To: reaganaut1
I say this as a writer and social scientist whose work relies heavily on the use of numbers. Counting on your digits doesn't count as higher math.
6 posted on
07/29/2012 6:13:28 AM PDT by
Ramcat
(Thank You American Veterans)
To: Ramcat
I say this as a writer and social scientist whose work relies heavily on the use of numbers.
The overlords don't want anybody understanding, and therefore be able to question, their computer models.
If we are going to drop the algebra requirement, what need is there to warehouse children until they are 18? They may as well go onto an apprenticeship, grunt work or a trade school.
14 posted on
07/29/2012 6:16:57 AM PDT by
Dr. Sivana
("I love to hear you talk talk talk, but I hate what I hear you say."-Del Shannon)
To: Ramcat
“I say this as a writer and social scientist whose work relies heavily on the use of numbers.”
Counting on your digits doesn’t count as higher math.
True, but you forgot to mention that social science is mostly ‘social’ with very little real ‘science’. It is plagued with continual confusion of “correlation” with “causation”.
Given the statistical courses “social scientists” often have, to confuse correlation with causation can only be understood as a willing acceptance of deliberate duplicity.
Oh my! “Deliberate duplicity” is harsh . . . . would “ambitious ambiguity” be more acceptable?
197 posted on
07/29/2012 9:03:49 AM PDT by
GladesGuru
(In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
To: Ramcat
The person is just substantiating why writers and ‘social’ scientists are useless as to the technological advancements needed.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson