(no subject)
I've had all my classes in the new quarter once, now.
The VB.Net class looks like it's going to be fun and easy. The math class is boring, but it won't be too much work.
The ethics class looks like it's going to be bad though. It's online, which means it requires as much work as the other two put together. It also looks like the book was written for high school students. On top of that the author's are incredibly arrogant. For example in chapter 2 they say, "It will be our task to see through these incompatible intellectual theories, and to discover even deeper congruences that each of them does not have." In chapter 3 they briefly mention the situation that Kant used in his "On a Supposed Right to Lie" and then say that the conclusion that Kant came to is unconvincing. All without mentioning that Kant had written on the topic. In chapter 3 they describe some logical fallacies, then not more than five pages later they use the "appeal to emotion" fallacy to show how being consistently honest isn't good. They're using an approach to situational ethics, but situational ethics is mentioned once so far, and their approach is set out most clearly on a page in between the introduction chapter and the first chapter.
I'm taking consolation from the fact that I'll have my say about the book when the evaluation comes.
The VB.Net class looks like it's going to be fun and easy. The math class is boring, but it won't be too much work.
The ethics class looks like it's going to be bad though. It's online, which means it requires as much work as the other two put together. It also looks like the book was written for high school students. On top of that the author's are incredibly arrogant. For example in chapter 2 they say, "It will be our task to see through these incompatible intellectual theories, and to discover even deeper congruences that each of them does not have." In chapter 3 they briefly mention the situation that Kant used in his "On a Supposed Right to Lie" and then say that the conclusion that Kant came to is unconvincing. All without mentioning that Kant had written on the topic. In chapter 3 they describe some logical fallacies, then not more than five pages later they use the "appeal to emotion" fallacy to show how being consistently honest isn't good. They're using an approach to situational ethics, but situational ethics is mentioned once so far, and their approach is set out most clearly on a page in between the introduction chapter and the first chapter.
I'm taking consolation from the fact that I'll have my say about the book when the evaluation comes.