Slashdot Mirror
Weird Science Offered As University Class
ludwigvan968 writes "The ACTLab at the University of Texas at Austin is making waves with its Weird Science class. The link is to the TA's blog with documentation of some of the projects: a laser harp, a 3D environment constructed with fog and an LCD projector, and a 'water bridge' using a 50,000-volt transformer. Next semester, they're introducing a new class called 'Disruptive Technologies.'"
first lecture subject: "Don't tase me, bro!"
An analysis of YouTube's rapid dissemination of truth and propaganda and its effects on cultural and political discussions? Or a chance to tase your lab partner for fun? You decide.
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Just so long as you're forced to laugh at my black joke. After all, if you won't join in making fun of black people, you're just a stick-in-the-mud, right?
Well, I am not widely respected and I am no great philosopher of my time. How then do I refute such bold and allegedly well-founded claims by men of such stature who predate me by hundreds or thousands of years? Only some objective reasoning is required.
First, each person in your line-up lived and practiced philosophy when women were treated with even less equality than today. I think it is hardly necessary that I dig through their biographies to demonstrate that fact. (If pressed, I would reluctantly build the tired case.) Some are indeed well-known for misogyny, and so I think it fair to take their biases into account.
Second, that they stated their opinions long ago does not somehow translate those opinions into fact. Many respectable individuals once believed the earth was flat. One of your notables believed matter was composed of five elements. Although I would hope you reject such nonsense, you nevertheless propose that their “thousands of years of respected philosophy” are indisputable.
Third, what does Kant use to support his assertion? You provide such an elegant quote that is absolutely bereft of evidence! What empirical observations can he supply us that leads us to reasonably believe that the biological processes of the female brain are so radically different than those of the male brain, nurturing being equal?
Fourth, are you, in good conscience, offering that subjugation of (as suggested by Schopenhauer) and violence towards (as suggested by Nietzsche) women are legitimate means to conclude that women are irrational in comparison to men? Am I also to accept that we may substitute “woman” with “negro”? It chills me to think there are still people today that champion these ideas.
Fifth, I might speculate on the origins of your viewpoint considering you listed “God” among sources stating women are irrational. Not only is there deep irony on the face of your suggestion, but I find it laughable that you derive your opinion from fictional characters invented by men in times when women were regarded little more than as breeding vessels and considered property on par with oxen.
I cannot resist the urge to discuss the merits of philosophy. At the risk of going far afield, it should be obvious that philosophy is not science. Thinking up ideas in your head and then holding them up as truth is no basis for establishing fact. Of course, these figures you offer did present some important, valuable, and defensible ideas. They also produced piles of rubbish fit for the trash heaps of human history. We are free to use our reasoning minds to cherry-pick what they got right and discard what they got wrong.
Lastly, if I read between the lines, I am inclined to believe arguing this subject with you would go nowhere. That being said, I will at least ask you to be skeptical and understand that you need not agree completely with anyone despite partial agreement, no matter how respected they are.
Why bother.