ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Irrelevant is not a synonym for "this point is problematic to me."
Is history useless?
- Thread starter Phrossack
- Start date
Who taught you this?
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
That's irrelevant.
Oh snap!
Glad you see my point.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
No, because your point is also irrelevant. Please try to stay on topic.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
What predictive power does knowing that Park's question isn't relevant have?
That's the point you just made.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
No, that's also irrelevant.
Good to see such cogent discussion on your part.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Also irrelevant.
cegman
Scott Walker Supporter
College major employment info...
Major Field Unemployment Percent 25th % Earnings Median % Earnings 75th % Earnings Popularity
UNITED STATES HISTORY|15.1%|$30,000|$50,000|$96,000|139
http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/documents/NILF1111/#term=
Thought that was interesting
Major Field Unemployment Percent 25th % Earnings Median % Earnings 75th % Earnings Popularity
UNITED STATES HISTORY|15.1%|$30,000|$50,000|$96,000|139
http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/documents/NILF1111/#term=
Thought that was interesting
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I wonder why History only shows an unemployment rate of 6.5%, but US History shows 15.1%? if it was something like 8% you could chalk that up to chance, but this seems too big a disparity to have no reason behind it.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
U.S. History is the default for lazy students.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
JEELEN said:The utter meaningless of this statement only tells me you have a problem discerning between pure science and applied science. I suggest you google a bit and come back with something more substantial.
As an engineer engaged in much "pure" science in my day-to-day work, I can assure you the distinction is in name only.
Then I am even more puzzled by your 'utterly meaningless' statement. If you are a practizing engineer the difference should be very clear to you. All theoretical science has zero practical usefulness unless pursued further; there are plenty of theories that never lead to any practical usefulness whatsoever - and then there are theries that may or may not lead to usefulness, pending their eventual veri- or falsification.
History falls into the category of anthropology that was already known at some point?
History falls into the category of anthropology that was already known at some point?
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
Simple. I reject the notion of "zero practical usefulness" on the grounds that "practical" is an obtuse classification.
So I see you've given up and are simply calling everything irrelevant.
How ironic.
Doesn't it?
Apart from history and anthropology being different disciplines, anthropology is also quite the younger of the two. (And history might not be concerned with anthropology at all; but anthropology cannot ignore history, IMHO.)
Ah, a purely personal interpretation. How 'useful'.
Ah, a purely personal interpretation. How 'useful'.
Defining history as a subset of anthropology would seem to make anthropology such an absurdly large and all-encompassing "discipline" as to be a meaningless category. It's like defining chemistry as a subset of physics, instead of as a related field of study with some key principles deriving from certain physical laws and understandings of molecular behavior.
