Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 05:27:44 08/21/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2002 at 07:14:59, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On August 21, 2002 at 06:48:57, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>Again nonsense Mogens, they where neither unsubstantiated or personal opinions, >>I gave you links to show you how it's done (but didn't want to post as I would >>have to translate a great deal, and it's already very off-topic). > >The point being your inability to substantiate your claims regardless of >excuses. Likewise it seems. >>You simply do not understand the word research. Research is not pasting together >>a bunch old stuff. > >I think I have a rather good grasp of research. Your description "pasting >together a bunch (of) old stuff" just exemplifies the inability to understand >what critical literary study means. Not to mention comparative studies. Both of >which is considered research. Not only in social sciences. Explaining what hashtables are does not constitute research. It can be background research, which to some is research. In danish you don't translate 'forsking' with 'research'. Research is often the beginning stage of a 'forskningsprojekt' but the words are not identical. >>Research is _doing_ something original, it has nothing to do with compiling a >>compendium, that is your free and very wrong interpretation/translation. > >Nope. See above. I believe you confuse 'forskingsproject' with 'research project', which doesn't have identical meaning. >>Here it is in danish, and the correct translation goes: >>"Specialet består i udførelsen af et større eksperimentelt eller/og teoretisk >>arbejde. Det udføres under personlig vejledning fra en forsker, og ved dets >>afslutning udarbejdes en skriftlig afhandling om specialearbejdet. > >My quote, which is a few paragraphs below this one, explains what is meant by >experimental and theoretical work. Theoretical work can be a critical literary >study (comparative) or didactical (eg. a compendium). I consider the thesis in >question to be a literary study, which is acceptable by Danish standards as well >(except maybe the Niels Bohr Institute ;-). A didactical study can be anything >fom textbooks for the gymnasium to more or less philosophical papers on the >topic of learning in context with the subject at hand. Of course, the actual >choice of approach is probably indicative of career choice, be it research >scientist or teacher. That is another qiestion and irrelevant. That is not what is meant by theoretical work in physics, perhaps elsewere. >>[I have moved the thread to CTF, you can respond there as it's too off-topic >>here, me and Dann are have already continued there] > >I don't post at CTF, sorry. But I doubt we're getting anywhere anyway. I >recommend reading the ruleset for physics (all of it) and maybe a couple of >others as well. Yes, you should do that. -S. >Regards, >Mogens
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.