J. W. (Monty) Montgomery

Lake Dallas, TX, United States

Someone is shy

J. W. (Monty) hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

105002
J. W. (Monty) Montgomery
Posted over 3 years ago
Paul Root Wolpe: It's time to question bio-engineering
I have no problem with you deciding for yourself to not take part in a diet which involves the killing of animals. But claiming that I am doing wrong by eating fish is an unfounded claim. I did not "equate fishing with animal experimentation". I gave an example where I have "the right to volunteer another being's mind and body", and in the example the consequence to that being is worse than "wires jammed into a brain". One implies an end to the being's existence and the other does not. It was not to equate the two. It was to give an example where the consequences are every bit as bad as experimentation, yet willfully volunteering the being is justified. In other words, it was a counterexample to your overgeneralized statement. As for your comment on how little I know, please keep the discussion on track. That comment does nothing to inform me of anything, so what's the point of it?
105002
J. W. (Monty) Montgomery
Posted over 3 years ago
Paul Root Wolpe: It's time to question bio-engineering
I apologize for being so stupid, Tony... A right is defined as "something to which one has just claim". You justified the claim for me when you mentioned survival. If you are using another definition of 'right', then please clear it up because the game of semantics bores me. I was responding specifically to the comment on "the right to volunteer another being's mind and body." Since we have the right to go as far as to kill animal to aid in survival, then I fail to see how experimenting on them to aid in survival is not a justified claim. The first one brings a guaranteed end to the animals existence; the second does not, period. That being said, I do agree with your comment on regulations, both for experimentation and the food industry, but I disagree with the Bill's comment since it read as though we have no "right to volunteer another being's mind and body" whatsoever. There are situations where that idea is flat-out false.
105002
J. W. (Monty) Montgomery
Posted over 3 years ago
Does the future need us?
Computers are dumb. Their actions depend solely on the commands of the programmer. Imagine a monkey that just sits around waiting for you to tell it what to do. You finally give the monkey a command, and the monkey carries out that exact command, nothing more. When finished, the monkey returns to a sitting position and commences to just sit and wait for the next command. Does it sound like we would need to compete with that monkey? That is the extent of what current computers are capable of.
105002
J. W. (Monty) Montgomery
Posted over 3 years ago
What is the next big essential service governments in the future will provide for their citizens?
It depends on which billionaires you are talking about. Are we talking about a tyrant who literally holds the wealth of the country for himself, or are we talking about a Bill Gates who put out a product that people willfully bought and plans to donate his fortune to charity? ...Or are we just tossing out baseless assumptions of what the rich have actually earned? I am all for the people revolting against governments that hoard the wealth, but that is a far cry from asking the government to provide free food for the masses.
105002
J. W. (Monty) Montgomery
Posted over 3 years ago
What do you think about the teaching of maths at different levels of education? How do you think it could be improved not to be so feared?
To say that math by itself means nothing and math only has value in application, you might as well say that art means nothing. Also, it would be hard to gear math toward stats instead of calculus, since many areas of stats are built on calculus. I teach a college stats class for students majoring in fields that use stats far more than calculus, i.e. journalism and sociology. There is no way to have the students reach a true understanding of the normal distribution without going deep into calculus. The alternative is to give the students a z-table and say, "Just take it on faith that this works." That is a fundamentally flawed approach to education, regardless of the subject being taught.
105002
J. W. (Monty) Montgomery
Posted over 3 years ago
Salman Khan: Let's use video to reinvent education
THE most meaningful experience for me was watching a very quiet but gifted mathematician never head to the board, but instead sit at the back of the room and act only as moderator while students presented their own arguments for the theorems of calculus and engaged in discussion amongst themselves over the validity of said arguments, meaningful enough that I left physics and became a mathematician. Just pointing out how completely different approaches to teaching can be seen as meaningful to different students.