Are a lot of you math and science types poor at english

[cristo]

Using clearly, would denote that you have put my english skills through the whole entire scientific method, and it is a clear fact that my english skills suck!

Any one of your posts in this thread go towards showing that your English is not 'exemplary', including the end of this post, where you show that you don't understand the definition of the very word!

when using the word exemplary to describe my english skills, i simply mean i am above average.

 

[dx]

when using the word exemplary to describe my english skills, i simply mean i am above average.

If you meant 'above average', why did you say 'exemplary'? Even someone who is average at english would know that 'exemplary' means something like 'extremely good' or 'near perfect'.

 

[Moonbear]

moonbear, you my friend need to learn to read.

This is precisely the attitude of which I speak. You seem very unaware of your own shortcomings. Become aware of them and correct them or don't ever try to practice medicine.

I also do not know who has been telling you that you have even above average English grammar skills. Bluntly, you do not. You are perhaps average, but your posts here would suggest your written English skills are below average and require improvement. If you CAN write better, and aren't bothering to do so, then that's just laziness.

 

[arildno]

Even I, just a scruffy Norwegian, am WAY more proficient in English than you, sportsstar!

 

[sportsstar469]

If you meant 'above average', why did you say 'exemplary'? Even someone who is average at english would know that 'exemplary' means something like 'extremely good' or 'near perfect'.

above average has many levels. extremely good is one of those levels.

 

[sportsstar469]

Well, as someone who thrives in sciences, you should know the difference between a theory and a fact. Using clearly, would denote that you have put my english skills through the whole entire scientific method, and it is a clear fact that my english skills suck! Since that is not true, and you are speculating, my english competency based on some improperly capitalized posts on this site, your ideas are nothing but speculation and theory. it is for that reason that the word CLEARLY should be omitted from your post.
Mr. physicist.

its amazing how a simple question, can stir up so much animosity. You would think that members of the scientific community would thrive to divulge a myth, that scientists, and mathematicians are just one sided. Also that they would do this in a positive way, that would bring positive connotation to the science and math community, as opposed to negative backwash like is being done now.

when using the word exemplary to describe my english skills, i simply mean i am above average. i am no english god, nor do i wish to be one. i have a much greater interest in becoming proficient in the mathematics i will be taking. math and labs for science are my current weak points, and i have already aced the college english courses i needed to take.

tell me how i have below average english skills in this post? capitalization aside due to laziness, i get my point across, and deliver a clear fluid argument, with good word choices. although i did make a careless mistake and say divulge when dispel should have been used.,/

i suppose since the person i was quoting said it was clear my english skills were poor, he is not good at science. after all he did not go through the scientific method, using my english skills. he just bypassed the theory process and said it was CLEAR that my skills are poor. which means it is a fact.

also i guess you logical physicists aren't too logical after all. after all you say i assume things when i never made any assumptions. questions are far from assumptions. in fact some people ask questions to avoid making assumptions

 

[Cyrus]

tell me how i have below average english skills in this post? capitalization aside due to laziness, i get my point across, and deliver a clear fluid argument, with good word choices. although i did make a careless mistake and say divulge when dispel should have been used.,/

i suppose since the person i was quoting said it was clear my english skills were poor, he is not good at science. after all he did not go through the scientific method, using my english skills. he just bypassed the theory process and said it was CLEAR that my skills are poor. which means it is a fact.

also i guess you logical physicists aren't too logical after all. after all you say i assume things when i never made any assumptions. questions are far from assumptions. in fact some people ask questions to avoid making assumptions

This is the second time you misused the word theory. Look it up! Theory does not mean hypothesis.

 

[dx]

above average has many levels. extremely good is one of those levels.

No one says 'above average' when they mean 'extremely good'. You seem to have problems even with the common usage of english.

 

[sportsstar469]

This is the second time you misused the word theory. Look it up! Theory does not mean hypothesis.

never said it did, i know perfectly well what a hypothesis is. something is a theory long before it is a afact. and the passage from theory to fact is through the scientific methods.

 

[Cyrus]

never said it did, i know perfectly well what a hypothesis is. something is a theory long before it is a afact. and the passage from theory to fact is through the scientific methods.

but you said this:

Well, as someone who thrives in sciences, you should know the difference between a theory and a fact. Using clearly, would denote that you have put my english skills through the whole entire scientific method, and it is a clear fact that my english skills suck! Since that is not true, and you are speculating, my english competency based on some improperly capitalized posts on this site, your ideas are nothing but speculation and theory. it is for that reason that the word CLEARLY should be omitted from your post.
Mr. physicist.

The use of the word theory here is wrong.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This is the second time you misused the word theory. Look it up! Theory does not mean hypothesis.

Case in point, for my earlier post. The original definition of the word 'theory' is actually much closer to the general use definition and not very different from the definition of 'hypothesis'. The formalized definition for scientific jargon is a later development. Of course Sportsstar used the term in reference to the scientific method and ought have used it properly in that context. Not necessarily incorrect but sloppy jargon certainly.

 

[Tobias Funke]

So...can we call troll yet? I think a lot of you guys are being played right now, which makes sense because the guy is a sports star.

 

[Evo]

So...can we call troll yet? I think a lot of you guys are being played right now, which makes sense because the guy is a sports star.

No, I don't think he's a troll. A troll would make outlandish claims. These are just simple, correctable errors. If he is trying to troll, he's not succeeding.

 

[hypatia]

I have always studied the sciences, and I have always had very poor writing skills. For years I relied on a Dictaphone, because I actually speak very well. Thank goodness for spell check. I still sort of guess where the commas go, and often confuse their for there. Lol.

 

[xxChrisxx]

tell me how i have below average english skills in this post? capitalization aside due to laziness, i get my point across, and deliver a clear fluid argument, with good word choices. although i did make a careless mistake and say divulge when dispel should have been used.,/

This again proves how shoddy the premise of the OP was. Lazyness trumps English skill.

i suppose since the person i was quoting said it was clear my english skills were poor, he is not good at science. after all he did not go through the scientific method, using my english skills. he just bypassed the theory process and said it was CLEAR that my skills are poor. which means it is a fact.

The English skills you have demonstrated are poor. However at least you explained them away through lazyness. We can only go off what is demonstrated, so until some unparalleled piece of prose flows from your fingers, we are perfectly valid to bash you and your 'skills'.

also i guess you logical physicists aren't too logical after all. after all you say i assume things when i never made any assumptions. questions are far from assumptions. in fact some people ask questions to avoid making assumptions

Our logic >>> Your English skills. Always and forever.

 

[jgens]

something is a theory long before it is a afact.

So, since Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been around a long time - more than 100 years - and verified extensively via the scientific method, it should now be Einstein's Fact of Relativity? I think you misunderstand exactly what the word theory means.

 

[lisab]

So...can we call troll yet? I think a lot of you guys are being played right now, which makes sense because the guy is a sports star.

My troll sensor reads zero.

 

[sportsstar469]

I have always studied the sciences, and I have always had very poor writing skills. For years I relied on a Dictaphone, because I actually speak very well. Thank goodness for spell check. I still sort of guess where the commas go, and often confuse their for there. Lol.

yeah, as a student whose struggled in math, i have always held mathematically inclined people to such a high standard. I'd always say, that if one was a genius in math, he could do all the other subjects with such ease. I met a student in my biology class, who is currently in calculus 3. He is getting 30s-70s on his biology quizzes. it shocked me. It prompted this question however. Id say biology involves more memorization and left sided thinking.

thanks for sharing your story dudde./

 

[Andre]

So, since Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been around a long time - more than 100 years - and verified extensively via the scientific method, it should now be Einstein's Fact of Relativity? I think you misunderstand exactly what the word theory means.

I don't see a violation of the hierarchy of scientific certainty here. If we are dead sure of the correctness of relativity, we should move it up to 'law' level, not 'fact level'. Also maybe we were too quick to accept Newtons idea on law levels before seeing the problems with it on quantum levels and cosmic levels.

 

[Galteeth]

if you go on any other online forum you will find that the standard of english is lower.

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-grammar&tid=537

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

yeah, as a student whose struggled in math ...

Sportsstar, as a writer who's struggled with English, you are the gift that keeps on giving. Why is this English more exemplary than the your - you're error that got this thread started?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

By the way, I vote for troll. Actually, I read the posts pro and con without knowing what a troll was. The only one I ever knew about was in a short novel I read at the age of 6. That one ate goats so I thought you guys meant he was trying to get our goat which is not far off. Here is a definition I got from googling.

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

It's a tough call. His "Do you still beat your wife?"-like question in the subject line qualifies as inflammatory, but not controversial, irrelevant, or off-topic. It did not disrupt anything. However, the discrepency between his stated prowess in English and his actual ability makes me question his primary intent. I say he's a troll, but as with the English language, he's not very good at it.

 

[Sankaku]

No, I don't think he's a troll. A troll would make outlandish claims. These are just simple, correctable errors. If he is trying to troll, he's not succeeding.

To quote from wiki:

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response..."

A troll doesn't have to behave intentionally trollish. Seeing his behaviour in this thread and others, I think he thrives on the emotional responses to his inflammatory posts.

Edit: looks like jimmysnyder beat me to the quote...

 

[sportsstar469]

I don't see a violation of the hierarchy of scientific certainty here. If we are dead sure of the correctness of relativity, we should move it up to 'law' level, not 'fact level'. Also maybe we were too quick to accept Newtons idea on law levels before seeing the problems with it on quantum levels and cosmic levels.

perhaps the scientific method should be revised =p. lol jk.

 

[Galteeth]

perhaps the scientific method should be revised =p. lol jk.

Trolling is practically a sport these days. A good "troll" does not want to be discovered as such. There is a whole internet subculture associated with this.


In my opinion, this guy is "doin' it for the lulz"

 

[Galteeth]

On the starting subject of the thread, I think this idea is popular because of a popular misunderstanding of the notion of brain lateralization promoted by pop psychology(can we have "hate" threads on certain "sciences"?).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function#Left_vs._Right

 

[cristo]

This thread has run its course.