Reply With Quote
Cool. Good luck with that. My East Coast friends all got dissuaded by their bosses after they did stints as paralegals. However, one of my good local friends is now a DA's assistant in Chicago, so it's not like it can't be done.
I've already branched. Focused mostly on science classes in undergrad, yet about to start law school in about a week.
Cool. Good luck with that. My East Coast friends all got dissuaded by their bosses after they did stints as paralegals. However, one of my good local friends is now a DA's assistant in Chicago, so it's not like it can't be done.
Being the biggest loser here, you would have lots of experience along those lines.
Be prepared to be a slave once you are hired by a firm. Most all new law interns have to pay their dues this way, but science should give you a great perspective in law IMHO.
I changed majors a few times. I started out pre-med, but early on my pre-med adviser, my biology prof., pulled me aside one day and asked me how I liked biology so far.
Although I was making good grades, I told him honestly that biology bored me to tears so naturally he recommended I change my major which I did to a dbl. major in physics and psychology.
A couple of years later I became disenchanted with how nebulous a science psychology was and dropped that major, but not before absorbing many upper level courses, and picked up philosophy to go along with the physics.
That was when things really got interesting because on my own I was playing music, involved with university theatre, and dabbling in metaphysics.
Theatre and rock-n-roll music began to take off big time, so after 5 semesters of college life and broke the whole time, I pursued that and made lots of money.
20 years later I decided to go back and finish my degree.
After receiving a scholarship (even though I was financially secure) based on grades I made 20 years earlier, and from the advice of an attorney friend of mine, I majored in pre-law this time, with an emphasis in physics.
It was a fantastic feeling when I finally graduated after that 20 year hiatus, one I cannot describe, and I loved every minute of the whole collegiate experience, both times.
Last edited by xmas1997; 08-11-2014 at 09:31 AM.
Ok, my bad on that.
But, and this is a huge but, you believe the clock moves on as designed? Was the clock designed with randomness thrown in? Because if it was not, then you don't thoroughly understand evolution. So maybe more like an avalanche? Clock implies time and when you throw in the word designed...
And excuse my negligence for failing to read the whole thing. This has become so long... repe ion and summaries are not a bad thing along the way.
And then of course we may have a different definition of random. This thread gets bogged down quite a bit because we use words differently. All of us.
Being the biggest loser here, you would have lots of experience along those lines.
Chinook.
If you did study philosophy, specifically logic and it's application to math (I did not), you have to read about Godel. You just have to. I can't understand all of it but I do understand the implications.
And if we throw in education, BS Molecular Biology UT, Masters Biochem UT.
But I must emphasize that I believe this was just guidance to allow me to read on my own.
It got me a great flexible job but, the job is narrower work.
I seriously would like everyone to post a picture of their libraries.
This tells me much more than degrees if they actually read the stuff.
I will also echo your recommendation of Kurt Godel, and his "incompleteness theorem".
I think that randomness is a matter of perspective. Believe me that I understand what you're talking about as far as random mutations go. (I did get a degree in evolution, and 90 percent of all mutations are supposed to be random. It would be a hard thing to over look.) But that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about the fundamental causal chain of the universe, which is a concept that I accept along with atheists. It's the idea that everything has a proximate mechanism that causes it -- that nothing "just happens" from a physical sense. Random mutations are called such because they aren't developed with a purpose. They just happen to be carried through because they are beneficial, or even just because they get lucky. That doesn't mean there aren't actual physical causes that led to that mutation being formed.
For example, take a random number generator program. From our perspective, the numbers are random because we aren't telling the program to give a certain output. But from the computer's perspective, the numbers are just part of a "random" algorithm it's called upon to use. Certain programmers are familiar with this program, and thus they can use it to predict the numbers the program will generate. There are quite a few cases of online poker sites getting ruined because some people figured out their randomizer.
So no, I don't believe that the universe has true randomness in it. Rather, I just believe that it has a level of complexity in it that means that we aren't able to correctly predict many things. But as a believer in the causal closure of the physical, I don't believe any of these causes are truly unknowable (in the colloquial sense). We and our machines just have to become smart enough to figure it out.
I have read about his incompleteness theorem (ironically enough in a writing class). I understand his point that not everything can be put into formal logic, that a system of reasoning cannot systematize itself. I haven't read his work directly, however, which is why I'm hesitant to say I actually know about his work with any conviction.
As far as libraries go, I think you might be a little behind on the times, no offense. I know at least in my case, I don't really have many physical books anymore. The ones I had to buy for classes were pretty much sold off once the classes ended, since a hundred dollars means a ton more to a college student than toting around reminders of all the late-night study sessions you had to pull. Even my entertainment books are often in digital form, whether those are E-books or audiobooks. There are times that I really wish that I had kept my textbooks. But I was a kid who traveled across the country to go to college. No way was it feasible for me to hold on to them.
Chinook, how old are you?
oh ok, who came up with the "classic" clockmaker analogy then?
Honestly? I have no idea. But it's clearly pretty old, since the best I can find so far says that Thomas Jefferson (definitely a man of no contradiction) subscribed to that analogy.
Seems Benjamin Franklin was the guy who made it popular.
precisely. i have still hung onto my first o-chem textbook though. i used it as a reference during the years, and never got around to selling that one. when i went back for my 5th year, i didn't have many requirements left, so i dabbled in some classes that i figured could be somewhat helpful in law (con law, political theory, etc), and i've hung onto most of the books in those classes
I dunno about you, but I used to have to buy these blue reading packets from the campus copy center. They would contain a bunch of different texts and excerpts from texts that covered the bulk of my course reading. I hated having to get those, because they were still expensive and had no resale value. I think I still have most of those somewhere, but I no I recycled at least a few looking for a catharsis at the end of semesters.
yeah, called them "course readers" here. usually had to buy them off campus in the westwood area. those were a pain, expensive as and you couldn't bargain hunt online. they were also very specific to that quarter of instruction since the professor tailor made them for their class. some classes just had those, some just had textbooks. some had both... ugh
I kept very few of my textbooks. My North American Lit giant Omnibus one because it had Vonnegut's "Fates Worse than Death" Speech,m European Warfare from 1660-1815, Milton collections, all of the Lautreamont, all of the Borges and G.K. Chesterton.
It's always best to keep those law books, I still have mine, especially my communications law.
But you're going to call me out for not being precise?
Then let's be precise. "Watchmaker" is the classic term for the analogy:
I'm not sure why you're bogging yourself in such petty details regardless. "watch" "clock" who gives a .William Paley*(July 1743*– 25 May 1805) was an English clergyman,*Christian apologist, philosopher, and*utilitarian. He is best known for his*natural theology*exposition of the*teleological argument*for the*existence of God*in his work*Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity, which made use of the*watchmaker analogy.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Paley
It's a false analogy either way.
As you can tell from his latest post, blake has no intention of debating or discussing.
His sole intention is to troll, that is all he ever does on here.
I am surprised you got DMC to debate because all he usually does is troll too.
It is what it is, we are used to it.
As far as I'm concerned Chinook has been checking assholes. Blake getting destroyed. Nothing new, tbh.
Again it is very telling that some of us can respect diverse opinions like the way chinook and others feel and believe even though we might not agree with them, yet so many others on here seem to find it offensive and try to ridicule, or feel so threatened that they they have to pick holes in people's beliefs or opinions.
Chinook certainly destroyed DMC even though I doubt that was his intention, and it goes without saying he made mincemeat of blake's trolling.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
