Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Amiga Kit Amiga Store Iridium Banner AMIStore App Store A1200/A600 4xIDE Interface

AuthorTopic: Who killed Britannica?  (Read 1932 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Kesa

  • Ninja Fruit Slasher
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 2408
  • Total likes: 0
Re: Who killed Britannica?
« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2012, 07:24:33 AM »
@ChuchT.

Academics are a waste of space! Remember the more an academic learns about something the less relevant that academic becomes relative to that content!

Burn the academics! :flame:
Even my cat doesn\'t like me.
 

Offline Fats

Re: Who killed Britannica?
« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2012, 01:54:58 PM »
Quote from: ChuckT;684117
Sometimes paid help can get knowledge that free help cannot.  I would hate to be relying on someone who wasn't an engineer for engineering advice.  We have a co-worker who went to school but we couldn't let the person work on installing 220 volt electric because our co-worker wasn't licensed.


Sometimes a friend without the proper engineering degree can fix your (motor)bike or your lawn mower. Often it is done better than done by a shop as it is more than a job for them but also a passion.

Quote from: ChuckT;684117
Wikipedia cannot substitute for a doctor or true medical advice.


Nor can encyclopedia Britannica.

Quote from: ChuckT;684117
I think viewpoints and personal things are one thing but knowledge from someone who has a master's or Phd goes a long way than something that is free on Wikipedia.


As if they can't have false believes or make mistakes; I don't find the reference but saw once some statistics comparing errors in a commercial encyclopedia vs. wikipedia. There was no clear winner. Probably the investigation was tainted by what the guy who did the research wanted to prove. But I don't think that information commercially produced is by default trustable or the only way to generate correct information. Look at the whole commercial rubbisch you can find in papers and on television.

Quote from: ChuckT;684117
I'm amazed that Wikipedia has some good content but I've had to pay for specialized content because only true professionals can provide that.  I think more man hours was put in the making of Brittanica and it will sorely be missed.


I am convinced that in a few years time we will laugh with such statements; people used to think the same about putting money on the bank, calling each other anywhere with just a small box in their hand, etc. You can't stop progress, I don't see why general knowledge can only be made in a commercial way and not done by a community. And yes, I also think the academic world will be the last community to conform to the new reality.

greets,
Staf.
Trust me...                                              I know what I\'m doing
 

ChuckT

  • Guest
Re: Who killed Britannica?
« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2012, 08:28:01 PM »
Quote from: Kesa;684120
@ChuchT.

Academics are a waste of space! Remember the more an academic learns about something the less relevant that academic becomes relative to that content!

Burn the academics! :flame:


When I was in high school, Hewlett Packard only would hire people with master's or doctor degrees to work on their computers.

The transistor was made in Bell labs.  I'm sure they were academic.

It isn't that kind of world anymore and fewer employers are willing to pay for on the job training because they want a sure thing.
 

ChuckT

  • Guest
Re: Who killed Britannica?
« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2012, 08:35:45 PM »
Quote from: Fats;684144
As if they can't have false believes or make mistakes; I don't find the reference but saw once some statistics comparing errors in a commercial encyclopedia vs. wikipedia. There was no clear winner. Probably the investigation was tainted by what the guy who did the research wanted to prove. But I don't think that information commercially produced is by default trustable or the only way to generate correct information. Look at the whole commercial rubbisch you can find in papers and on television.


A lot of people on tv are, journalists, actors, or have a liberal arts degree which doesn't qualify them to be peer reviewers.

Being on tv or watching tv doesn't qualify as research.

My doctor doesn't listen or read anything I print off the internet because of malpractice and he only learns from his institution which grants him his higher learning.  

Someone wants to be on tv, someone doesn't like something so they do an incomplete study, they make faulty conclusions as a result and they publish a news story or article.  Correlation doesn't prove causation.  Just because you correlated two facts doesn't mean there isn't another cause.  This is why you need someone who is trained by someone who is trained because the average buthead watching tv wouldn't know if the person on tv is making up his own ideas or whether he is getting them from higher education based on facts.
 

Offline Kesa

  • Ninja Fruit Slasher
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 2408
  • Total likes: 0
Re: Who killed Britannica?
« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2012, 09:25:04 PM »
I agree. In my profession there are always people commenting that a higher education isn't needed and i can confirm that there are many people without a qualification who's abilities are higher than those with a higher education. But only up to a point. A former work colleague who was without doubt a smart individual and good at his job would constantly try to prove that a higher education wasn't needed. But then he would make assumptions about concepts that were just completely wrong. So while it is possible to learn on the job to a high level, it won't allow you to learn the theory and concepts behind what they are doing.

I would also like to mention how i define an academic. An academic is someone who has such a high level of (perceived) knowledge they cannot be challenged. So while i dislike academics i also appreciate the value of an education.
Even my cat doesn\'t like me.