5 ms·

I find it strange that no one in this discussion seems to notice the dripping sarcasm...

by dstyrb 11y ago

oafitupa 11y ago
What do you mean? :(
- dstyrb 11y ago
  Basically the entirety of paragraph 3... "set up only for those who wish to become theoretical physicists, not just ordinary ones" --- use of 'ordinary' instead of 'experimental' is intentionally condescending, hopefully for sarcastic effect "very best, those who are fully determined to earn their own Nobel Prize. If you are more modest than that" --- I'm not sure if this is actual encouragement or a joke. But the following: "finish those lousy schools first and follow the regular routes provided by educators and specialized -gogues who are so damn carefully chewing all those tiny portions before feeding them to you." --- Must be a joke. Nobel prizes are not awarded to individuals these days, they go to collaborations. There is no way to get into a collaboration, or likely a PhD program without an undergraduate degree in Physics. Legally not allowed in many European countries to join a PhD program... "More than rudimentary intelligence is assumed to be present, because ordinary students can master this material only when assisted by patient teachers." --- if this isn't sarcasm, then this guy is a monstrous prick who just decided to insult the 'rudimentary' intelligence of all Physics undergrads who deigned to actually attend college. Again with the 'ordinary'. The opening paragraph continues the authors apparent disdain for school in general: "But what if you are still young, at School, and before being admitted at a University, you have to endure the childish anecdotes that they call science there? What if you are older, and you are not at all looking forward to join those noisy crowds of young students?" Which is a bit humerus considering the importance he himself places on fundamentals with: "solid foundations in elementary mathematics and notions of classical (pre-20th century) physics. Don’t think that pre-20th century physics is “irrelevant”" If it isn't sarcasm, then I have no idea why the author has decided to be so acerbic in his notation. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't actually mean to insult basically the 99% of physicists who don't show up in "Brilliant Mind"-esque movies. edit: From his CV: * Gymnasium-Beta, Dalton Lyceum, The Hague, 1964 * Physics and Mathematics, University of Utrecht * Kandidaatsexamen N1, 4 July 1966 * Doctoraal examen Theoretical Physics, 10 October 1969 * Promotie (PhD thesis) on the subject "Renormalization Procedure for Yang-Mills fields", 1 March 1972 i.e. He did basically all this stuff he is brushing off as worthless. As in going to classes, with teachers, at an undergraduate university, before applying for a PhD program.
  - gohrt 11y ago
    You are misreading anger where there is slightly ascerbic honesty: > "set up only for those who wish to become theoretical physicists, not just ordinary ones" -> -- use of 'ordinary' instead of 'experimental' is intentionally condescending, hopefully for sarcastic effect If you'd finished the sentence, you'd see: "but the very best, those who are fully determined to earn their own Nobel Prize. " He is constrasting "ordinary" with "the very best". He isn't talking about experimental physics -- that's not his field. > "finish those lousy schools first and follow the regular routes provided by educators and specialized -gogues who are so damn carefully chewing all those tiny portions before feeding them to you." --- Must be a joke. Nobel prizes are not awarded to individuals these days, they go to collaborations. There is no way to get into a collaboration, or likely a PhD program without an undergraduate degree in Physics. Legally not allowed in many European countries to join a PhD program... The beauty of theoretical physics (and math) is that you don't need any expensive equipment or overpriced tuition. Just books and people to talk to. Both of these are available free (except some books cost $$$), on the Internet. That's enough to get started. > "More than rudimentary intelligence is assumed to be present, because ordinary students can master this material only when assisted by patient teachers." --- if this isn't sarcasm, then this guy is a monstrous prick who just decided to insult the 'rudimentary' intelligence of all Physics undergrads who deigned to actually attend college. Again with the 'ordinary'. It's a simple fact: Smarter folks can get farther without as much guidance from teachers. > The opening paragraph continues the authors apparent disdain for school in general: "But what if you are still young, at School, and before being admitted at a University, you have to endure the childish anecdotes that they call science there? What if you are older, and you are not at all looking forward to join those noisy crowds of young students?" Common K-12 schools in many countries generally teach science and math very poorly. This is not a controversial statement. Colleges are full of 18-22-yr-olds, many of whom are there to party; not a comfortable environment for some 30+ year olds. > Which is a bit humerus You seem to have a bone to pick. > considering the importance he himself places on fundamentals with: "solid foundations in elementary mathematics and notions of classical (pre-20th century) physics. Don’t think that pre-20th century physics is “irrelevant”" What does that have to do with the high school and college learning experience? >i .e. He did basically all this stuff he is brushing off as worthless. As in going to classes, with teachers, at an undergraduate university, before applying for a PhD program. The into goes to lengths to explain the sort of person who doesn't fit into school, and would benefit from an autodidactic alternative. For everyone else...there's school. I don't know why you have such a chip against the possibility of thriving outside of college... too much student loans got you sour grapse?

I find it strange that no one in this discussion seems to notice the dripping sarcasm...

by dstyrb 11y ago

I find it strange that no one in this discussion seems to notice the dripping sarcasm...

oafitupa 11y ago

What do you mean? :(

dstyrb 11y ago
Basically the entirety of paragraph 3... "set up only for those who wish to become theoretical physicists, not just ordinary ones" --- use of 'ordinary' instead of 'experimental' is intentionally condescending, hopefully for sarcastic effect "very best, those who are fully determined to earn their own Nobel Prize. If you are more modest than that" --- I'm not sure if this is actual encouragement or a joke. But the following: "finish those lousy schools first and follow the regular routes provided by educators and specialized -gogues who are so damn carefully chewing all those tiny portions before feeding them to you." --- Must be a joke. Nobel prizes are not awarded to individuals these days, they go to collaborations. There is no way to get into a collaboration, or likely a PhD program without an undergraduate degree in Physics. Legally not allowed in many European countries to join a PhD program... "More than rudimentary intelligence is assumed to be present, because ordinary students can master this material only when assisted by patient teachers." --- if this isn't sarcasm, then this guy is a monstrous prick who just decided to insult the 'rudimentary' intelligence of all Physics undergrads who deigned to actually attend college. Again with the 'ordinary'. The opening paragraph continues the authors apparent disdain for school in general: "But what if you are still young, at School, and before being admitted at a University, you have to endure the childish anecdotes that they call science there? What if you are older, and you are not at all looking forward to join those noisy crowds of young students?" Which is a bit humerus considering the importance he himself places on fundamentals with: "solid foundations in elementary mathematics and notions of classical (pre-20th century) physics. Don’t think that pre-20th century physics is “irrelevant”" If it isn't sarcasm, then I have no idea why the author has decided to be so acerbic in his notation. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't actually mean to insult basically the 99% of physicists who don't show up in "Brilliant Mind"-esque movies. edit: From his CV: * Gymnasium-Beta, Dalton Lyceum, The Hague, 1964 * Physics and Mathematics, University of Utrecht * Kandidaatsexamen N1, 4 July 1966 * Doctoraal examen Theoretical Physics, 10 October 1969 * Promotie (PhD thesis) on the subject "Renormalization Procedure for Yang-Mills fields", 1 March 1972 i.e. He did basically all this stuff he is brushing off as worthless. As in going to classes, with teachers, at an undergraduate university, before applying for a PhD program.
- gohrt 11y ago
  You are misreading anger where there is slightly ascerbic honesty: > "set up only for those who wish to become theoretical physicists, not just ordinary ones" -> -- use of 'ordinary' instead of 'experimental' is intentionally condescending, hopefully for sarcastic effect If you'd finished the sentence, you'd see: "but the very best, those who are fully determined to earn their own Nobel Prize. " He is constrasting "ordinary" with "the very best". He isn't talking about experimental physics -- that's not his field. > "finish those lousy schools first and follow the regular routes provided by educators and specialized -gogues who are so damn carefully chewing all those tiny portions before feeding them to you." --- Must be a joke. Nobel prizes are not awarded to individuals these days, they go to collaborations. There is no way to get into a collaboration, or likely a PhD program without an undergraduate degree in Physics. Legally not allowed in many European countries to join a PhD program... The beauty of theoretical physics (and math) is that you don't need any expensive equipment or overpriced tuition. Just books and people to talk to. Both of these are available free (except some books cost $$$), on the Internet. That's enough to get started. > "More than rudimentary intelligence is assumed to be present, because ordinary students can master this material only when assisted by patient teachers." --- if this isn't sarcasm, then this guy is a monstrous prick who just decided to insult the 'rudimentary' intelligence of all Physics undergrads who deigned to actually attend college. Again with the 'ordinary'. It's a simple fact: Smarter folks can get farther without as much guidance from teachers. > The opening paragraph continues the authors apparent disdain for school in general: "But what if you are still young, at School, and before being admitted at a University, you have to endure the childish anecdotes that they call science there? What if you are older, and you are not at all looking forward to join those noisy crowds of young students?" Common K-12 schools in many countries generally teach science and math very poorly. This is not a controversial statement. Colleges are full of 18-22-yr-olds, many of whom are there to party; not a comfortable environment for some 30+ year olds. > Which is a bit humerus You seem to have a bone to pick. > considering the importance he himself places on fundamentals with: "solid foundations in elementary mathematics and notions of classical (pre-20th century) physics. Don’t think that pre-20th century physics is “irrelevant”" What does that have to do with the high school and college learning experience? >i .e. He did basically all this stuff he is brushing off as worthless. As in going to classes, with teachers, at an undergraduate university, before applying for a PhD program. The into goes to lengths to explain the sort of person who doesn't fit into school, and would benefit from an autodidactic alternative. For everyone else...there's school. I don't know why you have such a chip against the possibility of thriving outside of college... too much student loans got you sour grapse?