Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gymble.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!speaker
From: speaker@gymble.UUCP (Speaker to Animals)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: Who says religion isn't important in America?
Message-ID: <97@gymble.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 23-Feb-85 11:08:13 EST
Article-I.D.: gymble.97
Posted: Sat Feb 23 11:08:13 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Feb-85 05:44:25 EST
References: <679@ccice5.UUCP> <325@mhuxm.UUCP>, <733@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Laboratory for Parallel Computation, C.P., MD
Lines: 64
Xref: watmath net.politics:7812 net.religion:5745

> [Good Housekeeping's list of most admired men deleted]
> These people (I notice not a single scientist or
> engineer/technologist with the possible exception of Iacocca)
> have little to do with advance of society through technology,
> which is the most significant accomplishment of our times.

> > That's because the average man in the street isn't capable of
> > understanding calculus or anything about science or technology.
> 
> It is probably more accurate to say he isn't interested in
> calculus than to say he isn't capable of calculus.  He might
> ask you how knowing how to solve an indefinite integral will
> help him get along with his family and his neighbors.

I suspect that these "most admired men" were chosen on the basis of
their personality and prominence in the news media.  Their professions
also require them to be overt and influential which certainly doesn't
fulfill MY criteria for a truly admirable man.  The average prole in
today's world really has no idea of who the great thinkers are and what
it is they think about.

It is probably more accurate to say that the average man on the street
is incapable of handling calculus; getting along with his family; getting
along with his neighbors; understanding the social impact of the computer
or reading, understanding or critiquing any of the most fundemental texts in
philosophy.  Instead, he reads the National Inquirer, "Astrology" magazine
and learns science and religion from the "you-can-experience-a-miracle-a-
day-chariots-of-the-gods-self-help" book rack.

In short:  The average man on the street is a pig-ignorant weakling
and he prefers to remain that way.

> > It's one thing to become a preacher or political leader, and
> > another thing entirely to become a Richard P. Feynman, A. Einstein,
> > etc.
> 
> Apparently you think that people related professions, such as
> preaching and politicking, are easier than object related
> professions, such as physics.  Why do you think this?

Who's talking about ease?  We're talking about which is more useful
and requires more raw brain power.  A glib line and charismatic personality
do not a great thinker or modern-day renaissance-man make.

The ideas of todays self-styled preachers and politicians do not have
to withstand the test of reality as do the ideas of engineers and
technologists.  Object related professionals have their beliefs and
ideas placed on the line because the fruits of their profession must be
substaniated with fact, not vague promises and pretty prose.

Every wonder why people BELIEVED Ronny Ray-gun when he said he'd
balance the budget and wipe out the deficits with a sustained annual
GNP of %4-5 a year?  Why is that man still in office?  Not for
competant business management that's fer sure.

Object related professions require precision formulation and a
disciplined mind.  Since many more object related professionals have
proven themselves to be better all-around thinkers then have the
people profesionals, I conclude that the object-professionals are more
admirable and make better role models.


						seismo!trwatf!speaker
						- Speaker