Why fight it? Because it is important.

[Brad Sallows]

>So you're arguing that you get the same quality of education from reading a book as you do attending a course, with the book(s), and receiving instruction from someone with at least 7+ years in the field?

I would suppose it depends on the subject, the instructor, the student, and the book.  I certainly proved to my satisfaction in several courses that I could learn math, physics, or programming languages and concepts easily enough despite the intervention of the occasional unintelligible instructor/professor.

clasper has nicely encapsulated the essence of science.

There was a good one-line summary on Jerry Pournelle's site today: "If you can't mail it in a letter to a colleague so that he gets the same result you do, it isn't science."

One of his (Jerry's) old essays, for anyone interested:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/science/voodoo.html

 

[a_majoor]

"Science isn't about the result, it's about the approach. To say a physicist isn't a scientist because he hasn't discovered any laws is ridiculous.
You seem to have this strange understanding of science as something that deals solely with physical phenomena, which is ridiculous."

The approach is the scientific method. Science is the result when the method is consistently applied and the phenomena can be consistently studied. "Social science" may attempt to use the scientific method, but is notoriously inconsistent with the application, refusing to discard hypothesis when empirical observation demonstrates no cause and effect correlations. In physics, Aristotle could claim that greater masses will fall to earth more quickly, but as soon as this was demonstrated to be false, it was no longer considered a valid way of describing the universe. The current rants against US foreign policy are easily disproven (the invading for cheap oil is my personal favorite), yet this is brought up over and over even now. On other threads, it has been pointed out that low taxes and limited regulation TEND to support economic growth, yet there are still posters who will advocate more taxation, regulation and government spending, despite the empirical evidence from many nations and at many different times. (Note I say TEND, since economics describes my assertion, but cannot predict how much economic growth would result from lowering taxes by amount "x"). As Infanteer and others have pointed out, human reactions are never consistent, the same input may tend to give similar outputs, but there is no 1:1 correlation.

As far as gravity being a trend and not a general truth, I used this as an example of how you discredited the Social Sciences despite their scientific approach to academic.   If one finds that 99.9% of the time any object falls toward the earth when dropped from above, and that 99.9% of the time a persons education corresponds to their level of income, both of which are found using scientific approaches, then how can one be a trend while one remains a fact?

Gravity can be studied and applied throughout the universe (making observable predictions back almost to T=0, the "Big Bang" when the ffundamentalforces of the universe were one), while trends such as income/education are correlations which only show close correlation in the last two centuries or so in Western civilizations. Prior to that, social standing, skill at trade or skill at arms were far more useful in making predictions as to who might have a higher income. Hence I will repeat that the ability to make ttestableand repeatable observations and predictions at ALL times and ALL places qualifies something to be a science, and if you can't do it, then it isn't science.

 

[Infanteer]

:boring:

This is stupid - arguing with you two is like arguing with a rock.

On the original issue of the Universities and being an "expert and learning", you've yet to answer my question:

"I've never really studied Military History or Theory at university at all, and yet I'm clearly able to discuss the topics from across the spectrum here on Army.ca.  Is my knowledge and understanding of military affairs now deficient and lacking something because I didn't study "Military Science" at the RMC?"

Please answer it, because I am really concerned that I do not have a firm grasp on military topics because I am "unable to achieve the same level of understanding" due to my lack of a University degree on the subject matter.  I'm sure other amateurs would like to know as well and hopefully get someone with tenure on here to tell us about Clausewitz and Van Crevald.  Make sure you tell that amateur A Majoor as well, since he has been published in a professional journal on multiple occasions.

In other words, your implication seems to be an ignorant dig towards those who have not excercised the oppurtunity to study politics at a University.

With regards to "Science", so far all you guys have done is to peg the entire foundation of your idea that Liberal Arts are "science" based on Duverger's Law.  If using a law that looks at an extreme limited (in both time and space) part of the human experience satisfies your requirements of a Science, then fill your boots.  CivU's attempt to denigrate my education by pointing out that I missed out on the Durkheim bus is no better, because what I took from sociology was that Durkheim is simply another interpretation of how to observe trends in human behaviour - if I'm wrong, take "Scientific Rationalism" and find me an immutable law of human behaviour.  I'll be waiting on that one.

Despite the fact that most people who have B.A.'s and B.Sc. or no degree at all, young and old, experienced in life or not, seem to think you guys are full of smoke, you don't really want to hear it.  That's fine, if you wish to keep the cotton in your ears then that's your prerogative.  There is no point to try and reach the Unassailable Heights of your 2 or 3 years in university (although many of us have been there and have moved on).  In fact, I'm going to recommend to Mike Bobbitt that he make a "CivU and Glorified Ape" forum just for you guys, since all it appears is that all you guys are here to do is to listen to eachother talk.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Some things can be learned from books without interacting with a single other person (eg. math, physics) and some can not (eg. section attack).  Provided you have the raw intellect, mastering most of the body of work of a science or sciences is easy.  Mastering an art is not.

 

[CivU]

Listening to eachother talk?  That sounds strangely like the Army.ca clique of which you Infanteer are the self-appointed ringmaster.

As far as, "Is my knowledge and understanding of military affairs now deficient and lacking something because I didn't study "Military Science" at the RMC?"

In response to this, yes.  If you had studied Military Science or whatever programs are offered in this realm of academia, I guarantee you would have gained insights that were not accessible in self study and self reflection.  The influence of a professor and your peers can have a profound impact on what you gather from a course.  This is not attainable in the recesses of your public library huddled alone among a mass of books.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Listening to eachother talk? That sounds strangely like the Army.ca clique of which you Infanteer are the self-appointed ringmaster.

I don't think I care much for your tone. You would be careful not to be so presumptuous. For a person that never strays outside the Political thread and has nothing else to offer the greater site, you've got no place to talk about a clique.

 

[CivU]

"For a person that never strays outside the Political thread and has nothing else to offer the greater site"

I post outside of the Political thread; however, my CF experience is limited and I do not post on topics for which I cannot inform someone based on experience.  Check your facts...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

As I say. Rather presumptuous. And I still don't like your tone. However that's just my opinion, but I can take solace in the fact I'm far from alone in this.

 

[muskrat89]

I do not post on topics for which I cannot inform someone based on experience.  Check your facts...

So what is your experience (as opposed to education)  in regards to what you've been posting in this section?


Regarding facts - 94 of 131 posts have been in politics or current affairs. I think recceguy was speaking in a general sense, rather than a literal one....  This clique member is far more impressed with a Corporal's (high school graduate) analysis of his personal weapon's performance  in Afghanistan, than your flowery ramblings regarding political theory. At the end of the day, he (or she) has made a difference in the world - you have not. In my opinion, of course...

 

[clasper]

As far as, "Is my knowledge and understanding of military affairs now deficient and lacking something because I didn't study "Military Science" at the RMC?"

In response to this, yes.   If you had studied Military Science or whatever programs are offered in this realm of academia, I guarantee you would have gained insights that were not accessible in self study and self reflection.   The influence of a professor and your peers can have a profound impact on what you gather from a course.   This is not attainable in the recesses of your public library huddled alone among a mass of books.

You are quite right that the influence of a professor and peers can have a profound impact on your learning.  If you think that studying new material after your degree occurs alone in the recesses of a public library, then you need to get out more.  In a professional environment, you are constantly surrounded by peers, and you are all trying to learn.  There are rarely "professor" types, but there is a much greater cross section of experienced and non-experienced people (as well as a greater cross section of religious, cultural, and political thought than is found on campus, in my experience), leading to a very informative learning environment, that doesn't involve a single classroom.

In many ways, learning is actually easier once you get out of the hallowed (and rigid) halls of academia.

 

[Infanteer]

Listening to eachother talk?   That sounds strangely like the Army.ca clique of which you Infanteer are the self-appointed ringmaster.

If I was a "ringmaster", you'd be long gone by now.   I'm merely a member here who helps the owner mind the house.

The people you are so hasty to constantly criticize as a "clique" are actually a collection of members of the Forces who are familiar with one another and enjoy coming here to share their experiences.   There are members of the so-called "clique" of varied rank with 20-30 years of Time-In, multiple operational tours, and a wide variety of both civilian and military experience.   If associating with them requires the use of a internet medium, then so be it.   I appreciate the fact that they take time out of their lives to come here and post their thoughts and I value what they have to say, regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

You, on the other hand, seem to look down on most of the other members here (the so called "clique") and their experiences and don't really enjoy talking with anyone.   Rather then play the "Grey-Man", you dismiss the comments and advice of SNCO's who joined the Army before you were born as if they were some uneducated sap.   I really am confused about your motives for spending time here as you seem to have no care for making any professional inroads with the wide array of experience on this site.   There are certainly other places on the internet that would be more suited to your goals (whatever they may be), so why are you here?    

As far as, "Is my knowledge and understanding of military affairs now deficient and lacking something because I didn't study "Military Science" at the RMC?"

In response to this, yes.   If you had studied Military Science or whatever programs are offered in this realm of academia, I guarantee you would have gained insights that were not accessible in self study and self reflection.   The influence of a professor and your peers can have a profound impact on what you gather from a course.   This is not attainable in the recesses of your public library huddled alone among a mass of books.

Whew, thanks for that.   I needed someone to tell me that I'm nothing but a two-bit amateur here.

Well, I guess that's your opinion - although I'm unsure of where you've got the basis to make that assumption.   Against your proclamation, through here and other means, I've put my thoughts and writing up for review by both my professional peers and my seniors (both SNCO's and Officers) who've had far more experience and training then I have (Staff College, War Studies, etc) and the feedback they've given is a little different from denigrating what I've got to say and write as "lacking the profound impact of formal class work and simply postulating from a public library huddled alone among masses of books."

As well, others without the benefit of "the profound impact of formal classwork", guys like A Majoor, can offer frequent contributions to professional peer-reviewed military journals (such as The Army Journal).   Too bad their thoughts and works, that the Army felt fit to print, were lacking in depth because they never had Clausewitz, Aufstragstactik, or Lutzen explained to them in a classroom.

Obviously, you can see that I'm not crushed by your answer (actually, it was par for the course).   But keep it up, because if your general tone and manner of relating with your fellow troops is in any way reflected in your attitudes here, then it will take you far in the Army as a Leader of Soldiers.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

CivU you to can be in the clique.  The only requirement is that you have more "time in" then my combat t-shirt.

 

[CivU]

I respect the informed opinions of military experience on this board; however, when it comes to politics, I do not think that age or real world experience are a necessity for a depth of understanding.  A 20 year old can be more read and learned than a 40 year old anyday...

As far as experiencing "a greater cross section of religious, cultural, and political thought than is found on campus, in my experience"

I guess it depends on where you go to school.  In my experience, despite a high level of income, the diversity on my University campus is significant, especially in comparison to small town background...

And I'll pass on the offer of the clique, but I'm flattered nonetheless...

 

[George Wallace]

Fragging in Vietnam is an interesting paper that I as a young 2Lt on Armour Phase Crse a long, long time ago kept and filed away as it was required reading for us.   Perhaps our brilliant RMC cadets should read it and discuss it.   Canadian soldiers used this practice in both World Wars with a lot more finesse.
Perhaps, once again, it should become required reading for officer candidates.

GW

 

[garb811]

In response to this, yes.   If you had studied Military Science or whatever programs are offered in this realm of academia, I guarantee you would have gained insights that were not accessible in self study and self reflection.   The influence of a professor and your peers can have a profound impact on what you gather from a course.   This is not attainable in the recesses of your public library huddled alone among a mass of books.

Which is precisely why no self-respecting university would ever allow a student to take a course, let alone earn a degree, via correspondence!  Oh...wait a minute...scratch that, I'm in the process of doing just that.  Maybe there's going to be a little â Å“BA (Distance)â ? or something on my degree so they'll be able to tell that I didn't really understand or gain any insight into what I studied do you think?

Ok, sorry for the intrusion, back the regularly scheduled bun fight.

 

[George Wallace]

I respect the informed opinions of military experience on this board; however, when it comes to politics, I do not think that age or real world experience are a necessity for a depth of understanding.  A 20 year old can be more read and learned than a 40 year old anyday...

Once again, your logic escapes me.  Let us use you as an example:  If you were 40, would you still apply this statement to yourself?  When you are 40 will you apply this same statement to yourself?  I would imagine that by the time you are 40, you will have realized the stupidity of that statement.

As far as experiencing "a greater cross section of religious, cultural, and political thought than is found on campus, in my experience"

I guess it depends on where you go to school.  In my experience, despite a high level of income, the diversity on my University campus is significant, especially in comparison to small town background...

Again, this proves what a small little world you have lived in, and the limited education and experience you have received.  Once you take your blinders off in the next phase of your life, you will again realize some of the fallacies of your comments.

GW

 

[CivU]

Are you going to support these statements and suggest why a campus cannot be diverse or why a 20 year old can be more learned than a 40 year old?  Or are we to assume, as is the norm, that because you are the elder, your knowledge is infinite and I should just sit beneath the old oak for a daily sermon...

 

[George Wallace]

Actually I am arguing the opposite: why does a young 20 year old think he knows more than a 40 year old?.......but you haven't experienced that yet, so as of yet it is a mote point.

And on your "Or are we to assume, as is the norm, that because you are the elder, your knowledge is infinite and I should just sit beneath the old oak for a daily sermon..." comment; I am lead to ask who your teachers have been?   Who are all those "old" men you are so keen on quoting?

GW

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

"For a person that never strays outside the Political thread and has nothing else to offer the greater site"

I post outside of the Political thread; however, my CF experience is limited and I do not post on topics for which I cannot inform someone based on experience.   Check your facts...

"Check your facts?" - Remind me again how many times board members have had to correct your absurd claims of world history re: the United States in the last 3 months?  

5 times?
10 times?

I would have thought that would've tempered your attitude but apparently your commitment to your deductive reasoning model has once again allowed you to miss an opportunity to gain wisdom from an experience.

It's a pity, because based on your writing you've obviously got a brain.  

In all seriousness, one day you'll look back on who you are today, and realize how little you really knew.   The key is to try to keep learning every day so that tomorrow you're a better man than you were today.

Best wishes,



Matthew.      

 

[muskrat89]

I guess Plato called it right...

In that, I said, the father accustoms himself to become like his child and fears his sons, while the son likens himself to his father, and feels neither shame nor fear in front of his parents, so he may be free ; the metic becomes the equal of a citizen and the citizen of a metic, and similarly with the foreigner.
It indeed so happens, he said.
To these, said I, such trifles do add up: the teacher, in such a case, fears his pupils and fawns upon them, while pupils have in low esteem their teachers as well as their overseers; and, overall, the young copy the elders and contend hotly with them in words and in deeds, while the elders, lowering themselves to the level of the young, sate themselves with pleasantries and wit, mimicking the young in order not to look unpleasant and despotic.