would science progress a lot faster if we barred anyone who doesn't have a 150 IQ and a near perfect academic record?
Hopefully this should get rid of the current publish or perish culture as we have too many shit papers by subpar academics vs quality ones
do you really think IQ is a satisfactory indicator of one's intellectual abilities?
>>7881282
>who doesn't have a 150 IQ and a near perfect academic record?
Why don't you just say you have never worked in research, but are fresh out of highschool and just loooove mathematics and want to be a professor?
>>7881282
there is no progress in science. can you take a course on philosophy of science, instead of displaying your faggotry ?
>>7881282
you would literally have made einstein become a janitor.
>>7881282
The fact that you're here making this thread suggests that you wouldnt even be allowed to mop floors in a high school if your changes went through.
>>7881282
I want /pol/ to leave
>>7881282
IQ test cannot properly gauge the intelligence of people above 130 on the scale so this would be inefficient. Instead just off anyone a tested IQ below 100 at adulthood that would surely increase the collective intelligence of mankind.
>>7881407
bad news for OP then
>>7881410
OP sounds like an averagefag so hes safe. However we really should kill everyone below 100 to improve human society.
>>7881282
There was a guy who implemented a similar idea. He took kids with 150 IQs and gave them an elite educational environment because he thought he'd be able produce the next Einstein. Ironically some of the kids who didn't make the cut because their IQ was too low ended up winning noble prizes. None of the kids he recruited amounted to anything in terms of advancing science.
Maybe you neckbeards need to stop obsessing about IQ?
>>7881420
But did any of the rejects get Nobel prizes?
>>7881420
Source?
>>7881427
Yes. Read the third sentence.
>>7881282
>everyone having to wear these really strict fancy clothes
Glad I wasn't a scientist back then. Can hardly bother to get my shirt ironed well enough, lol.
>>7881432
But that says noble prizes
>>7881412
Who should do all the "boring" stuff then like trash collection and transportation and repairing veichles. Would be a society of super smart people who could not handle the own shit they produced, literally sleeping in their own poo (worse than India tier) after the last toilet plumber died.
>>7881438
Are you seriously incapable of inferring meaning from a simple spelling mistake?
>>7881441
Averagefags of course, if they dont like it we can just drug them into liking it.
>>7881445
No, I'm just taking the piss
>>7881441
You stupid we just have smarter plumbers.
>>7881430
Lewis Terman.
Apologies, the cut off was 135, not 150.
The two rejects that didn't make the 135 cut were William Shockley and Luis Walter Alvarez.
>>7881282
>implying people reasonably expected publish or perish culture to sift out the best researchers
>implying they were somehow just too stupid to see how it might possibly be exploited
>implying it isn't purely a device for projecting and withholding power, with vulnerabilities built in to backdoor desired individuals past meritocracy
>inb4 engineers backdoor each other
>>7881331
>philosophy of science
>>7881282
>but muh diversity
>>7881505
>muh straw man meme cartoon
fuck off
>>7881282
know a science prof who speaks 5 languages. might be smart, but i have no idea how got phd because all published papers turn out to be absolute garbage after deciphering them (which required considerable effort). they are cited by colleagues/friends who all go way back. seems like a closed circle of asshats telling all the people how smart they are, but are generally ignored by the wider community.
some groups of academia seem to be becoming a racket.
>>7881512
>>7881521
>fedora-tipping euphoric faggot with the god delusion as a pocket square has literally no idea who feyerabend is
>>7881529
>Feyerabend
>"muh fairy tales are just as valid as science"
Also Dawknis is really red-pilled. Your reddit stereotypes do not represent him accurately.
>Big Boys of English Speaking academia
>Singer
The philosophical equivalent of Judge Judy, Singer's self-contradictory pap ("abortion and infanticide are acceptable because these immature humans are incapable or rational preference" vs. "rationality is not a requirement for ethical conduct. Any irrational being will avoid pain, which is why cruelty to animals is unethical", which are flatly contradictory positions). Makes money by writing books that tell Liberals 'doing what you want is A-OK"
A buffoon.
>Chomsky
A decent linguist, his work in every other field is no more (or less) than self-serving rent seeking which he publicly admits that he, himself, does not believe.
Darn good at making a buck of gullible college students, but (unless you are speaking of linguistics, where he is very good) not a big academic.
>Dawkins
A mediocre-at-best scientist who will leave exactly zero mark on actual science, he became popular as a writer of PopSci books. When that income source dried up (because his theories were soundly thrashed by scientists) he switched to a series of popular books trashing what he thinks religious people might believe.
Never was a great thinker, never will be.
>Rorty
A man who counted on his readers having never heard of Gorgias, Rorty took facile rhetoric, relabeled it neopragmatism, and sold it like snake oil.
>Chalmers
About time an actual academic appeared. although, to be fair, while he does a fine job of reminding everyone of the hard problem, he has no answers. Which is no one's fault.
>Dennett
Refuses to use proper terms, mainly to hide that, deep down, he he knows any clear statement of his theories leads to eye-rolling
Not a serious academic.
.
This list is a list of "People that stupid people think are smart"
>>7881532
>muh straw man meme misunderstanding of feyerabend
dawkins is red pilled as fuck alright
>>7881534
To be fair, Dawkins never claims to be a philosopher. On the contrary he supports to keep philosophy our of science. He's mainly a political activist and a pop sci educator and there he's doing a good job.
>>7881539
>pill meme picture that has been modified by reddit into unfunniness
>argues against he validity of science
Opinion [math]\underline{\color{Red}{discarded}}[/math]
>Book Review: Waking Up by Sam Harris
As an insight meditation teacher, reading Waking Up by Sam Harris was simultaneously joyful and shameful. It is a fine book that points to a weakness in the culture of awakening that is hard to look at directly. In his usual style, he is honest to the point of painful, and sometimes it can be hard to take.
Let me back up.
For those who don’t know Harris, he is a neuroscientist who became most well known for publishing The End of Faith, a book promoting the idea that what we believe influences how we behave, and that faith-based beliefs lead to rather irrational behavior. Like flying planes into buildings. He’s dry, technical, but funny and obviously not afraid of controversy. Apparently people really like that combination, because The End of Faith stayed on the New York Times bestseller list for over 30 weeks. Harris quickly moved from obscure neuroscientist to intellectual sensation, and was lumped in with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett as the leading edge of a revitalized post-9\11 atheist movement described as “new atheism.” Together they were ironically dubbed the “four horsemen.”
But Harris is an odd fit among the horsemen. While Hitchens, Dennett, and Dawkins all rail against the privileged position that eastern spirituality seems to have among western intellectuals, Harris openly disagrees with them, making the case that despite the woo-woo clearly at work in the offerings of Deepak Chopra, The Secret, and similar new age flim-flam, there is something valuable to be found in the spiritual traditions of Asia that is being obscured, rather than revealed, by pop spirituality. He uses his public platform to urge people to dig a little deeper.
>>7881545
It turns out he is speaking from experience. Waking Up is not just an introduction to Buddhist meditation and the liberation that it leads to, it is a spiritual memoir told from the perspective of a consummate rationalist and skeptic. One who stumbles upon enlightenment.
After a few chapters of fleshing out why some spiritual practices are fruitful human endeavors and others are not, and correlating the claims of mystics with modern neuroscience, Harris gets down to the memoir part of his book and dishes on his own experiences. I was thrilled to read that Harris begins his spiritual search in U Pandita’s meditation center, where he practices a rigorous form of insight meditation. Harris is told that he is working through the progress of insight toward “cessation,” and will attain his first taste of awakening upon that strange moment of non-occurrence. For readers of my site, or fans of insight meditation, this should all sound very familiar.
When I read this part of the book I was rooting for Harris, excited to hear what he makes of the shift in consciousness that occurs after cessation. I looked at how many pages were left and anticipated that there would be a detailed account of how he reconciled his own encounter with nibbana with cutting edge brain science. This, I thought, is the book I’ve been waiting for.
So imagine my disappointment, shock really, when on the same page he reports that he couldn’t do it, and gave up.
No cessation. No stream entry. Zilch.
Something, I thought, went horribly wrong.
>>7881547
It is not exactly clear from the book what happened. In retrospect he reasons that moving toward a goal (cessation) did not feel like the right path to enlightenment, and that truth can be glimpsed no matter where one is on the path, and truth is not found in a state, cessation is not necessary and… his explanation started to feel fishy as I read it. Frankly, this sounds like a rationalization after the fact. Indeed, it sounds identical to what he was taught by the teachers and traditions that he encountered after he left Pandita’s center (Advaita and Dzogchen). So what was he really thinking and feeling at the time he threw in the towel?
A hint can be found in his description of the wall he hit during a year-long retreat:
“But cessation never arrived. Given my gradualist views at that point, this became very frustrating. Most of my time on retreat was extremely pleasant but it seemed to me that I’d merely been given the tools by which to contemplate the evidence of my non-enlightenment. My practice had become a vigil. A method of waiting, however patiently, for a future reward.”
Harris is describing an insight practice that has stalled out in one of the stages along the progress of insight. In another passage he points out that his movement through the progress of insight wasn’t very clear and although he had many interesting experiences he did not know if he was making any progress at all. Why didn’t he know?
What concerns me most about this is that Harris does not describe what would have been the best, most natural, and sensible antidote for his struggle: someone simply telling him where he was on the path and what to do to move on. I wonder what kind of book Waking Up would be if someone had simply taken him aside at that time and said “hey, relax, you are in lower equanimity. It goes on for a while and can sometimes feel uneventful. Here’s what you can do about it…”
>>7881548
Insight meditation, as a culture, is often one of information-restriction rather than transparency. A nascent movement, pragmatic dharma, has emerged largely in reaction to this, but it is still in its infancy and does not have much of a voice in mainstream meditation centers and media outlets (yet). The most traditional approaches still hold the biggest sway, and they are usually hierarchical, with the teacher knowing the details of the insight stages and which one the student is currently developing. The student’s role is to follow the instructions faithfully and not become too wrapped up in where they are on the path and when the cessation will come. There are many reasons why this approach developed, and many of them are very good reasons. But I don’t think these reasons work anymore, and Harris’s case is an example of why we can no longer afford to have an approach to insight meditation modeled on the norms of pre-modern hierarchical culture. It just doesn’t work very well. A few hundred years ago Harris may have stuck it out, not because it was a special time full of special people, but because his options would have been limited. In today’s world, he simply had better choices and felt empowered to pursue them. The important point is that Harris wasn’t failing as a meditator, he was most likely in a state of information-hunger about what was happening in his own mind. He deserved to know more. And as insight meditation grows and establishes itself in the west, we need to keep in mind that we can do a lot better than this.
>>7881549
I would recommend Harris’s book for a number of reasons. The skeptical approach to awakening, denuded of the dogma and superstition, is wonderful. It’s as if a portal into the future opened up and the reader can see what an approach to awakening will look like when we move beyond religion. The presence of neuroscience in a book about awakening is nothing new, but it is rarely presented so soberly and carefully (although the caution led to a lack of integration with the rest of the book). And finally, it is clear that Harris knows what awakening is from direct experience, and can discuss it as a field of human endeavor every bit as legitimate and practical as any art or science.
The book is a high wire act in a sense, where he balances between the assumptions of secular materialists on one hand and religious ideologues on the other. He invites each to see something in their direct experience that fails to fit into any dogma, and he does so with an understanding of both positions that is refreshing. I’m often frustrated with authors who are so intoxicated by spirituality that they’ve lost their mental footing and have succumbed to a kind of cognitive free fall, but equally odious are authors so rigidly skeptical that they refuse to look at the miracle of their own consciousness. Harris successfully creates an island in the gulf between the two perspectives. Hopefully, it will grow as others follow suit.
>>7881544
>intersubjective /pol/ pill truth
>babby tier misunderstanding of a respectable academic again
>can't even into TeX
well meme'd, scientismist :^)
>>7881554
>Feyerabend
>"respectable academic"
my lels are in orbit
>>7881282
I don't know where Heisenberg is in that photo.
But I know that he's standing still.
>>7881402
I'm not sure its a /pol/ thing considering Jews have disproportionately high IQs.
>>7881558
t. arrowcunt, department of uneducated shitposting
>>7881505
Yeah that would be ideal science, however many scientists fall in love with their theories so they try and find proof for instead of against it.
>>7881521
>Dawkins
>science
>>7881561
/pol/ thinks that, therefore you need to go back to /pol/
/pol/ also thinks the grass is green and the sky is blue, so whoever thinks the same way about the grass and sky needs to fuck off back to /pol/
Brendan Fraser?
>>7881282
It would be stunted. A group of sub 150s could get done something much faster, and much better than a single 150+ would.
Science is not a game of genius people finding out great shit, it's a game of people working together to make finds.
i.e. You want more people, always.
>>7881661
>not recognising Pauli at a glance
>>7881505
>>7881948
Good, that's much more fair.
>>7881282
>would science progress a lot faster if we barred anyone who doesn't have a 150 I
stupid
>and a near perfect academic record?
somehow even dumber
iq is not a good measure of success in science, grades are probably the most abysmal measure of success in science imaginable
>>7881529
>Feyerabend
What next, Terence McKenna?
>>7881282
so juvenile.
>>7882492
>Terence McKenna
he's not taken seriously by philosophers.
Hard Work and passion eventaully are going to overcome any talent you have, that includes IQ.
>>7881282
Because, as I understand it, anon, IQ and academic record are imperfect indicators of ability to innovate and that the dogma of science is to be antidogmatic. What's your problem with people who you don't consider worthy of studying science studying science.
>>7881571
What means the «t.» before arrow cunt?
>>7881282
You mean a world without Blacks? Yes it would.
>>7881282
A lack of quality is endemic to over population, get used to it.
>its another thread where iqfags try to pretend that iq means anything
o im laffin
>>7883453
It's because you feed them with attention.
Your reaction feeds their ego - they will respond to you with
>muh iq.
It's party your fault, and my fault for even opening the thread... yes - if we ignore it ( shift + click ) to hide them we fight this cancer more efficiently than anything.
From most pleb/accessible to most patrish/difficult:
Level 0 - Analytic (non-technical): Anglo metaphysics, ethics, epistemology, etc.
Level 1 - Early modern
Level 2 - Continental
Level 3 - Analytic (technical): Anglo (meta-)logic, phil. sci. and phil. lang.
Level 4 - Medieval
Level 5 - Ancient, including pre-Soratic, Platonic/Aristotelian, neo-Platonic, etc.
Level 6 - Socratic and post-Socratic/Hellenistic
Level 7 - Cyrenaic
