Did any of you get anything wrong? Watch

This discussion is closed.
pantryboy
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#21
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#21
(Original post by NeuroticSurgeon)
About 2 + 2 = 4 being a priori couldn't that be debatable? I mean I know some philosophers have argued that 2 + 2=4 ISN'T a priori....old philosophers though. Can't remember who it is...(and I might be way off target here). Although the general consensus now is that 2+2=4 is by definition true.
I think I tried to argue it from what Immanuel Kant said, and compared it to cause and effect although being universally accepted as true, is not a priori because the 'effect' is not part of the definition of the 'cause' and thus it isnt self-explanatory - or something like the 4 isnt part of the definition of the two 2's, lol - something crazy that was quickly interrupted...
0
Thirtysomething
Badges: 0
#22
Report 14 years ago
#22
(Original post by Juxtapiped)
I think I tried to argue it from what Immanuel Kant said, and compared it to cause and effect although being universally accepted as true, is not a priori because the 'effect' is not part of the definition of the 'cause' and thus it isnt self-explanatory - or something like the 4 isnt part of the definition of the two 2's, lol - something crazy that was quickly interrupted...
Kant's masterstroke was to separate the a priori/a posteriori distinction from the analytic/synthetic distinction. (The first is epistemology, the second is logic.) So 2+2=4 is a priori but synthetic. Is that what you were thinking of? (And then we introduce metaphysics with the necessary/contingent pair...)
0
hitchhiker_13
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#23
Report 14 years ago
#23
I couldn't remember the formula for the surface area of a sphere (hangs head in shame). After the interviewer reminded me it was ok and i could do the rest of the problem.
My mind just went blank and all i could remember was the formula for volume.
0
lymphoz
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 14 years ago
#24
y=f(x) drawn

below 4 graphs shown, had to pick y=-f(|x|)

spent what seemed like 5mins trying to choose a graph and still ended up picking the wrong one...
0
Adil Bhai
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 14 years ago
#25
Please dont get me started. Interviewers asked the major energy transfer when a person runs, talked bout friction, air resistance, forgot the main part the work done by his legs.

aggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
0
hitchhiker_13
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#26
Report 14 years ago
#26
(Original post by lymphoz)
y=f(x) drawn

below 4 graphs shown, had to pick y=-f(|x|)

spent what seemed like 5mins trying to choose a graph and still ended up picking the wrong one...

oh yes, and i spent ages trying to draw a simple logx graph - i have no idea why.
When applying for physical natural sciences, this could not be very reassuring to the interviewers.
0
F. Poste
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 14 years ago
#27
Yep- in my Oxford English interview I was talking about Sylvia Plath's Lady Lazarus. My tutor asked if I knew what Lazarus did and I said "Errm rose from the flames?" Turns out he rose from the dead. Should have known that. Never mind, my complete lack of knowledge about mythology didn't seem to hinder me
0
hitchhiker_13
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#28
Report 14 years ago
#28
(Original post by F. Poste)
Yep- in my Oxford English interview I was talking about Sylvia Plath's Lady Lazarus. My tutor asked if I knew what Lazarus did and I said "Errm rose from the flames?" Turns out he rose from the dead. Should have known that. Never mind, my complete lack of knowledge about mythology didn't seem to hinder me
It's not mythology, it's religion - it's a New Testament story. If you're not a Christian I suppose there's no reason why you should know. When I read Purdah I didn't know what that was for a while.
0
khil
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#29
Report 14 years ago
#29
I'm glad I didn't apply for Physical NatSci cus I would've died! - all the maths that I'm hearing about! :eek: Well I couldn't apply for it anyway cus I don't have maths :rolleyes:

Well I couldn't tell the interviewer how many grams a litre of water weighed :rolleyes: give a round of applause for me
0
Zarathustra
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#30
Report 14 years ago
#30
(Original post by Juxtapiped)
I was asked of 2+2=4 was 'a priori' (meaning, knowable without facts/evidence/experience). I said it wasn't for some odd reason, and said "ahh its a special kind of...." to which she just said "it is a priori - I think you have your terminology confused".
(Original post by NeuroticSurgeon)
About 2 + 2 = 4 being a priori couldn't that be debatable? I mean I know some philosophers have argued that 2 + 2=4 ISN'T a priori....old philosophers though. Can't remember who it is...(and I might be way off target here). Although the general consensus now is that 2+2=4 is by definition true.
(Original post by Juxtapiped)
I think I tried to argue it from what Immanuel Kant said, and compared it to cause and effect although being universally accepted as true, is not a priori because the 'effect' is not part of the definition of the 'cause' and thus it isnt self-explanatory - or something like the 4 isnt part of the definition of the two 2's, lol - something crazy that was quickly interrupted...
NeuroticSurgeon, you're right it must be possible (though perhaps not successful) to argue that 2+2=4 isn't a priori, as it's pretty much the only line to take on it if you want to maintain absolute empiricism and deny the possibility of any a priori truth. I think it's something along the lines of: we gain the knowledge that 2+2=4 by encountering repeated instances in which 2 pairs of things joined together make four individual things, etc. Then the formula 2+2=4 is abstracted from this and turned into a generalisation. However, it's difficult to see how this works as it's not technically an inductive generalisation, since once you know that 2+2=4 no further repetition in experience makes the truth any more probable, which is the case with inductive knowledge.
("2+2=4 is by definition true" : doesn't that make it analytic, not a priori?)

Juxtapiped, a priori can be taken also to mean any judgement that is logically independent of experience, ie.does not entail any empirical statements, in which case maths is defo a priori - much easier definition to work with.
When you say "the 'effect' is not part of the definition of the 'cause' and thus it isnt self-explanatory" are you talking about Kant's 'predicate-not-contained-within-the-subject' definition of a synthetic statement? Just I've never heard it put that way before...if it's something else please explain and enlighten

ZarathustraX (talking rubbish probably, but trying to draw attention away from paranoia and panic!)

PS: You think your foolishness was bad: I spent five minutes discussing a refutation of determinism only to be met with the comment "I'm sorry, I don't see how anything you've just said relates to what we're talking about - the free-will problem" (!!!)
0
pantryboy
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#31
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#31
You sound far more knowledgeable than me Zarathustra! You are just like the others I met applying at Pembroke - seemingly knowledgeable about loads of things regarding Philosophy - and I BET you get in - I haven't even done philosophy/maths/science at AS or A2! You are exactly the type of person that terrified me when I was there! (It's a good thing for you though!)
0
ThePants999
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#32
Report 14 years ago
#32
(Original post by gangsta1)
I was asked to dra the electromegnative spectrum for my medicine interview. Then he asked to give him some uses os some of these waves in Medicine.
I talked about the obvious one-Xrays. Then he said Is that the only one you know of that is useful in medicine? Instead of saying 'Yes, thats all i recall at the moment'
Visible light?
0
Sadloser
Badges: 0
#33
Report 14 years ago
#33
Someone i talked to at my college was mortified by her answer to one of the questions she was asked

Q: What would you bring to Trinity?
A: My suitcase

Luckily they thought she was joking. Hope she gets in...she was really nice.
0
ahneta
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#34
Report 14 years ago
#34
I suggested during the warm-up questions of one Medicine interview that if you put a special paint on metal, it stops it showing up in X-ray machines. Then I implied drugs were made of metal. Yet still I was made an offer. They must have been desperate this year...
0
Zarathustra
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#35
Report 14 years ago
#35
(Original post by Juxtapiped)
You sound far more knowledgeable than me Zarathustra! You are just like the others I met applying at Pembroke - seemingly knowledgeable about loads of things regarding Philosophy - and I BET you get in - I haven't even done philosophy/maths/science at AS or A2! You are exactly the type of person that terrified me when I was there! (It's a good thing for you though!)
Damn you, Juxtapiped - you're infuriating!

I attempt to provoke you into a debate about Kant and definitions of a priori to distract you, and you turn it into yet another reason to worry! *despair face*

1) I am not doing Philosophy/maths/science at A-level either. My closest to Philosophy is RS, and I dropped biology after AS because I was BAD at it! Another phil applicant I was chatting to on my interview day (registered as ChocOrange now I think) also hasn't done Philosophy A-level. You are not alone *groups hugs for non-phil a-levellers*
2) Knowing a lot about Philosophy (which I don't really!) may not even be an advantage - they want to see how you think for yourself in the interview, so being able to spout names etc. may not aid you that much! As long as you knew everything that you claimed to on your ps, I'm sure it's fine. REALLY.

Now why don't we all just get a cup of tea, head over to the Philosophy forum, and discuss the (non-/)existence of moral absolutes? :p:

ZarathustraX

EDIT: Oh and if all you had to deal with were knowledgeable philosophers then you'll get no sympathy from me - there was one total Rah in my lot who I had to spend half the time trying to avoid...*shudders* Lol.
Anyway, to conclude this long and rather over-edited post: I hope you get in!
0
Hoofbeat
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#36
Report 14 years ago
#36
(Original post by ThePants999)
Visible light?
Infra Red, or heat as well. It's called Pulsar treament; had it on my wrist when damaged it and is supposed to help speed up recovery of damaged tissues/muscle.

Also gamma radiation for radiotheraphy.

I said so many stupid things in my interviews (can't remember them off the top of my head) and somehow I still got in. At least all of you probably won't say silly things in your tutorials - I do that all the time!!! I think my poor tutor thinks I'm an idiot and wonders why they had to end up with me come results day (I had an open offer and was allocated Lincoln when someone else missed their grades).
0
goneaway56
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 14 years ago
#37
(Original post by Juxtapiped)
You sound far more knowledgeable than me Zarathustra! You are just like the others I met applying at Pembroke - seemingly knowledgeable about loads of things regarding Philosophy - and I BET you get in - I haven't even done philosophy/maths/science at AS or A2! You are exactly the type of person that terrified me when I was there! (It's a good thing for you though!)
Juxtapiped, the tutors don't care how knowledgable you are; they are testing your ability to think, and be able to reason and argue logically. They don't care one bit about your knowledge; they can always teach you that.

They may also be harder in the interview to those who had done Philosophy A Level, because they expect greater knowledge and understanding to related issues.

In reality you were probably more direct than those who had done the A level in answering questions; in that you couldn't deflect questions and give a related answer (thats what I resorted too)

PS. Good Luck with Pembroke (hope to see you there in October, I've applied there too). I probably met you (there were loads of Philosophers there on the Wed / Thurs when I was there!)
0
pantryboy
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#38
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#38
cool! I was wearing a brown jacket/suit and have dark brown hair - the brown jacket was quite distinctive as no one else appeared to be wearing one - u may have noticed me!
0
goneaway56
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#39
Report 14 years ago
#39
(Original post by Juxtapiped)
cool! I was wearing a brown jacket/suit and have dark brown hair - the brown jacket was quite distinctive as no one else appeared to be wearing one - u may have noticed me!
Can't remember a brown jacket. I only remember 2 philosophers, one wore a multicoloured top (obviously not you), and another, just from conversation because someone called Anastacia kept saying "oh, your exactly like my friend Rob" and "that was just what rob would do", and "let me show you a picture of Rob, you look exactly alike". Drove the guy insane! Were you hanging around the Junior Parlour with the 'u' shaped sofa and the broken pool table?
0
pantryboy
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#40
Report Thread starter 14 years ago
#40
Lol - I wasn't to be honest. I assume the multicoloured one was the guy with spikey hair etc - he sorta stood out. By the way, just off the record how clever did he seem? lol - assessing competition...
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • University of East Anglia
    All Departments Open 13:00-17:00. Find out more about our diverse range of subject areas and career progression in the Arts & Humanities, Social Sciences, Medicine & Health Sciences, and the Sciences. Postgraduate
    Wed, 30 Jan '19
  • Solent University
    Careers in maritime Undergraduate
    Sat, 2 Feb '19
  • Sheffield Hallam University
    City and Collegiate Campus Undergraduate
    Sun, 3 Feb '19

Do you have a role model?

Yes - I know them personally (295)
26.06%
Yes - they're famous (288)
25.44%
No I don't (549)
48.5%

Watched Threads

View All