Have you ever taken a class in Philosophy?

[nismaratwork]

Faraday is another.

Edit: I should say, Faraday was a successful physicist who never had a formal education in Physics. Since Moffat had a PhD, he did have a formal education. There was a guy who worked with Hubble too, but I can't recall his name.

I was going to say, Faraday, from Wikipedia (emphasis mine)

Faraday was born in Newington Butts,[8] now part of the London Borough of Southwark; but then a suburban part of Surrey, one mile south of London Bridge.[9] His family was not well off. His father, James, was a member of the Glassite sect of Christianity. James Faraday moved his wife and two children to London during the winter of 1790-1 from Outhgill in Westmorland, where he had been an apprentice to the village blacksmith.[10] Michael was born the autumn of that year. The young Michael Faraday, the third of four children, having only the most basic of school educations, had to largely educate himself.[11] At fourteen he became apprenticed to a local bookbinder and bookseller George Riebau in Blandford St[12] and, during his seven-year apprenticeship, he read many books, including Isaac Watts' The Improvement of the Mind, and he enthusiastically implemented the principles and suggestions that it contained. He developed an interest in science, especially in electricity. In particular, he was inspired by the book Conversations on Chemistry by Jane Marcet.[13]

At the age of twenty, in 1812, at the end of his apprenticeship, Faraday attended lectures by the eminent English chemist Humphry Davy of the Royal Institution and Royal Society, and John Tatum, founder of the City Philosophical Society. Many tickets for these lectures were given to Faraday by William Dance (one of the founders of the Royal Philharmonic Society). Afterwards, Faraday sent Davy a three hundred page book based on notes taken during the lectures. Davy's reply was immediate, kind, and favourable. When Davy damaged his eyesight in an accident with nitrogen trichloride, he decided to employ Faraday as a secretary. When John Payne, one of the Royal Institution's assistants, was sacked, Sir Humphry Davy was asked to find a replacement. He appointed Faraday as Chemical Assistant at the Royal Institution on 1 March 1813 .[2]

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't think Newton had an education in physics either.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Benjamin Franklin too.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You could, but for someone to teach themselves professional-level QM (applied chemistry, teaching, etc...) from the ground up (post avg high-school) would be astonishingly rare. I would also question the capacity of say... the Navajo Chanting Ways to be "autodidactic". There are things that, by evolution of complexity, or by design, are very hard to learn by yourself, and other subjects are amenable to self-study. Beyond that, some subjects DEMAND self-teaching, so... it's a complex issue that would be hard to make a definitive statement about.

On the other hand, impressive that you taught yourself trig! People are capable of amazing feats, there's no doubt about that.

Trig is probably the easiest subject in math to self-learn. I was lucky that this was the only math deficit from high school. [btw, the record showed I had taken it, but it was records error caused by a change in schools during my junior year of hs]

My point was that while a person can study any subject on their own, there is no way to know if they are "getting it", or if they are limited to a superficial understanding of the subject. Without guidance and testing, there is no way to determine the quality of the education received.

In QM esp, I often read the chapter and thought I undestood it, only to discover that I had no idea how to even start the first homework problem. Without the homework problems, I would have believed I understood the material when I didn't. Philosophy has the same problem. One can read books without truly understanding the subject. In fact, this is true of most subjects. I know I got a lot more from my history of England class than I would have by simply reading the book. I had a great teacher who made it an experience, rather than just a class.

 

[nismaratwork]

Trig is probably the easiest subject in math to self-learn. I was lucky that this was the only math deficit from high school. [btw, the record showed I had taken it, but it was records error caused by a change in schools during my junior year of hs]

My point was that while a person can study any subject on their own, there is no way to know if they are "getting it", or if they are limited to a superficial understanding of the subject. Without guidance and testing, there is no way to determine the quality of the education received.

In QM esp, I often read the chapter and thought I undestood it, only to discover that I had no idea how to even start the first homework problem. Without the homework problems, I would have believed I understood the material when I didn't. Philosophy has the same problem. One can read books without truly understanding the subject. In fact, this is true of most subjects. I know I got a lot more from my history of England class than I would have by simply reading the book. I had a great teacher who made it an experience, rather than just a class.

I agree completely.

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't think Newton had an education in physics either.

I think we're falling to the problem that, when you go back to a certain point, a formal education or a gentleman's upbringing... these could be the same. Newton certainly had excellent resources and contacts, and he's not exactly a rule.

Besides... he was wrong.

 

[nismaratwork]

Benjamin Franklin too.

He was an exceptional man, and at times he had to learn alone, but he was notable for bringing scholars TOGETHER To learn. I think you're into the myth, not the man.

Benjamin Franklin was born on Milk Street, in Boston, Massachusetts, on January 17, 1706[1] and baptized at Old South Meeting House. Josiah wanted Ben to attend school with the clergy, but only had enough money to send him to school for two years. He attended Boston Latin School but did not graduate; he continued his education through voracious reading. Although "his parents talked of the church as a career"[cite this quote] for Franklin, his schooling ended when he was ten. He then worked for his father for a time and at 12 he became an apprentice to his brother James, a printer, who taught Ben the printing trade. When Ben was 15, James founded The New-England Courant, which was the first truly independent newspaper in the colonies. When denied the chance to write a letter to the paper for publication, Franklin adopted the pseudonym of "Mrs. Silence Dogood", a middle-aged widow. "Mrs. Dogood"'s letters were published, and became a subject of conversation around town. Neither James nor the Courant's readers were aware of the ruse, and James was unhappy with Ben when he discovered the popular correspondent was his younger brother. Franklin left his apprenticeship without permission, and in so doing became a fugitive.[10]

At age 17, Franklin ran away to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, seeking a new start in a new city. When he first arrived he worked in several printer shops around town. However, he was not satisfied by the immediate prospects. After a few months, while working in a printing house, Franklin was convinced by Pennsylvania Governor Sir William Keith to go to London, ostensibly to acquire the equipment necessary for establishing another newspaper in Philadelphia. Finding Keith's promises of backing a newspaper to be empty, Franklin worked as a typesetter in a printer's shop in what is now the Church of St Bartholomew-the-Great in the Smithfield area of London. Following this, he returned to Philadelphia in 1726 with the help of Thomas Denham, a merchant who employed Franklin as clerk, shopkeeper, and bookkeeper in his business.[10]

In 1727, Benjamin Franklin, then 21, created the Junto, a group of "like minded aspiring artisans and tradesmen who hoped to improve themselves while they improved their community." The Junto was a discussion group for issues of the day; it subsequently gave rise to many organizations in Philadelphia.

2 years of school, needing to learn to read in the first place as a part of his trade, and to do so exceptionally well, and then his group which became his intellectual springboard.

 

[Ben Niehoff]

I took three philosophy courses. One on Existentialism, one on World Religions, and one on Philosophy of Science. I thought they were all pretty good, although Philosophy of Science was a little annoying because a lot of the philosophy students end up taking away from that class some kind of haughtiness towards science, as though it is somehow beholden and inferior to philosophy. A sort of "Ha ha, you do all these experiments, but we know what you don't!" attitude. The idea that scientists were too plebeian to bother thinking about the meaning of their craft was kind of offensive.

 

[Proton Soup]

never taken a philosophy course. don't think i'd get much from it, either. i have some interest in it at the moment, but mostly in a politics/literature/pop pseudo-intellectual culture-reference sort of way.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I would have thought there would have been many more "no" votes just because I've noticed some disdain for Humanities courses from members. Perhaps, as humanino suggested, if they haven't taken a course, they are so uninterested that they don't even enter this thread.

I've only taken three classes in Phil. I took Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of Mind (great readings, awful teacher), and Logic and Critical Thinking.

The last of three was my favorite. It covered things like deductive and inductive reasoning, logical fallacies, and spotting weak arguments. I really wish that there had been a course like that in high school. These were such fundamental things that I should have learned much earlier in life, and I think that course helped me a great deal with argument and analysis papers that I wrote later for my other courses.

 

[Evo]

I would have thought there would have been many more "no" votes just because I've noticed some disdain for Humanities courses from members.

There should have been a 3rd vote category, "unfortunately". I wonder how many of the "yes" votes would be in there? I think that would have made this more what you were looking for.

Saying, yes, I took a course doesn't mean that they thought it was worthwhile, which would account for the disdain.

 

[Math Is Hard]

There should have been a 3rd vote category, "unfortunately".

 

[Proton Soup]

we had social science reqs when i went through uni. but what i ended up taking at the time was psych and abnormal psych. and that's like almost the same thing, right?

 

[Pengwuino]

I know someone who took a philosophy class this semester and he said all it is is some jackass at the front asking stupid questions equivalent to the famous "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is". They think they're being super intellectual but in reality they are just dodging the questions and derailing the lecture while looking like morons. He had a really good example that was related to photons where someone just had a stupid response like that, I wish I remember what it was.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Besides... he was wrong.

Now now, Newtonian Physics was correct beyond the limits of measurement, within its domain. You might say it is the first order term for a longer series, but the first term is still correct.

 

[mollymae]

I took a political philosophy class a few years ago. I enjoyed it immensely though I didn't really read anything that I felt spoke to me on a personal level. That came later.

 

[DanP]

I know someone who took a philosophy class this semester and he said all it is is some jackass at the front asking stupid questions equivalent to the famous "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is". They think they're being super intellectual but in reality they are just dodging the questions and derailing the lecture while looking like morons. He had a really good example that was related to photons where someone just had a stupid response like that, I wish I remember what it was.

Like I said, wasted brain power. Same class with art critics, food critics, literature critics and other jackasses and do-goodders.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Now now, Newtonian Physics was correct beyond the limits of measurement, within its domain. You might say it is the first order term for a longer series, but the first term is still correct.

Newton made considerable contributions to many branches of physics, not just mechanics. Physics is not math, and his theory of mechanics (the physics) was later proved wrong even though his equations (the math) are still useful. Obviously, he had no formal education in classical mechanics. Ben Franklin had no formal education in physics but made important contributions in the theory of electricity.

 

[nismaratwork]

I think my "wrong" statement needed more than one smiley... only Ivan seems to have gotten it purely as a joke!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Newton made considerable contributions to many branches of physics, not just mechanics. Physics is not math, and his theory of mechanics (the physics) was later proved wrong even though his equations (the math) are still useful. Obviously, he had no formal education in classical mechanics. Ben Franklin had no formal education in physics but made important contributions in the theory of electricity.

Newtonian Physics was correct beyond the limits of measurement, within its domain

Is there something about that statement that is incorrect?

I heard somewhere that he did a little math.

 

[WiFO215]

I don't think Newton had an education in physics either.

Dude! He had no problems. See, all HE did was come over to PF. Check out the homework sub-forum. It's all there.

 

[nismaratwork]

Dude! He had no problems. See, all HE did was come over to PF. Check out the homework sub-forum. It's all there.

"I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!"

j/k! Newton did have access to something like a bit of PF library resources for the time.

 

[armolinasf]

Took an into to philosophy class in high school at a community college, the teacher would have been an awesome guy to have a beer or two with but he wasn't that great a teacher.

I have to say that philosophy is one of those subjects that thrives outside of a school setting. At the heart of it it really is just about thinking and examining yourself and your environment, and that's something that can be done anytime and anywhere.

 

[nismaratwork]

Took an into to philosophy class in high school at a community college, the teacher would have been an awesome guy to have a beer or two with but he wasn't that great a teacher.

I have to say that philosophy is one of those subjects that thrives outside of a school setting. At the heart of it it really is just about thinking and examining yourself and your environment, and that's something that can be done anytime and anywhere.

Interesting, I never got that social with in high school with a teacher, but we did get together at his place (boarding school) to play cards. Just as you said, good guy, smart too... meh as a teacher.

I think you need other people to interact with to learn philosophy properly, but I'm not sure that you NEED a teacher. Ideally you would, but if you're a philosophy teacher, I think I'd be more impressed if you were a philosopher yourself, and not just on paper. Get out there and live in the public square as it were, but ideally... not literally.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Took an into to philosophy class in high school at a community college, the teacher would have been an awesome guy to have a beer or two with but he wasn't that great a teacher.

I have to say that philosophy is one of those subjects that thrives outside of a school setting. At the heart of it it really is just about thinking and examining yourself and your environment, and that's something that can be done anytime and anywhere.

I would say the recent moderating actions in the Philosophy forum are evidence otherwise. If left to do as you suggest, the forum is reduced to nonsense. In fact, given the nature of the subject, I would say that philosophy is one the least self-teachable subjects because it is so easy to go right over a logical cliff. There is no way to check your work! This is in fact what we have seen happening in the forum for years now.

 

[nismaratwork]

I would say the recent moderating actions in the Philosophy forum are evidence otherwise. If left to do as you suggest, the forum is reduced to nonsense. In fact, given the nature of the subject, I would say that philosophy is one the least self-teachable subjects because it is so easy to go right over a logical cliff. There is no way to check your work! This is in fact what we have seen happening in the forum for years now.

PF Philosophy Forest: There's just a lomax, weeping for the locked threads... and me laughing at him.

As lofty as its goals are, something about the discussion of philosophy over the internet just turns into a catfight.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As lofty as its goals are, something about the discussion of philosophy over the internet just turns into a catfight.

That isn't the problem. The problem is that the arguments posed are nonsense.

They often begin with a flawed premise, such as "Einstein said everything is relative". Before you even start, you are done. That is simply not true. This is one example why we have the new requirement for a paper, to start a discussion. This forces the participants to address legitimate questions and not whatever pops into their heads.

 

[nismaratwork]

That isn't the problem. The problem is that the arguments posed are nonsense.

They often begin with a flawed premise, such as "Einstein said everything is relative". Before you even start, you are done. That is simply not true. This is one example why we have the new requirement for a paper, to start a discussion. This forces the participants to address legitimate questions and not whatever pops into their heads.

Hmmm... I believe that's a problem, and I believe that's the problem here (you'd know more than I), but it still seems true; anonymity and discussions of philosophy mix poorly.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Yes, but courses generally art related.

 

[EnumaElish]

I had always been partial to philosophy, in particular philosophy of science. So I read Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper when I was in college. But first, some background. In the seventies philosophy was still sort of hip (the post-war french had a big role in popularizing philosophy -- Brirain had the Beatles, France had the Existentialists, and for example "cutting edge" psychology [Lacan] and history of western institutions [Foucault] were overlapping with philosophy). In college, the soc. sci. and the humanities had the hippest and better-looking people while other departments had little of either, and their student population was significantly skewed toward "far too many men and too few women." Which, taken altogether, produced an interest in me toward soc. sci. & philosophy classes. I ended up taking grad-level Critique of Pure Reason. The prof. knew the stuff and was a very good teacher; she was serious (almost stern) and also a little paranoid, she thought my best-ever paper deserved only B because it was "written so well" that it could not have been "anything but plagiarism." I am not resentful for having taken the class, though.