Is the failure to perform and encourage independent reasoning the same thing as
stifling it?
Are not those that presume that role also imposing a potentially stifling
control system just like religious codes of conduct?
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert J.
It has been suggested https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age
that stifling of independent reasoning (aka willful ignorance)
contributed to the end of the Islamic Golden Age. I've seen other
references calling it a rise in anti-rationalism. Western civilization
may be heading the
Well, if we are using physiological shock
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_(circulatory) as an analogy for the life
of the mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sound_of_the_Life_of_the_Mind, then
avoiding it would be imperative since it would cause a stiffening, ceasing
effect on activity
Nick,
It's the _shocked_ outrage I find tiresome. By all means
be outraged at any and all forms of corruption that take your
fancy, and forge that outrage into action.
But if someone is shocked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME
-- rec --
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote:
Nick,
It's the _shocked_ outrage I find tiresome. By all means be outraged at
any and all forms of corruption that take your fancy, and forge that
outrage into
I enjoyed both the article and others' reactions to it, especially Grant's
distinction between determined vs. determinability. My own reaction was one
slightly tinged with nausea. Yes, it is lamentable when one's ideas, one's
ideology, allow(s) one to deny truth (new evidence). But it is
Correct. Nothing is certain. We've known that since Kant. NOW what? That
there are no certain facts does not imply that some facts are not more
enduring and useful than others. We need to get beyond the sophomoric
revelation that everything is relative.
n
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus
Senator John Thune recently issued this tweet.
You can argue that it's a denial of truth. But really, it's more like a
tribal call. He is saying I hate Obama, and he will be applauded by those
who also hate Obama. It's not a matter of truth.
Here's Krugman's post on it: http://goo.gl/6a4yue.
Nick,
Righto. So what we do is put a measure on how much confidence we have.
Statistics gives us some tools for that - namely the moment
functionals (mean, variance, skewness, etc.); and information theory
gives us some more general tools for that - entropy and the other
entropic funtionals.
I agree with Glen. Simply look at a basic statistics course. There we
learn the idea of confidence intervals. You don't really ever prove
anything in statistics. Rather you may be able to gain confidence
based on probabilities - along with your previously established
tolerance for maybe being
Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, though. I
tend to think the best tool is ... well, it goes by many names. One name is
active listening ... empathy ... etc. The technique is well known to all
of us (well unless we're autistic or psychopathic). When you
As a died-in-the-wool PhilosoPHILE, I
really appreciate the article and Nick's commentary here.
Pierce's pragmatic distinction between Truth(tm) and Real(ity) is
precisely what I believe Philosophy to prove it's value to *all of
us*. To some this
Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, though. I
tend to think the best tool is ... well, it goes by many names. One name is
active listening ... empathy ... etc. The technique is well known to all
of us (well unless we're autistic or psychopathic). When you
On 06/09/2015 10:36 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
because -- rather, becorrelate -- their salaries depend on getting
published.
Ha! I laughed out loud at that... thanks!
I'm tending to see this issue theologically. The technical name for we're
all imperfect and we've always been so is
Of course the really fun thing about statistics is the ongoing discussion
about the willful ignorance of scientists submitting papers with
technically correct but wholly dubious claims of statistical significance,
because -- rather, becorrelate -- their salaries depend on getting
published. Funny
“Yeah, well, be disgusted, but try not to get too righteous about it and spare
us the expressions of shocked outrage.”
As we are coming up on the Tour de France, I’m reminded of the outrage over
cheating. What exactly is the question being asked by that competition? Is
it to find the
On 6/9/15 12:16 PM, Marcus Daniels
wrote:
So many useless spectators.
And this one too!
Absolutely!
Two great gems from this thread!
On 06/09/2015 10:36 AM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
So, are there any entirely good or entirely bad persons? Or are they
entirely figments of our imaginations?
absolutely!
And Glen wrote:
Thank God I'm agnostic.
Absolutely!
Abductively!
-Original Message-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 1:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] The Attack on Truth - The Chronicle of Higher Education
Two great gems
Glen,
I like it. Very well put.
Grant
On 6/9/15 9:56 AM, glen wrote:
Statistics is one tool. I'm not sure it's the most powerful tool, though. I tend to think the
best tool is ... well, it goes by many names. One name is active listening ...
empathy ... etc. The technique is well known
This tweet turned up in a search for the #wcsj2015 hashtag -- a conference
of science journalists going on in South Korea where a Nobel biologist has
made such a sexist ass of himself that the Royal Society decided to
publicly distance itself (
But Roger, isn’t this a ticket to apathy? Where is the spur to action without
outrage? I know that question sounds odd, but I am really asking it. Nick
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
Nick,
It's the _shocked_ outrage I find tiresome. By all means be outraged at
any and all forms of corruption that take your fancy, and forge that
outrage into action.
But if someone is shocked and thinks that shock is worth mentioning, then
he or she hasn't been paying attention or is
Philosophy haters do not read the linked article. It mentions Andy
Norman. He is a member of the faculty at Carnegie Mellon, in the
department where I used to work. My daughter was a friend of his when they
were in high school in the 1980s. I am old.
Frank
Frank,
That is a splendid article,
http://m.chronicle.com/article/The-Attack-on-Truth/230631/
and I think you undersell it. Even the worse philosophophobes on the list will
be happy to read it, and take strength from it.
NOT SO MY RESPONSE TO IT, which I copy in below.
Thanks, Frank. Great article.
This is reminiscent of the philosophical issue of the ontological vs the
epistemological that has been all over quantum theory for some time now.
This is the whole issue raised by the uncertainty principle. In quantum
theory it seems to be framed by the question
26 matches
Mail list logo
