h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'd be curious to see exactly how he intends to demonstrate that intelligence. We can only access the intelligence of ancient civilizations through their writings, artwork, and architecture. Since the neanderthals had none of these, how are we supposed to even guess?

But of course we are supposed to just guess (untill we can travel in time), but he makes a lot of sense nonetheless. The neanderthals had quite a lot of artwork, mind you, judging from the few cavepaintings we can still see today. And then there is a lot, of course, that we can NOT see today...

Aye, makes you think, no?

This post has been removed.

Back to the argument about intelligence vs. knowledge. In my opinion, intelligence can be defined as the ability to learn. A college education merely proves that the certificate holder was already intelligent when they got to the university. It does not *make* one intelligent.

Of course, even this depends entirely on the college in question.

So here's the irony. College certificates really are, when you get right down to it, a cheap licensing commodification designed to give unintelligent employers the illusion that they are hiring intelligent employees. Funny, eh?

And yes, I'm in college as I write this.

"A college education merely proves that the certificate holder was already intelligent when they got to the university. It does not *make* one intelligent." - First of all, I don't believe that a degree is an indication of intelligence one way or another. I don't think it signifies that the holder is intelligent any more than a lack of one shows a lack of intelligence. Many college courses and degree programs are pure fluff. I have attended undergrad classes that were less challenging than my high school classes. I recently signed up for a computer class that was worse than useless... the instructor simply taught to her quizzes. What use this could have in the real world, I have no idea. Needless to say, I dropped the course like a bad habit.

And as for degrees proving intelligence... my supervisor (not college educated) once told a bachelor of electronics that the problem with my mainframe was that it had an electron leak, and you could see them leaking out if you shut off all the lights, and as soon as we located the source, we could plug it up and be ready for action. The victim went on to tell his superiors, and none of them caught the joke, either. I had another bachelor of electronics nearly convinced that stretching his cables in his PC was the way to prevent data errors, but my friend was making noises and eventually I lost my composure. The argument I was giving him was that data is all 1's and 0's... the 0's are nice and round, and so pass through easily, but the 1's get stuck in the bends.

Moral of the story: stupid people can have degrees, and not just in stupidity.

Probably the biggest con is that for some obscure reason people need law, accounting, business management etc degrees before they can join their older peers in ripping off the public.

Why can't the likes of legal and accounting firms train their own recruits in the same way plumbing and construction firms do.

Universities should offer degree courses in the humanities, science and health and that's about it.

Yes, I spent a few years at university allegedly studing journalism. The reality of those years is that I was obtaining an education in how to be a success in the vital human sciences of sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.

In defence of stupid people...

It could have been the case that straighter cables conduct better. Off the top of my head, bends in cables are going to compress one side of the wire and expand the other, and this could lead to poorer conduction. Or better conduction. Alternatively, the looping could set up counter-currents and suchlike - and in certain encodings this could smack 1s more than 0s. It's certainly not completely implausable.

It is often the case that we explain correct things in false ways - off the top of my head, computers do NOT panic - but 'panic' is a very good way to explain the phenomenon of memory-thrashing to a newcomer to computers. I can't think of a single time in my life, *ever* when I've explained a computer-related thing without the use of a vastly inaccurate metaphor which will fail miserably if over-generalised.

Similarly, the atom is NOTHING like the atom I learnt about in GCSE chemistry - but that model is a very good way to explain many things in chemistry.

When doctors dismiss folk wisdom on medicine out of hand, it's considered bad. If an electronics engineer fails to dismiss folk wisdom* on electronics out of hand, apparently it's a sign of stupidity. I'd call it a sign of humility, trust, empathy, and suchlike.

*I don't know how your supervisor learnt his trade, and 'folk wisdom' is probably the wrong phrase. But you take the point.

Of course, a degree (or other academic certification) doesn't *make* a person intelligent. I don't think anyone was arguing that. For my part, I was arguing that certification provides confirmation of a certain level of competence in a particular area - nothing more. It's something that can be used to gauge how far on someone is in their selected area of expertise - as such, it serves a useful purpose. If I wanted someone to explain quantum science to me, I'd be far happier listening to a physics professor than going to my plumber and asking him for advice on the subject. This doesn't offer a cast-iron *guarantee* that my plumber knows less about the subject than the professor, but it's a pretty reliable indicator.

Neither does it guarantee that the professor is more intelligent than the plumber - the former is only expert in that one particular area, after all, and (for example) would probably struggle if I asked him to sort out the dodgy piping in my bathroom. And, who knows, the plumber just might be an autodidact with a secret plan to revolutionise the whole way that we study physics, who hasn't yet got around to unleashing his genius on the world. But, once again, it's a pretty reliable indicator of who is the better bet in their respective area of expertise.

And the point I was really making is that either man is an expert only in his own particular field, and there probably isn't really any way of judging objectively who is more intelligent. All we can be sure of is that one is likely to be a more reliable source of information on quantum science, and the other is likely to be a better bet when our plumbing fails. That's all.

I've got a plumber mate whose business almost went broke because the clown, complete with framed diploma on the wall, who looked after his firm's accounts stuffed them up.

My mate's wife now does his bookkeeping. She has a degree in basic commonsense.

Learning has nothing to do with intelligence. It's in your genes.

I know this has been said before once or twice but I'm going to say it one more time, in response to this:

"...human beings are better educated, better informed and more exposed (by the derided mass media) to scientific understanding of themselves and their universe than they have ever been and that the mumbo-jumbo of religion has less and less relevance in an increasingly rational world."

The arrogance of these people astounds me! If they can't see that science is a religion, they must be blind. It fills the social niche formerly occupied by the Christian churches (in Britain, that is), it dispenss advice on all subjects, both inside and outside its sphere of relevance. In short, it barks like a dog, so it's a dog.

This rant is temorarily suspended pending the arrival of more provocative postings.

Pattern-chaser

Hmm - I'm not sure I agree with you on the social thing: people don't go weekly to science meetings to discuss science - the closest it comes to social is people in a pub discussing Dolly the Sheep...

Yes, scientists do tend to advise about stuff they have no real understanding of - so that's true - but overall, I'd say it's a very different beast.

And science generally fails when it comes to 'explaining the unexplainable.' Rather, science leaves the unexplained bloody well unexplained. This has to be at least one primary purpose of religion, so it's not an even swap.

One supposes that science can be taken to be a religion for some people, but I don't think it is. Science tries to deal with absolutes - religions generally deal with a big mess written about by someone a few thousand years ago who, if he appeared today, would probably end up in a mental institution. Or dead. Or in prison. And notice it's always a he! Why not the daughter of God, or the great Prophet Julie?

Ah, most of it's all made up. The rest is metaphor. I find it hard to believe there isn't _something_ bigger going on, which is why I'm agnostic, but religions remain unconvincing. If I ever become invulnerable and gain the ability to time travel, I'd love to pop back to 1400 and something and try to explain some modern ideas. I bet they'd end up trying to burn me at the stake.

Pattern-chaser, pat my dog. It's right there beside you. Trust me. All you need is faith

I have got to get me one of those invisible dogs.

My grandfather once told me something his father told him: "There is nothing wrong with a college education that a few years of experience won't cure."

It has been my experience that one of the most dangerous forces known to man is indeed the recent college gradutate. The ratio between theory and practical knowledge is usually at a very unhealthy state.

I got Half a college education I guess with a mere Associate's Degree.. an Associates of Applied Science no less, they taught us lots of pratical knowledge at school. Its why I had to teach guys with Master's Degrees and Electrical Engineering degrees how to use an oscilliscope. Go figure.

Teaching theory without the practise is really a bit silly - you need both! Anyone with half a brain can surely work that out!

Yup! It's that other half of the brain that always confuses people, in my experience!

"I think intelligence is better demonstrated when someone encounters a problem that they have never seen before, and solves it."

Colonel Sellers, that's a good statement you've made. But you don't need a new problem. Old, still unsolved problem do as well. Take for example the problem I'm trying to solve: Women.

Now THAT is what I call a CHALLENGE!

Maybe, Wonko, the other half of humanity might like you more if you stopped regarding them as a problem.
Just a thought.