tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post4285997423971046122..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: The value of academic scholarshipUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45449081387159316162011-09-29T10:49:02.525-04:002011-09-29T10:49:02.525-04:00Thanks for the great post, Massimo.
I'm a PhD...Thanks for the great post, Massimo.<br /><br />I'm a PhD philosophy student, and much of your public outreach has had a tremendous impact on my goals for the future. Thanks for doing that and setting a good example for fellow whatever-we-are's.SJKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17071323103274383504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72133783911545240082011-09-29T02:43:55.130-04:002011-09-29T02:43:55.130-04:00@Gadfly, I strongly must disagree with you.
Altho...@Gadfly, I strongly must disagree with you.<br /><br />Although Massimo won't get into this discussion here, I found your comments on the subject a little myopic. As someone who spent half a decade living in Hiroshima, I am quite aware of the long term affects of the bombing and the toll it had on the Japanese, both physically and mentally.<br /><br />The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima had a negative impact all around. That's just the gist of it.<br /><br />Families today still suffer the after effects of the bombings, either directly because of birth defects or else because of the trauma the massive starvation had on them when they were children.<br /><br />Of course, the bombing may have had a *net benefit in preventing further deaths, but you are incorrect to assume it saved lives. It killed thousands of people and destroyed entire cities. That doesn't include the numerous fire bombing campaigns either which crippled Japan. Just think about it, we weren't fighting Japan's army, we were attacking innocent school children, farmers, and crippled an entire economy with our bombing of the mainland. I supposed killing off the indigenous population would be one way to end a war... but I don't think you can claim that would be a good or ethical thing to do. But that's exactly what the atomic bomb was designed to do--and the U.S. was the only nation to use nuclear weapons against another nation. <br /><br />Consider this, though. What if Hitler had beat us to the punch, and obtained nuclear devices before the U.S.?<br /><br />If Hitler had bombed New York and Los Angeles with nuclear bombs... completely obliterating them from the face of the Earth... would this atrocity have been any different ethically than us having used atomic weapons on Japan?<br /><br />Hitler could have very well used the same excuse you have--he was preventing any further deaths in the long run by putting the war to an preemptive end. <br /><br />Some how I don't think the *net benefits of preventing potential deaths outweighs the harm the atomic bombing actually had. <br /><br />Massimo is right, the effects were negative.Tristan Vickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05348780254008374268noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88111193259145110612011-09-28T16:43:50.101-04:002011-09-28T16:43:50.101-04:00Gadfly,
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT &quo...Gadfly,<br /><br />> Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT "negatives." They saved American lives, probably saved *net* Japanese lives <<br /><br />I'm not getting into that discussion here. I simply reiterate my disagreement, and we might have to explore that issue on another occasion.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47026285528653980742011-09-28T02:17:35.668-04:002011-09-28T02:17:35.668-04:00It's off the main topic by far, but I must dis...It's off the main topic by far, but I must disagree with a moral "talking point" Massimo makes early on.<br /><br />Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT "negatives." They saved American lives, probably saved *net* Japanese lives compared to what a lengthy blockade would have done, and by ending the war earlier (ignoring the idea of the A-bomb being a "signal" to Stalin) kept the Cold War in Asia from starting out even messier than it did.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-76689407706777903622011-09-28T02:01:30.853-04:002011-09-28T02:01:30.853-04:00Great post.
shouldn't our best current schola...Great post.<br /><br /><b>shouldn't our best current scholars excite the next generations?</b><br /><br />As you complement later, and I concur, being a good researcher and being a good teacher often do not go well together. And yet, I only have anecdotes. This just reminded of the "Harmony of the Worlds" episode of Cosmos, which I watched again a few weeks ago, where Sagan describes Kepler's life and achievements. Kepler was a horrible teacher, apparently, but an incredible genius in his research. To teach well, one has to not only know the subject, but also to be a good communicator. The good teacher has to be able to make you go "wow, that's interesting, I want to know more". And that does not always come easily to everyone. Some training helps too, I found out, although we almost never get any. The near complete lack of value given to teaching ("waste of time that could be spent doing research or writing the next grant proposal") in most universities does not help the situation, I think. Same goes for mentoring: the great scientist is not necessarily a good mentor, and vice-versa. I've seen both.<br /><br />There are the Richard Feynmans of the world, who can do both very well. And there are also the science popularizers, who while decent but by far not top scientists, are still very valuable by inspiring people to follow in their footsteps, or at least understand the world better.J. Marcelo Alveshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09967299561849915314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69996556716969270562011-09-27T20:12:45.201-04:002011-09-27T20:12:45.201-04:00I think that there's another approach that som...I think that there's another approach that someone can take to defend academia. I think that it's reasonable to assume that at some point in time, everyone takes a larger interest in some specific topic, and what someone will be interested in is very unpredictable. It's an amazing fact that we all have the ability to really explore a topic that greatly interests us, and the only way to really get deeper into a topic is through academic papers and books.<br />I think that the attack on academia partly comes from the fact that while every individual is interested and happy to have resources on his or her topic, people don't consider the fact that other people are just as interested in other things. A society that values curiosity and intelligence shouldn't allow for someone to have a question about something without there being any resources to explore the question in more detail. People need to understand that living in a society where any citizen can explore questions ranging from "how does the cell determine when the right time to divide is," to "what does Heraclitus mean by this passage" is truly magnificent, and just plain awesome. It would be a horrible offense if we punish the person who is interested in the topic that is no longer covered because of cutbacks.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10532166121556577867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84844782162459316222011-09-26T14:11:06.524-04:002011-09-26T14:11:06.524-04:00I think the Ph.D. at a research university isn'...I think the Ph.D. at a research university isn't so much presumed to be a good teacher as a good mentor and leader in the field, plus giving the uni some bragging rights about who is in their stable.<br /><br />Lower-level courses are taught by teaching assistants, who may or may not get any training in how to teach. At one of the universities where I did some graduate study (heh, five years), there was a huge controversy about the beginning level sciences being taught by Asian students who were unintelligible to the farmers' children sent to study there. Nobody asked the big question: why do Asian countries value a graduate education in science but not the United States?<br /><br />The result of course is that now the Asian countries are kicking the arse of the U.S. economically because of the superior engineering and science students they have sent to us who returned to create industrial powerhouses.<br /><br />Now that we've turned our best asset over to other countries, perhaps we should see that the answer is found in the output of all those Ph.D.s who do not go on to replicate their mentors' careers but carve out their own as innovators. We should stop sending these students back to their home countries, and we should stop letting people tell farmers' children that evolution is "just a theory." Those children no longer have a future in farming thanks to the advances in farm technology accomplished by people who don't believe that evolution is "just a theory."LadyAtheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12132821431322748921noreply@blogger.com