Another Socialist Victory in South America

significant rise? Link doesn't work. So significant rise is unqualified.But are you saying the democratic party is the party of the rich now? And the Republican party the party of the common man?

Works fine for me. Is your browser set up to handle PDF? Doctors and small business people are middle-class, not rich. Are you going to substantiate your assertions, or not?

no no. scientists are very narrowly educated. they only study science and maybe environmental or intellectual property law. the most widely studied scientist you're going to get is a biologist, cause they have to study chemistry, too.lawyers tend to only study law, doctors only medicine, accountants only money.academia suffers right now from a plague of specialization. everybody does it.

Yes.Most physicians, accountants, lawyers take a more narrowly focussed curriculum than most scientists. They possibly have, on the average, lower IQs that scientists, but that's mainly a guess.Sure, there are exceptions.My experience suggests: Liberal arts and science faculty tend to be liberal, economics faculty tend toward libertarianism, other business school faculty tend to be a little more conservative than the liberal arts faculty but not to the extreme of Republican party of today. I suspect that education college faculty also tend to be a little more conservative than their liberal arts colleagues, but my evidence is very limited on education colleges.

i'd vouch for it. i've done stats work with the 2000 election data.

At least in the U.S.A., most science is taught as part of a curriculum in liberal arts and sciences. Liberal arts colleges typically require a broad based undergraduate curriculum.Sure, once they get to grad school, what they study is more narrowly focussed.

It must vary by institution; all of my college friends are scientists of one stripe or another and their educations were very broad, ranging from topics in math and computer science, to religion and philosophy, to languages and literature; my wife holds not only a degree in biology but in Russian, as well. A good buddy of mine is both a geologist and a classicist.

quote:

---

It must vary by institution....

---

That could be. In most of the institutions with which I have been associated (an admittedly very small number of the total), science majors were required to only take a few electives in social sciences and humanities -- usually taken care of in the first couple of years. And most of the humanities and social science majors were only required to take a few elective courses in the natural sciences. In either case, the courses designed to meet the general degree elective requirements were usually pretty watered down.Maybe it's still different at private institutions.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

yes, but everyone who gets a four year degree studies based on the 'liberal arts' curricula. people with business BA's and pre-law BA's have to take the same philosophy and speech and english and science classes as the rest of us. but we all have a choice. but half of everyone's degree is field studies. that means half of everyone's classes are specialized. and tell me you recall everything from your core classes. now. my degree was an interdisciplinary one. so i'm that much less specialized than everyone.

people have different interests. getting multiple degrees is very different than getting one degree. i know someone with a degree in bio and another in chemistry. not that far-reaching. however, a degree in art and another in math? a bit more variety.but you know as well as i that anecdotes about your friends who happen to have broad interests doesn't really say much about the specialized nature of the standard one degree then advance to another one degree system. or maybe it tells even more that in order to study multiple subjects, if you don't get the second degree, you're wasting time and money. me? i'm a bunch of core classes away from an art degree. i've taken art, bio, earth science, programming, math, anthro, philosophy, history, polisci, french, communications classes, and religion classes. and i still graduated on time.arach's dad is a math prof and a judo instructor and speaks old and i think middle english fluently.but the standard requirements for science degrees are very specialized. yes it happens much more in grad school, but tell me how many scientists didn't go to grad school?

no. that's a pretty standard liberal arts program. one or two classes in each discipline and then the rest in your field of choice in increasing specificity.they are just overemphasizing the impact of those interdisciplinary courses on science majors over the non-science majors.

The current discussion is something I tend to file under "way to interesting and good to be lost is a topic it doesn't belong in".Someone needs to start a new "Coffee House" topic. To prevent multi-new topics on the same theme, I suggest brennakimi launches the new topic. Something like "General Education vs. Specialized Education".Adminnemooseus

---

See my previous message.Cases for reopening this topic can be made at the "Thread Reopen Requests" topic, link below.Adminnemooseus

---

And the rate is pretty constant at about 2/3rds, so a 1% change over 5 years has a massive effect on the numbers of units available to purchase? SUDDENLY people can no longer buy homes? ROFLOL.My thesis is that people are not buying houses these days because they can't afford them -- and that is why interest rates are low.I am talking about the GROSS numbers of units sold in a year being down from previous years.I have presented information that this in fact is the case - information from real estate sources - that show (a) low movement of housing units compared to previous years and (2) house prices currently exceeding ability to own houses.You continue to use the "ownership rate" in blind ignorance of the irrelevance of it to my points. All it measures is a NET difference in numbers of owned houses, and has no bearing on the GROSS numbers of units changing hands, and even includes houses that cannot be sold (the houses are still owned eh?).Let me try it one more time and see if I can get through:Take your "ownership rates" and derive from them the GROSS numbers of units that changed hands in the last 10 years, on a year by year basis. Show that -- in GROSS numbers of transactions, not NET transactions -- that more houses are being sold than in previous years.Unless you can do that your argument is just more wasted bandwidth typical of many of your arguments, and it will be pointless to proceed with you on it, because you fail (or chose not) to understand the issue, but will go on ad nauseum about it. LOL again. My thesis is backed by the evidence I presented. You have yet (as usual) to show any that counters it, but continue (as usual) to use an argument that HAS been refuted.It also reflects on all your other arguments and little comments (such as "all evos are etc").Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

What else do you call it when they take all the money that the company earns from the work of all the people in the company, give themselves outrageous salaries, and then give the common workers as little as possible, even forcing them to use state funding for medical aid?Generous? Fair? Just? Non-sequitur logical fallacy. Not all "evos" are "left-wing"

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.