That the UK higher education system limits the number of subjects young adults can study before university is one thing.

That you think there is a dichotomy between those same young adults being interested in or good at EITHER only science subjects OR only art subjects and almost NEVER both is quite another thing, that you have not offered any reasons why it should be considered true.

Of course he has. Over various threads in excruciating detail. The evidence for this and all his other claims consists of:

1) Anyone knows that!
2) You disagree? You prove me wrong! (followed by: This proves nothing!)
3) Wow, you really don't read my posts, do you? (followed by: I never said that!)

Posters claimed that the question "Is he good at art or science ?" was rarely asked (by implication if not specifically). I have shown that it is something which is discussed and decided at school through subject choices.

The original discussion about whether science and art requires different types of thinking is seemingly too advanced for the forumists here. They have dragged it down to this trivial level.

Actually no, you haven't shown that at all. Let's assume the assume the subjects you have picked are synomous with art and science (an extremely dubious assumption, but we'll assume you are correct - as to minimize the discussion to the bare essentials):

You have shown that one tests if a person is good in art and science.

Not or.

/tangent

Well, this was where my disagreement was stemming from, but you have a good point.

The choice is either/or. gangstaman was saying that he had not even heard of anyone discussing the choice.

That's not quite what I said. I said that I never heard of anyone asking if a kid was good in science or art like those were the 2 categories, and one could only be skilled in one or the other.

You're not making sense.

He's also (if I understand him correctly which I realize, the more I read, is making a lot of assumptions) talking about the specifics of schooling in the UK.

Here in America, one does not have to choose. You can study both science and art all throughout your schooling. And many people do.

In fact, this will blow Cwoc's mind:
I will await the random reasons why what she does (and teaches) either isn't art or isn't science.

He's talking about schooling post 16 where kids may choose to study science only subjects for admittance to specific university courses. Some science degrees require 3 A level passes in science subjects. Most arts based courses have no such requirement and kids can choose one of many options to make up their 3/4 subjects.

The choices are made at thirteen or fourteen. If you don't do the subject at GCSE you can't do it at Advanced level. Iirc if you do a language at uni they might ask for two rather than one.

Is a language art or science?

But I'm sure you can see the false dichotomy. A sunrise is a gas blob (if you follow me).

You should note that it is, in fact, the theistic universe which promises to explain everything. I mean, one assumes that p=np finds a solution in the mind of god, right? And would communion with that mind not imply access to such? Even if not, the all-bracketing 'Because god willed it so' can explain literally everything. It's only the atheist universe that offers permanent, insoluble mystery.

Food for thought?

Sure, it's a gas blob under a certain description. I gave it another try here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...2&postcount=75 I shouldn't have used the sunrise example - it just leads into false tangents (as the thread later showed).

I, for one, don't think the sun is any less beautiful just because it happens to be a gargantuan gaseous nuclear explosion that throws titanic flaming flares many times the size of Earth into space.

I haven't started a thread in a long time, and I often threaten to do so and even "promise" to do so over and over, but I really, really ('seriously-guys-for-real-no-joke'-really) am just about finishing one up. Somehow I got to thinking about the creative imagination, and our creative capacities in general-- to create art, poetry, monstrous instruments of war, or to imagine alternate realities and so on, and how this relates to "the spirit" and our relationship (as creative beings made in the image of God) to God. I guess I was specifically thinking about imagination itself. Which led me to consider somehow that the devil is represented as disguising himself as an angel of light. Which moved me to consider what kind of aesthetic tools that calls for in particular. Which got me thinking about how some atheist-liberal-humanists here use strong moral idiom like "barbaric" or "reprehensible" without batting an eye. Which got me thinking of what that disguise might look like that the devil is wearing. Which made me think of this thread.

Carry on!

Well I can only assure you that Satan is typically depicted as having far better dress sense than I could ever hope for. Generally smoother with women, too.

Just by-the-by, who's that in your avatar?

Edit: never mind, GIS ftw.

Do you think the devil is disguising himself as atheist-liberal-humanists who use words such as "barbaric" and "reprehensible"?

Or are you just thinking about it?

'Reprehensible' isn't even that strong, it's just, like, fancy.

Yeah. Jack Kerouac.

Apropos for this thread, I think, as this --imo-- is the closest I'll come to experiencing something approaching an imperishable bliss through the written word.

Never could abide Kerouac. Started On The Road three times, never finished, didn't care what happened next. Think I made it two chapters into Big Sur on a friend's recommendation. Bleugh.

This explains a lot.