All Aboard
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-04-2011, 02:24 PM
RE: All Aboard
(22-04-2011 01:56 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(22-04-2011 01:02 PM)Tim_Kiebooms Wrote:  First of all a classification for every kind of social class in the world is pretty much unachievable at the moment. . .
For clarification, Trainwrecks classification system isn't just a way to class people. He is proposing a new system to classify ALL knowledge.
That's absolutely amazing

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 02:26 PM
RE: All Aboard
(22-04-2011 02:24 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(22-04-2011 01:56 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  
(22-04-2011 01:02 PM)Tim_Kiebooms Wrote:  First of all a classification for every kind of social class in the world is pretty much unachievable at the moment. . .
For clarification, Trainwrecks classification system isn't just a way to class people. He is proposing a new system to classify ALL knowledge.
That's absolutely amazing

What's amazing?

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 02:27 PM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2011 02:39 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: All Aboard
(22-04-2011 02:08 PM)Tim_Kiebooms Wrote:  Reclassifying everything seems to be pretty insane and pretty useless as well, but if it makes you feel happy, sure go ahead. Also there's more knowledge than any human mind can cary in a single lifetime at the moment, so you're going to have a hard time with making it waterproof.
That is why we need a good classification system, and why I made the claim, as follows . . .
(21-04-2011 05:27 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(21-04-2011 10:35 AM)BnW Wrote:  Earlier, you said you had created your super terrific classification system and that this made intellectually superior; you were Wile E. Coyote, super genius. But, now it turns out that you've created nothing, the intellectual equivalent of Elmer Fudd.
Please, obviously, I have not created nothing - there is a unique list that you, and everyone else, can review. I am a genius because I recognized the collation system and applied it to devise the classification system. The classification system will not make a person a genius, it will however, make people smarter by increasing their ability to understand how concepts of technology are associated (cross-reference), which subsequently, increases their ability to access the correct areas of technology for their research.




(22-04-2011 02:26 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  What's amazing?
(21-04-2011 04:10 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(21-04-2011 11:26 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And Trainwrecks classification system that is designed to segregate us based on belief is no more valid than segregating us based on race/gender/height/pizza topping preference.
The system is not designed to segregate people, it is designed to be a better rendition of arrangement of knowledge. My opinion concerning social segregation is based on the concept of scientific experiment, where it is necessary to distinguish the control from the experiment group.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 03:05 PM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2011 03:14 PM by Tim_Kiebooms.)
RE: All Aboard
(22-04-2011 02:27 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(22-04-2011 02:08 PM)Tim_Kiebooms Wrote:  Reclassifying everything seems to be pretty insane and pretty useless as well, but if it makes you feel happy, sure go ahead. Also there's more knowledge than any human mind can cary in a single lifetime at the moment, so you're going to have a hard time with making it waterproof.
That is why we need a good classification system, and why I made the claim, as follows . . .
(21-04-2011 05:27 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(21-04-2011 10:35 AM)BnW Wrote:  Earlier, you said you had created your super terrific classification system and that this made intellectually superior; you were Wile E. Coyote, super genius. But, now it turns out that you've created nothing, the intellectual equivalent of Elmer Fudd.
Please, obviously, I have not created nothing - there is a unique list that you, and everyone else, can review. I am a genius because I recognized the collation system and applied it to devise the classification system. The classification system will not make a person a genius, it will however, make people smarter by increasing their ability to understand how concepts of technology are associated (cross-reference), which subsequently, increases their ability to access the correct areas of technology for their research.




(22-04-2011 02:26 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  What's amazing?
(21-04-2011 04:10 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  
(21-04-2011 11:26 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And Trainwrecks classification system that is designed to segregate us based on belief is no more valid than segregating us based on race/gender/height/pizza topping preference.
The system is not designed to segregate people, it is designed to be a better rendition of arrangement of knowledge. My opinion concerning social segregation is based on the concept of scientific experiment, where it is necessary to distinguish the control from the experiment group.
We've got a perfectly working classification system as it is: Science, philosophy, etc... Every category even has it's own scientific function as it is. Why would you reclassify everything again? The cross reference you speak about is indeed a useful tool for every scientist in the world, but it is used in our existing modern classification system already and is taught through education. I don't see what you can achieve by making your own interpretation based on certain ideas of the existing classification and most certainly can't see how that makes anyone a genius at all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-04-2011, 04:23 PM (This post was last modified: 22-04-2011 05:52 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: All Aboard

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-04-2011, 10:18 AM (This post was last modified: 24-04-2011 08:27 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: All Aboard
Come on, don't leave me hanging for much longer. I am dying to learn of the classification system that everybody is on, except me. I guarantee that if you can direct me to the collective classification system I will be able to get my life together.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2011, 04:20 AM
RE: All Aboard
Okay, I think i'm finally starting to understand what you're after.
Anyway the classification i'm talking about is the one that slowly came to it's existence. The one that everyone (thinks he) knows. The categories of these classification are merely the sciences or ideologies in which the discoveries are made. Such as for example the theories of Plato are placed under Philosophy. Or Newton's theology under Physics. It's probably the most basic thing there is, but you can call it a classification and all knowledge you can come up with has it's place like that. This classification is taught through education. It's a list that doesn't have to be typed out (but you might find one over the net, yet i've got better things to do at the moment) since it's globally known and is actually quite functional.

But now that i'm starting to understand a little something you said, i'm able to see the scientific benefits for a more efficient classification and a more standardized list that people can refer to, since the list i mentioned before is usually interpreted in many different ways which causes discussion and inefficiency, is actually a great idea. But only for educational and scientific purposes.

Politically seen, i still think classification is a bad idea since (like mentioned before) classifying people will highlight their differences and will only cause conflict.

Also if you make your own standardized and efficient classification, the one thing you should keep in mind is that it can be use by anyone. The logic behind the categories and subcategories you choose should be understandable by anyone. This might be a problem for you especially since the one thing that this topic you've made illustrated was that people have a hard time understanding you. If it's the same case with your classification system, you can forget about it being standardized in any way.

I was wrong about claiming that reclassifying everything would be useless, i admit that. But i also have severe doubts if the consequences of a standardized classification would be as revolutionary as you claim them to be.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-04-2011, 11:09 AM
RE: All Aboard
OK, I'm sure most of you know I don't necessarily agree with Trainwrecks system, but I must point something out in it's defense. I think many of you are seeing the word "classification" and applying it to people as though they would be ranked in some way. I think classifying people would not put them into categories of good/bad, right/wrong, or anything like that. From what I understand, Trainwreck is proposing classifying people in ways that we already do when we take a census. Age, gender, country of origin. There's nothing offensive about knowing how many people are born here, how many people are this age there, etc. The idea is to organize information we already have, not to put people into "classes" as in upper/middle/lower. (Of course income is another way to organize information, but again, it's not offensive to organize that knowledge).
Trainwreck can correct me if I'm wrong, and I am not endorsing his system, but simply pointing out what I perceive to be a misunderstanding about his idea.

So many cats, so few good recipes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: