Верујем, тако причају сви који се надају да ће бити позвани у неку од њихових лабораторија да им "перу епрувете"...
Uh, al' si mi rek'o... još da sam ja u toj struci, pa nekako...
I šta ćeš sad?
-
- Popularno:
- Zašto se jevrejsko nasleđe računa po...
- Miroljub Petrović – Bog o svakom čoveku...
- Biskup imao 17 ljubavnica
- Жене су те које бирају или...?
- Kakav je ovo parazit koji nas grize u...
- 300 Vučićevih obraćanja za 200 dana:...
- Угасио сам ТВ !
- Stari forumaši
- Putin "diže" 2 miliona rezervista
- Od fotografije sa Plenkovićem do...
КРЕАЦИОНИЗАМ
- Začetnik teme eremita
- Datum pokretanja
- stanje
Uh, al' si mi rek'o... još da sam ja u toj struci, pa nekako...
I šta ćeš sad?
- Poruka
- 77.429
значи да он ипак признаје да постоји Бог?
valaam
Domaćin
- Poruka
- 4.167
- Poruka
- 77.429
Да, али у свом негативном односу према Њему...
па није једини, овде има доста његових следбеника али под паролом
"Бог вероватно не постоји, зато престани да бринеш и уживај у животу"
- Poruka
- 51.779
Hm, da što ne bi deca birala između astrologije i astronomije, hemije i alhemije, verovatnoće i statistike i gledanja u šolju...
Nije ni čudo što misliš da u osnovnoj školi nema ničeg korisnog kada obrazovanje doživljavaš kao stvar samoopredeljenja.
Osnovna skola treba da bude obavezna i besplatna, (sto sada uprkos svemu nije) ali ostalo i treba da bude stvar opredeljenja, i to roditelja, neces valjda da kazes da je dobro kao u komunizmu sve one promasene skole od kojih niko nije imao koristi, samo da se kaze da se skolovao, a posle se ne bavi time i zaboravi?
Nije tema, ali to je prodaja "magle" i nekakvog socijalnog mira od koga je svima muka, a kamoli sto postaju kvazinaucnici, lenstine i neradnici!
#PPP
Ističe se
- Poruka
- 2.106
valaam
Domaćin
- Poruka
- 4.167
Или оно - Бог постоји, али није створио свет.
То је и дотични RD за акцелатор рекао: "Он неће доказати да Бог није створио свет, али ће доказати да свет без Бога може да настане!"
eremita
Zaslužan član
- Poruka
- 117.177
Е свашта - па јеси ли прочитао његову књигу "Заблуда о Богу"????????????... не да је јадан љут него ме чуди да му не излази бела пена....има и других "дела" а сада се спрема да на дан изласка Дарвинове књиге изда најновију "Само Теорија"...
gost 133940
Elita
- Poruka
- 23.648
Ako su mu studije me]unarodni bestseleri, znači da mu se knjige kupuju. Imaju ljudi radoznalost kojom se ja zasad nisam zarazio, ali ako ovako nastaviš, ko zna...
Ne znam šta radi svet koji se pojavljuje na Prirodnim naukama. Ja sam svojevremeno bio zgrožen kada se veronauka ušunjala u školu. Dalji razvoj događaja pokazuje da sm imao pravo. Veronauka je srozala obrazovni nivo škole de picololeonskog praga.
Takođe, nisam povezan sa "amerikanskim obrazovanjem". Endonukleaza jesje, pa cenim da će umeti da ti razmrsi nedoumice.
Uzgred, Oksford se poslednjih devet vekova nalazio u Velikoj Britaniji. Nisam znao da se preselio u Amerike.
valaam
Domaćin
- Poruka
- 4.167
Моје знање о њему није са интернета, па самим тим и не знам на који сајт да те упутим. Али, проучи негде мало његове брачне проблеме са првом женом, ту ће ти све бити разоткривено.
gost 133940
Elita
- Poruka
- 23.648
Ono što si rekla glasi:
Uzgred, tebi ni srpski nije bio od koristi. Priznajem da ovo ne mogu da dokažem jer je Barbi izbrisala.
A vala ni matematika, sudeći po poznavanju statistike.
Poslednja izmena:
Da je komunistički obrazovni sistem bio blagodatan vidimo na primeru Kazahstana u poređenju sa drugim islamskim državama srednje Azije, koje nisu imale komunistički obrazovni sistem.
A što se našeg obrazovng sistema tiče, dok je trajao komunistički obrazovni sistem, nikome nije padalo na pamet i da pomisli da potura informacije iz porno časopisa kao nauku u cilju odbrane veronauke, a i stepen obrazovanja je bio daleko veći.
gost 133940
Elita
- Poruka
- 23.648
gost 159032
Veoma poznat
- Poruka
- 12.404
Posto se vodi prica o tome da je Dawkins dobio katedru za sebe, ustvari se radi o tome da Charles Simonyi, sponzorise postojanje takve katedre, sa ciljem da se siri razumevanje nauke, njena dostignuca, ali i njene granice, evo njegove izjave povodom otvaranja katedre, gde se vidi da je Dawkins samo prvi, a ne i jedini:
Since I am a computer scientist, it seems appropriate that the present description of my intentions to create a chair in "Public Understanding of Science" at Oxford University should be called a "program"! Just as a computer program sets the processor on an inexorable future course, shouldn't this program guide the chair's Appointing Committee for generations to come? Quite evidently, the metaphor is weak. Administrative affairs being as they are I can only vainly hope that the distinguished committee members will take my comments to heart before deciding on a new appointment. Yet I begrudge by no means the uncertainty and flexibility that is built into the appointment process so that the University can adapt, evolve, and flourish.
This flexibility can be used for experimentation and exploration of new arrangements but over time it can also result in an accumulating creep or drift in direction that may not even be noticed. The purpose of this program is then to be a fixed navigation point on the sea of possibilities. It says: this is where we were in 1995, this was the kernel of agreement between me, between the University, and between Prof. Richard Dawkins, the first occupant of the chair. Deviate from this point if you must, but do it knowingly. Return to it if you can.
The chair is for ‘Public Understanding of Science’, that the holder will be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field rather than study the public’s perception of the same. By ‘public’ we mean the largest possible audience, provided, however, that people who have the power and ability to propagate or oppose the ideas (especially scholars in other sciences and in humanities, engineers, journalists, politicians, professionals, and artists) are not lost in the process. Here it is useful to distinguish between the roles of scholars and popularisers. The university chair is intended for accomplished scholars who have made original contributions to their field, and who are able to grasp the subject, when necessary, at the highest levels of abstraction. A populariser, on the other hand, focuses mainly on the size of the audience and frequently gets separated from the world of scholarship. Popularisers often write on immediate concerns or even fads. In some cases they seduce less educated audiences by offering a patronizingly oversimplified or exaggerated view of the state of the art or the scientific process itself. This is best seen in hindsight, as we remember the ‘giant brains’ computer books of yesteryear but I suspect many current science books will in time be recognized as having fallen into this category. While the role of populariser may still be valuable, nevertheless it is not one supported by this chair. The public’s expectation of scholars is high, and it is only fitting that we have a high expectation of the public.
Understanding’ in this instance should be taken a little poetically as well as literally. The goal is for the public to appreciate the order and beauty of the abstract and natural worlds which is there, hidden, layer-upon-layer. To share the excitement and awe that scientists feel when confronting the greatest of riddles. To have empathy for the scientists who are humbled by the grandeur of it all. Those in the audience who reach the understanding sufficient to reveal the order and beauty in science will also gain greater insight into the connectedness of science and their everyday life.
Finally,‘ science’ here means not only the natural and mathematical sciences but also the history of science and the philosophy of science as well. However, preference should be given to specialties which express or achieve their results mainly by symbolic manipulation, such as Particle physics, Molecular biology, Cosmology, Genetics, Computer science, Linguistics, Brain research, and, of course Mathematics. The reason for this is more than a personal predilection. Symbolic expression enables the highest degree of abstraction and thence the utilization of powerful mathematical and data processing tools ensure tremendous progress. At the same time the very means of success tends to isolate the scientists from the lay audience and prevents the communication of the results. Considering the profoundly vital interdependence between the society at large and the scientific world, the dearth of effective information flow is positively dangerous.
In order to accomplish the above goals, the appointees to the chair must have a pedagogical range that goes beyond the traditional university setting. They should be able to communicate effectively with audiences of all kinds and in different media. Above all, they must approach the public with the utmost candour. Naturally, they will interact with political, religious, and other societal forces, but they must not, under any circumstances, let these forces affect the scientific validity of what they say. Conversely, they should be also candid about the limits of scientific knowledge at any given time, and communicate the uncertainties, frustrations, scientifically perplexing phenomena, and even the failures in their area of expertise.
Scientific speculation, when so labelled, and when the concept of speculation and its place in the scientific method has been made clear to the audience, can be very exciting. It is a very effective communication tool, and it is by no means discouraged.
We recognize that persons with these combined qualifications are rare. Therefore, the preferences listed above for particular scientific specialties should be taken secondary to the appointees’ pedagogical and communication talents.
The appointees should have the opportunity to continue their scientific work. This is best accomplished if their appointment in the Department closest to their field would be held jointly with the Department of Continuing Education. While being firmly based in Oxford the appointees should receive every possible support from the University for travel and for visiting professorships. In accordance to this, their teaching and administrative responsibilities within Oxford should be correspondingly limited and should be directed primarily towards the educations of non-specialists. They would be expected to write books and magazine articles in any medium for the popular as well as scientific audiences, participate in public lectures, whether through the University or otherwise and generally participate in the expression of the "Public Understanding of Science".
There is always a potential danger that a benefaction can prove counterproductive if the first holder’s previous post is not filled when he or she vacates it. I make this gift on the assumption that Richard Dawkins’ existing post in the Department of Zoology will be filled, in a similar field, as a matter of routine when he vacates it.
I gratefully acknowledge the contribution from Prof. Dawkins, who provided me with a framework for the present program.
Charles Simonyi
Bellevue 15 May 1995
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/aims/manifesto.shtml
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/aims/index.shtml
Nemam sad vreme da prevodim ili prepricavam.
Since I am a computer scientist, it seems appropriate that the present description of my intentions to create a chair in "Public Understanding of Science" at Oxford University should be called a "program"! Just as a computer program sets the processor on an inexorable future course, shouldn't this program guide the chair's Appointing Committee for generations to come? Quite evidently, the metaphor is weak. Administrative affairs being as they are I can only vainly hope that the distinguished committee members will take my comments to heart before deciding on a new appointment. Yet I begrudge by no means the uncertainty and flexibility that is built into the appointment process so that the University can adapt, evolve, and flourish.
This flexibility can be used for experimentation and exploration of new arrangements but over time it can also result in an accumulating creep or drift in direction that may not even be noticed. The purpose of this program is then to be a fixed navigation point on the sea of possibilities. It says: this is where we were in 1995, this was the kernel of agreement between me, between the University, and between Prof. Richard Dawkins, the first occupant of the chair. Deviate from this point if you must, but do it knowingly. Return to it if you can.
The chair is for ‘Public Understanding of Science’, that the holder will be expected to make important contributions to the public understanding of some scientific field rather than study the public’s perception of the same. By ‘public’ we mean the largest possible audience, provided, however, that people who have the power and ability to propagate or oppose the ideas (especially scholars in other sciences and in humanities, engineers, journalists, politicians, professionals, and artists) are not lost in the process. Here it is useful to distinguish between the roles of scholars and popularisers. The university chair is intended for accomplished scholars who have made original contributions to their field, and who are able to grasp the subject, when necessary, at the highest levels of abstraction. A populariser, on the other hand, focuses mainly on the size of the audience and frequently gets separated from the world of scholarship. Popularisers often write on immediate concerns or even fads. In some cases they seduce less educated audiences by offering a patronizingly oversimplified or exaggerated view of the state of the art or the scientific process itself. This is best seen in hindsight, as we remember the ‘giant brains’ computer books of yesteryear but I suspect many current science books will in time be recognized as having fallen into this category. While the role of populariser may still be valuable, nevertheless it is not one supported by this chair. The public’s expectation of scholars is high, and it is only fitting that we have a high expectation of the public.
Understanding’ in this instance should be taken a little poetically as well as literally. The goal is for the public to appreciate the order and beauty of the abstract and natural worlds which is there, hidden, layer-upon-layer. To share the excitement and awe that scientists feel when confronting the greatest of riddles. To have empathy for the scientists who are humbled by the grandeur of it all. Those in the audience who reach the understanding sufficient to reveal the order and beauty in science will also gain greater insight into the connectedness of science and their everyday life.
Finally,‘ science’ here means not only the natural and mathematical sciences but also the history of science and the philosophy of science as well. However, preference should be given to specialties which express or achieve their results mainly by symbolic manipulation, such as Particle physics, Molecular biology, Cosmology, Genetics, Computer science, Linguistics, Brain research, and, of course Mathematics. The reason for this is more than a personal predilection. Symbolic expression enables the highest degree of abstraction and thence the utilization of powerful mathematical and data processing tools ensure tremendous progress. At the same time the very means of success tends to isolate the scientists from the lay audience and prevents the communication of the results. Considering the profoundly vital interdependence between the society at large and the scientific world, the dearth of effective information flow is positively dangerous.
In order to accomplish the above goals, the appointees to the chair must have a pedagogical range that goes beyond the traditional university setting. They should be able to communicate effectively with audiences of all kinds and in different media. Above all, they must approach the public with the utmost candour. Naturally, they will interact with political, religious, and other societal forces, but they must not, under any circumstances, let these forces affect the scientific validity of what they say. Conversely, they should be also candid about the limits of scientific knowledge at any given time, and communicate the uncertainties, frustrations, scientifically perplexing phenomena, and even the failures in their area of expertise.
Scientific speculation, when so labelled, and when the concept of speculation and its place in the scientific method has been made clear to the audience, can be very exciting. It is a very effective communication tool, and it is by no means discouraged.
We recognize that persons with these combined qualifications are rare. Therefore, the preferences listed above for particular scientific specialties should be taken secondary to the appointees’ pedagogical and communication talents.
The appointees should have the opportunity to continue their scientific work. This is best accomplished if their appointment in the Department closest to their field would be held jointly with the Department of Continuing Education. While being firmly based in Oxford the appointees should receive every possible support from the University for travel and for visiting professorships. In accordance to this, their teaching and administrative responsibilities within Oxford should be correspondingly limited and should be directed primarily towards the educations of non-specialists. They would be expected to write books and magazine articles in any medium for the popular as well as scientific audiences, participate in public lectures, whether through the University or otherwise and generally participate in the expression of the "Public Understanding of Science".
There is always a potential danger that a benefaction can prove counterproductive if the first holder’s previous post is not filled when he or she vacates it. I make this gift on the assumption that Richard Dawkins’ existing post in the Department of Zoology will be filled, in a similar field, as a matter of routine when he vacates it.
I gratefully acknowledge the contribution from Prof. Dawkins, who provided me with a framework for the present program.
Charles Simonyi
Bellevue 15 May 1995
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/aims/manifesto.shtml
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/aims/index.shtml
Nemam sad vreme da prevodim ili prepricavam.
gost 133940
Elita
- Poruka
- 23.648
- Poruka
- 77.429
е штета баш
ајд кад будеш имао времена преведи нам
ајд кад будеш имао времена преведи нам
eremita
Zaslužan član
- Poruka
- 117.177
Ako su mu studije me]unarodni bestseleri, znači da mu se knjige kupuju. Imaju ljudi radoznalost kojom se ja zasad nisam zarazio, ali ako ovako nastaviš, ko zna...
Ne znam šta radi svet koji se pojavljuje na Prirodnim naukama. Ja sam svojevremeno bio zgrožen kada se veronauka ušunjala u školu. Dalji razvoj događaja pokazuje da sm imao pravo. Veronauka je srozala obrazovni nivo škole de picololeonskog praga.
Takođe, nisam povezan sa "amerikanskim obrazovanjem". Endonukleaza jesje, pa cenim da će umeti da ti razmrsi nedoumice.
Uzgred, Oksford se poslednjih devet vekova nalazio u Velikoj Britaniji. Nisam znao da se preselio u Amerike.
Ахаха.... извињавам се ако је тако испало у брзини... моја грешка...
... очекивано, јер луњам у исто време на неколико места...
eremita
Zaslužan član
- Poruka
- 117.177
Тај "теоретичар еволуције" како је описан на њиховој чувеној Википедији можда има неки приватни проблем који преноси на науку... као Дарвин због своје прерано преминуле кћерке...
#PPP
Ističe se
- Poruka
- 2.106
Ma jeste, i on veruje u Boga, ali potajno...
Sad si sve shvatio eremita, da Darvinu nije umrla ćerka, evolucije poslednjih milijardi godina ne bi bilo.
Vrhunac rezonovanja!
#PPP
Ističe se
- Poruka
- 2.106
Rezonovanje i eremita. Nespojivo
eremita
Zaslužan član
- Poruka
- 117.177
Али шта то значи сада што си написао, молим те??? То је управо оно шибицарење о коме сам писао. Када сам поставио тему МИСЛИ ЈЕДНОГ ЕВОЛУЦИОНИСТЕ напали сте ме са свих страна, те ко је он, те часописе је порно, те глупости, те ја сам идиЈот... те премештена тема, те неће да је закључају да би сви могли да се уредно запишају... алооооооооо... и ја сада вама еволуционистима поставим ВАШЕГ НАЈЕМИНЕНТНИЈЕГ ТЕОРЕТИЧАРА ЕВОЛУЦИЈЕ ЗВАНОГ "ДАРВИНОВ РОТВАЈЛЕР" - и сада и он не ваља јер није он једини а неки други мисле другачије... па на шта онда уопште ова расправа личи, на обично зезање...
#PPP
Ističe se
- Poruka
- 2.106
Sa tobom je svaka rasprava obichno zezanje.
eremita
Zaslužan član
- Poruka
- 117.177
Sad si sve shvatio eremita, da Darvinu nije umrla ćerka, evolucije poslednjih milijardi godina ne bi bilo.
Vrhunac rezonovanja!
Не него ми је чудно да у свом делу "Ђаволов капелан" при крају књиге има
одељак: МОЛИТВА ЗА МОЈУ КЋЕРКУ...
па ми је ту нешто нелогично... миссссссим коме се он моли за своју 18-годишњу
кћерку Џулијан...
(нисам прочитао - можда је неко од вас?)
Jacob
Buduća legenda
- Poruka
- 49.565
Не него ми је чудно да у свом делу "Ђаволов капелан" при крају књиге има
одељак: МОЛИТВА ЗА МОЈУ КЋЕРКУ...
па ми је ту нешто нелогично... миссссссим коме се он моли за своју 18-годишњу
кћерку Џулијан...
Ne moras biti ateista da znas da je evolucija stvarna.
- stanje