Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 08:23:14 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 09:55:38, Sune Fischer wrote: >I said that the standard seemed low, and it does, to me. >Problem is that standards vary from low to high, so perhaps it _is_ within range >at some universities. There's no perhaps involved. >Then I guess no one is able to judge anything, really. Only if you contemplate the possible differences there might be between disciplines. Not to mention certain faculty traditions. You, yourself, barely managed to acknowledge that original science in mathematics isn't that easy. Using your limited experience, discipline wise, in physics doesn't constitute a basis for insulting someone elses work. Nor making it the commen standard of a Danish thesis. It isn't by any stretch of the imagination. >Perhaps my logic failed me, but then explanin to me the difference between >independent work and original work? >If a science student does independent work, then is this not research >(forskning)? Independent work may not necessarily result in new information. One example being selecting, discarding and weighting material within a certain area (aka. a literary study). Another being expanding an existing article. That requires familiarity with the field and independence in selection and argumentation, which is then evaluated at the exam. >I'd say it is very much splitting hairs, but anything to find some support for >your view of course. You were the one trying to narrow the definition of research previously. Now you want to expand it. Fine with me. That just elevates the thesis in question. >Yes you can write you mother a 50 word letter and turn it in as your thesis, >doesn't mean it will _pass_ as a thesis... Well, I'll leave the evaluation to those actually qualified. The question is form. >I'm comparing with how we do things here, that is the only basis I have for >comparison as I haven't read too many masters from other places. >Judge for yourself if I'm in a position to compare, I'm in the middle of the >race myself, so if not I then who better - you? Probably not, but I haven't made comments about the quality of the work. I've read Danish masters in the fields of Mathematics, Physics, History and English (aaaarrgh!). My beef with you is your dismissal of method, which is unsubstantiated. Reiterating about physics isn't sufficient. >Ahh, I love it when you get personal. Myopia means lack of discernment, while ignorance can mean unaware or uninformed. That's not too far off given your limited basis, which you admitted above. >Only this the last section supports your grasp on a straw, and I can't find this >from the link anywhere, but I assume that you would not make it up. The last section is a clarification, not a straw of any kind. >Still, is pasting from the net doing a 'critical literary study"? No, it isn't. That's your opinion, which you are more than welcome to express. Though a little more finessé would have been appreciated. However, someone's ability to use a certain methodology doesn't detract from its legality. Regards, Mogens
This page took 0 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.