3 ms·
Colleges have 4 years, and most important discoveries took a brilliant person a lifetime of work. How do you propose we give more detailed explanations and inf
by TheDong 3y ago
Colleges have 4 years, and most important discoveries took a brilliant person a lifetime of work.
How do you propose we give more detailed explanations and information for proving everything for yourself? Should college last a few hundred years instead of 4?
Did college not teach you how to access and parse through research papers and books?
If you want a more full explanation and to prove things for yourself, why didn't you do so? When you were told, from authority, about the american antarctic base, why didn't you prove its existence by taking a boat there (repeated ad-nauseam for each location in the world)
- TheAceOfHearts 3y agoCome on, it's a spectrum. I don't expect everything to build up a careful chain of trust and verification. But I think we can still do better than what the current education ecosystem provides. You're taking the most extreme perspective to a pretty reasonable claim. Figuring out how to prove everything myself is impractical because I'm not an expert in every subfield. I think experts in various fields can write shortcuts and simple experiments which prove a lot of knowledge. It doesn't have to be perfect.
- TheDong 3y agoI just can't tell what you want. Like, colleges right now provide "shortcuts and simple experiments" to approximate knowledge that was gained with a much more rigorous path. Yet, you decry current college as not showing the full path, as taking shortcuts. Now, you're saying that yes, we need such shortcuts, it doesn't have to be perfect, and it's a spectrum... all of which I agree with, and seems to be the opposite of what you said above. What's the fundamental difference between what you describe and what colleges do? Or is it just a matter of execution quality?