, he is designing to form as much as function. When an engineer is handed a project he has to balance what the customer desires against what is practical in reality. It's a series of tradeoffs, akin to designing a complex puzzle. Making those puzzle pieces fit is where the art aspect comes in. Architects can't ignore the function anymore than engineers can, but they tend to put it in the background more than an engineer would.

But whatever, believe what you want. I know for a fact that engineering is a highly creative profession, otherwise it wouldn't have held any appeal for me.

Art's purpose is to be useless? This coming from the guy who studies humanities?

fkn lol

Jaekus wrote:

Art's purpose is to be useless? This coming from the guy who studies humanities?

fkn lol

how is that contradictory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_for_art%27s_sake

you do realise people don't study the humanities to become 'useful artists', right? your thinking is so confusing that it's "fkn lol". i don't really even quite know how to approach such an obtuse and dumb comment. because a painting doesn't have a specific function, it's funny to spend time studying it? art is willingly and gladly extraneous to 'vital' experience. it's not necessary. art is a huge part of what it means to be human, above an animal: it's a pursuit we give ourselves to with no immediate 'point', no utility, no function, no purpose. we draw on the side of cave-walls and we sculpt marble solely for the purpose of standing back, hand on chin, looking at it and thinking. isn't that beautiful? no other animal does that. art is more closely related to play and idle contemplation than it is to labour and use. and that's great. i don't see how studying that art for its multiplicand aesthetic, political, social, ethical, theological, psychological, sociological, historical etc.etc. purposes is 'useless', by extension. in fact, it's incredibly intellectually enriching, and hones a whole bunch of analytical and abstractual skills that are invaluable. i also don't see how engineering is closer to art, by that definition, than to a science or technicism. engineering builds things. things with the implicit and explicit purpose of doing something. a poem doesn't do anything.

you really have just made yourself look stupid in that post. what's the purpose of music? what's the use of mozart? what benefit is beethoven? why do you get together with your band-mates and play music? what is the point of it all? it is, ultimately, quite pointless. if you wanted to convey a political message in a protest song, you'd be much better writing a political tract or a manifesto. why set it to music? the musical - hence artistic - components are quite useless. is that "fkn lol"? or do you enjoy contemplating it? being transported by it? being made to feel something by it? that's art: quite useless, in practical terms; quite self-indulgent, emotionally and intellectually. i don't see any engineers building bridges with the PRIMARY focus being this useless contemplation. you build a bridge to get across a gap, not to let your imagination rip on the terrain, just-because.

Last edited by aynrandroolz (2013-01-22 06:52:21)