snap, snap.
carry over from my period bitchiness perhaps? but i think some people might agree with me on this one.
i was kinda ticked by the lecture we had in our sci 10 class today. our teacher went on about what kind of people scientists were and what is it exactly that they do or for what cause they pursure their endeavors.
from what i got from the lecture, scientists have no higher purpose and do not care what other lesser mortals think, as long as they can publish their journals and continue doing research. you shouldn't even expect them to be good teachers or be eloquent, our professor said, so if you don't understand what the scientist in question means in his or her journal or lecture, it's your responsibilty to make sense of it, since its not their responsibility.
whatever, i mean, they're free to believe in whatever they wish, or think whatever they want to think. i just find it kinda weird though. if you say that you're not really supposed to teach well, or if you don't really want people to understand the stuff you publish then what's the point? i guess what i'm trying to say is that i don't understand the point of scientifc research or whatever it is that scientists do if they do it solely for the sake of doing it. apparently noble causes are rare.
i might be mistaken, but this is what i grasped from the lecture this morning and i'm just being very cynical. in any case, when you think about acquiring knowledge for the sake of it, it's more or less at par with art for art's sake. right? can't and won't be vindictive about that. :p
i was kinda ticked by the lecture we had in our sci 10 class today. our teacher went on about what kind of people scientists were and what is it exactly that they do or for what cause they pursure their endeavors.
from what i got from the lecture, scientists have no higher purpose and do not care what other lesser mortals think, as long as they can publish their journals and continue doing research. you shouldn't even expect them to be good teachers or be eloquent, our professor said, so if you don't understand what the scientist in question means in his or her journal or lecture, it's your responsibilty to make sense of it, since its not their responsibility.
whatever, i mean, they're free to believe in whatever they wish, or think whatever they want to think. i just find it kinda weird though. if you say that you're not really supposed to teach well, or if you don't really want people to understand the stuff you publish then what's the point? i guess what i'm trying to say is that i don't understand the point of scientifc research or whatever it is that scientists do if they do it solely for the sake of doing it. apparently noble causes are rare.
i might be mistaken, but this is what i grasped from the lecture this morning and i'm just being very cynical. in any case, when you think about acquiring knowledge for the sake of it, it's more or less at par with art for art's sake. right? can't and won't be vindictive about that. :p