The Perils of Pop Philosophy

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by kdawson on Monday June 1, 2009 @09:20PM from the bloggers-beware dept.

ThousandStars tips a new piece by Julian Sanchez, the guy who, in case you missed it, brought us a succinct definition of the one-way hash argument (of the type often employed in the US culture wars). This one is about the dangers of a certain kind of oversimplifying, as practiced routinely by journalists and bloggers. "This brings us around to some of my longstanding ambivalence about blogging and journalism more generally. On the one hand, while it's probably not enormously important whether most people have a handle on the mind-body problem, a democracy can't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics. On the other hand, I look at the online public sphere and too often tend to find myself thinking: 'Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place.' This is, needless to say, not a problem limited to philosophy."

484 comments

I think I speak for many of us when I say... by iamdrscience · 2009-06-01 21:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

What?
1. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 21:34 · Score: 0
  
  someone always starts a meta discussion or meta-blog in this case ;)
  how about a meta-meta-discussion here? :P
2. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by linzeal · 2009-06-01 23:08 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  For those still in school; or people like me who never left, I would suggest taking philosophy courses for social science electives if they allow you. A nascent Philosophy of Computer Science is developing and looking for help with the foundations (PDF File).
  Philosophy and a sense of direction, often errant is all you got at the borders of any field. WV Quine and Popper have become interlocutors that after many readings I have access to when working on an intellectual task. Reading philosophy for me has brought great minds into contact with my own and given me a bit of humility and a shared sense of purpose I wish I had in my 20's.
  
  --
  An Education is the Font of All Liberty
3. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by shadow349 · 2009-06-01 23:35 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  What?
  Blogging; never before have so many people with so little to say said so much to so few.
  (Apologies to Despair).
4. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by postbigbang · 2009-06-01 23:35 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  But that's not often the ethos here.
  You're supposed to react with your gut, prejudices, and empirical sense of I'm smarter-than-you tact here.
  Failing that, say something funny or troll with goatse.
  Failing that, add in something pithy, or something that whores karma points.
  TFA makes the improper assumption that in various contexts, people give a crap what you think. They blurt out stuff randomly, and look for allies to justify their boorishness and prattle. Having found a mob or a tribe, they then evolve the idea in to a cult like status, reveling in the success of whatever their pseudo-punditry delivers. Blather at best. Hate at worst. Then the idea must be defended, and everything mushrooms with chest pounding and the attempt to stick other crap to the original idea to make it have gravity.
  Welcome my friends, to the show that never ends. Come on in, come on in, come on in.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
5. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 23:40 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
  --H. L. Mencken
6. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by plover · 2009-06-01 23:55 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Me too!
  
  --
  John
7. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Phreakiture · 2009-06-02 00:36 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  What?
  He said that the sort of debate that often takes place in public forums is useless, because it grossly oversimplifies things.
  
  --
  www.wavefront-av.com
8. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by pieisgood · 2009-06-02 00:59 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Giving this a +5 insightful is kind of ironic don't you think?
  
  --
  Eat sleep die
9. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by postbigbang · 2009-06-02 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  Nothing is perfect. But a good belly-laugh can suffice for what isn't.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
10. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by KeithJM · 2009-06-02 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  He said that the sort of debate that often takes place in public forums is useless, because it grossly oversimplifies things.
  Thanks for breaking that down for us.
11. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by elrous0 · 2009-06-02 01:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I was a philosophy minor and even I find these arguments to be silly. Most of the upper-level philosophical arguments I've seen against "bias" were usually written by scholars who just didn't realize their OWN bias. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" argument or perspective--even in hard science (much less something as "soft" as politics). In history, we used to call the pursuit of objectivity "the noble dream" (after Peter Novick's excellent critique That Noble Dream).
  As for the "one way hash" argument: while it's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials (pretty much anyone can be duped under the right circumstances, layman or not), the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism (really more a kind of paternalism) which has plagued academia in general and philosophy in particular for a very long time. In the field of philosophy, this whole argument reminds me of one of the great masters himself, Plato. Plato argued in the Republic (through Socrates) that only philosophers were suited to be rulers. This was, of course, a very convenient argument for Plato and his fellow academy members. And it was also evidence that his own arrogance had clouded his vision of his OWN biases (though he could still clearly enunciate in great detail the biases of the tyrant, democrat, oligarch, and monarch).
  When he almost laments that "a democracy can't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics," Sanchez seems to critique democracy in the same way that Plato does. But anyone who has ever been a part of an academic department can damn well tell you that the politics among scholars is every bit as silly and immature as the politics of the rest of the world (perhaps more so). Sanchez's hidden assumption that cloistered academics would naturally make the better leaders or judges in arguments is as ultimately deluded as Plato's contention that only philosophers are suited to be kings.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
12. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  A typewriter, a jar of vaseline, and a box of tissues
13. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 01:58 · Score: 0
  
  You're supposed to react with your gut
  As I finished reading the parent, my gut descended from the metaphysical planes of existence into the physical reality, striving vehemently out towards the freedom that is the sewage system.
14. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by foniksonik · 2009-06-02 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  Prexactly... that's why I don't blog much unless it's about an experiment I'm working on or something objective in general. I just don't have the time or energy to devote to a cult following. i have a family... it's the only cult I need and they're demanding enough, who wants to give all that time to a bunch of random people.
  That's also why I like /. I can have my say on many topics I have an interest in without the commitment of blogging about it. I suppose the same can be said about commenting on other's blogs but then it's like writing a letter to the editor of a local newspaper - and such a small audience just doesn't feel worth the effort either (unless it is a niche interest where there's really just a small audience regardless of the forum).
  
  --
  A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
15. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by postbigbang · 2009-06-02 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  I suppose there are various elements of ego or sense of responsibility that motivate people to blog. As a species, we got where we are by communicating and learning from what was said.
  But bloggorhea, twitterheads, and the strong extroverts of new media dominate, for better and worse, the signal. The signal turns to noise, and discrimination of which is what becomes more difficult and multitudinous. The (casual) observer then has to decide what to really do with their time. Seems you've made a good choice.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
16. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Vu1turEMaN · 2009-06-02 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Is your name Tommy? Do you have pinball?
  GOATSE TIEM!!!!!!
  and btw, I'm right.
17. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by postbigbang · 2009-06-02 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Well done!
  And I do have a supple wrist...
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
18. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by timeOday · 2009-06-02 02:53 · Score: 1
  
  But that's not often the ethos here. You're supposed to react with your gut, prejudices, and empirical sense of I'm smarter-than-you tact here.
  "Here," as in slashdot, America, or planet Earth?
  Personally I agree it's often shocking how people making decisions. If life were a chess game, most of us are only looking one or two moves ahead. Nevertheless, I will see one big argument in favor of the idiocracy: empirically, democracy works relatively well! No, not well relative to utopia (which has never existed), but well relative to systems where "great men" or "experts" are given total power.
19. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Vu1turEMaN · 2009-06-02 02:55 · Score: 1
  
  The sad fact is that the internet has made such conversations involved in classic philosophy feel disconnected, where I would much rather play pinball as deaf, dumb, and blind then discourse with some chest-pounding ninny halfway around the world who cannot open his goatse-fucked mind to anything other than his own view.
  The best philosophic conversations that I've ever had were at a local coffee/tea shop with 4 pinball machines and $2.05 for a 10-cup pot of tea. We would meet regularly and discuss what was on our minds, and then play Addam's Family, Attack From Mars, or Midevil Madness for a few hours afterwards while having pots of good, fresh tea.
20. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Narpak · 2009-06-02 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  He said that the sort of debate that often takes place in public forums is useless, because it grossly oversimplifies things.
  To a large part this is undoubtedly true. However public forums (as internet forums) does carry the potential to accommodate good debate; if the coding side of the forums is designed and evolved to facilitate such. Of course the overall quality of the debate, the fading of trolls and flameposts, and the quality of the fact checking; all rely on the people posting. One could argue that one of the ideals of a good educational system should not only teach certain basic information about the world and various fields of study; but also impart the knowledge and desire for people to contribute, hopefully constructively, to a public debate about a wide range of issues of interest to a citizen of a democratic society. Good leaders requires vigilant citizens.
  
  --
  The Long Now Foundation
21. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by postbigbang · 2009-06-02 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  The locus would be here.... but could easily be applied to other places, of course.
  There is something to be said for democracy, although those living in most places, including the US, live in a quasi-benevolent autocracy. The joy of blather is an innate human quality, and is not to be dismissed, rather, when everyone shouts at once, no one is heard.
  No one should be denied free speech, IMHO. Rather, we should all have the pleasure of a volume control. I read over on huffpost, Michael Moore's letter about GM this morning. He's but one voice of many, yet his observations are poignant and his oratory concise and gifted. There is signal among the noise. Discrimination takes effort. Now I'll sit down and shutup and let others take the dais.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
22. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by spun · 2009-06-02 03:10 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Wow, we read that differently. I understood him to mean, "if it wants to be successful a democracy can't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics," The one way hash argument isn't elitist, it says it is hard to explain certain things, and when those things are simplified, they aren't being explained. Sanchez is not saying that philosophers would make better leaders, in fact, you've flown off on an anti-elitist tangent that simply does not relate to the arguments being presented, while ignoring the gist of what the author is trying to say.
  I'm interested in discerning the bias behind this tangent. What is your position on mind-brain dualism and identity? Is it, perhaps, contrary to the author's view of same?
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
23. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by postbigbang · 2009-06-02 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  I would say that Internet conversations are highly overrated, but then here we are. And I read Michael Moore's poignant letter "Goodbye GM" on hufffpost this morning and it made my day, perhaps week.
  Some of my best recent conversations were at a local afternoon party, sipping cold ones with engineers from a graphics card designer. It cost a six pack, and the conversations pierced through Von Neumann's state machine theories thru to fractal prediction and onto why bras ought to be designed with visually enhancing threads for a visual boob job. Then we opened up another round.
  
  --
  ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
24. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by squidfood · 2009-06-02 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Giving this a +5 insightful is kind of ironic don't you think?
  Somebody mod this guy up!
25. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  "What?"
  Me, too!
26. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  Maybe we should phrase this better:
  What? Discuss.
27. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by FiloEleven · 2009-06-02 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  What was the fourth pinball machine, and why did no one play it?
  The upside of internet philosophizing is that you can take the time to order your thoughts and write exactly what you want to write. There is only a small chance that you'll get an intelligent response, but you are not compelled to continue conversing with the chest-pounding ninny.
  It doesn't beat conversations with people you know and respect, but it can still be productive or at least entertaining.
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer.
28. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by gier · 2009-06-02 03:41 · Score: 1
  
  And I would like to echo the parent, in reply to you:
  What?
29. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 03:51 · Score: 0
  
  Indeed.
  A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
  rearranging their prejudices.
  -- William James
  -- agy
30. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2009-06-02 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Nevertheless, I will see one big argument in favor of the idiocracy: empirically, democracy works relatively well!
  In a democracy people have the power to tacitly, and anonymously, support particular policies or agendas. In addition, they also have to power to quietly and anonymously reject those same policies in the outcomes displease them. Witness the United States electorate go from re-electing the rambunctious, unilateral God Warrior Bush to selecting the calm, conciliatory law professor Obama only four years later. The population made a complete U-turn and most of them didn't even have to save face.
  Among other things, democracy allows societies to experiment. Sure, you get the will of the people, but you also get their will when they come down off the kind of nonsense the GP was talking about. With secret ballots, it's easier for the silent majority to take a moment to chew their pencil before casting their ballot, and not to have to face the ire and harassment of the minority boors when the outcome is decided.
  It's better than the alternative.
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
31. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Have+Brain+Will+Rent · 2009-06-02 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the upper-level philosophical arguments I've seen against "bias" were usually written by scholars who just didn't realize their OWN bias. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" argument or perspective
  The first time I had this idea offered up to me was many years ago as an undergraduate. The problem I found was that the patently obvious idea that human beings cannot be 100% unbiased about anything is then frequently extended by an altogether unsupported idea. This usually goes something like "I can't be unbiased so I may as well not try and I'm going to just present what I want without attempting to limit the bias." Then "teachers" in polisci/anthropology/sociology turn their courses into soapboxes to promote their own personal agendas.
  I agree, academic departments are highly politicised environments.
  
  --
  The tyrant will always find a pretext for his tyranny - Aesop
32. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Locke2005 · 2009-06-02 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly the philosophers and the academics are both wrong; the best judges and leaders could only come from a background of rabid computer enthusiasts that live in their mom's basement and have never gotten past first base in sports or with the opposite sex... Because WE don't have any of these silly biases!
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
33. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Locke2005 · 2009-06-02 04:37 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Could you please illustrate that point with a car analogy? Thanks.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
34. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Vu1turEMaN · 2009-06-02 04:47 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they got rid of Addams Family cause it broke fairly often, and they replaced it with a Tournament-Mode Spiderman machine. The 4th machine was a Tournament-Mode CSI machine. Both are fairly lame and nowhere near as fun as the other two. (tournament mode costs 3$ for two players, takes away all extra balls, endgame bonuses, and replays).
  In my opinion, if you have enough time to write down your thoughts, it makes more sense to write a letter/email with these thoughts attached and give it to an expert. 98% of the time, I'd say that the internet will just give you a chest-pounding ninny, and to deal with someone so idiotic after you think you've made a breakthrough in a field just doesn't seem worth it.
  It can still be productive, but I don't know sometimes if its worth the time.
35. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Vu1turEMaN · 2009-06-02 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  It takes a special sort of person to hold an intelligent internet conversation though. Its easy for a person to be fake through text, but its much harder to pull it off in real life surrounded by intellectuals...you can smell someone who is fake from a mile away.
  Also, most published letters on the internet that hold value were written in a style that would easily be read as a speech, which only proves that vocal discussion infront of peers in a community is the best way of conversing about anything.
  There is the other side of the coin, however, that shows that someone inexperienced in a field may have a different view populated by wrong ideas that creates something truly grand and unique. n00bs of the internets always find a different way to accomplish something they want to do, and those ways can often be surprising to an expert in a field. I believe that this could also apply to internet conversations of specific fields....in real life, you are less likely to sit down with someone on the other side of the world that is inexperienced in your field of expertise. Online, anomnity (or semi-anomnity through a username) allows us to speak whenever we please to and voice our own ideas about a particular subject. Trolls are the main reason why this sucks, and the other secondary reason is when a site like /. covers many subjects that aren't technology-related in the main RSS feed (that are more law-related than tech) and every technical person out there voices their own opinion as truth, because the site is geared towards tech news. Specialized sites that allow for discourse in specific areas (aka reddit) by allowing you to subscribe to your areas of interest and have a fairly intelligent conversation with a meme or two thrown in for humor is where the future lies, in my opinion.
  I'm sure that there are errors in my thinking related to this, but I feel that discussing a field in a subreddit with someone truly interested in it that is a n00b halfway around the world has changed the way that I think and look at certain beliefs.
  I remember dealing with someone who thought that anyone that loved anime couldn't hold an intelligent conversation to save their lives, so I sent them this link... http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/chicks-on-anime ...and views were changed quickly. I will definitely be submitting some of the future conversations to /. because of the homework and time put into these intelligent conversations.
  tl;dr - Conversation is good.
36. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by thtrgremlin · 2009-06-02 05:06 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe this is just the humble thing every author says, but I blog for myself. I don't expect anyone to read it unless I am in some place where I can open up my web page and read it to someone because it was relevant to the topic of conversation. I get emails from people and rare comments and each time it surprises me that anyone read it. I do not write consistently, and I am sure I can predict less than anyone what the next topic might be that I will rant on about. I do not write about my day or what I am doing, just whatever pissed me off at that moment that required a break to sit down and write.
  
  I used to write in a journal, and didn't share it. I don't do anything to promote my blog, but just knowing that it is out there and might be read by someone gives me a sense of humility, I guess. It is also a good central location for writing.
  
  If I actually thought there was more than 1 person following my blog, like some sort of "mass"... not sure how it would influence what I write, but I would hope that it would only encourage double spell checking and write for often... and maybe more often it would give me a reason to more thoroughly research subjects then just cite whatever inspired the write.
  
  --
  Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
37. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by superwiz · 2009-06-02 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  Even the most left-leaning people admit that Obama following is very cultish in nature. So the swing was from warrior-God to free-giveaway-God. It always amazed me to see Obama followers. They act and talk nothing like the man himself. They seem very maniacal. Whereas, he himself is very leveled.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
38. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by cain · 2009-06-02 05:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  As for the "one way hash" argument: while it's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials (pretty much anyone can be duped under the right circumstances, layman or not), the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism...
  I don't think the "one way hash" argument argument references authority at all. I understood the "one way hash" is a point or line of reasoning which sounds solid and pithy when stated, but under the surface is deeply flawed. This forces the counter argument to have to explain a more complicated line of reasoning - which doesn't convince as easily as the 'one way hash' line of reasoning.
  A simple example is "it was very cold last winter, therefore global warming is false". On the surface this makes sense - "yeah, it was really cold last winter, this argument must be correct." The counter argument to this involves graphs and things like "yeah, it was cold last winter - but look at this graph based on ice samples from Greenland for the last thousand years. You'll see that it means that blah blah blah...". Many anti-science arguments are 'one way hashes'.
39. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by phantomfive · 2009-06-02 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  Here is my response: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1253027&cid=28184777
  
  I would have custom tailored it to your personal needs and understandings, but honestly it wouldn't have been all that different. I essentially agree with you, though.
  
  --
  Qxe4
40. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by relguj9 · 2009-06-02 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Modup IMO, I read the same thing as you. Of course, the guy who mis-interpreted gets slashdot points for going against the article.
  
  He's not lamenting that a democracy can't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics; He's stating that a democracy shouldn't make ethics and political philosophy the exclusive province of cloistered academics.
  
  It's part of his comparison of Journalism (cloistered academics) to Blogging (the people).
41. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by thtrgremlin · 2009-06-02 05:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This reminds me of a conclusion I came to recently; the line between fiction and non-fiction is silly. My wife reads a lot of fiction, and I read mostly non-fiction, but I do read fiction every once in awhile. She proposed a question and it got me to thinking, "What motivates me to read fiction?". What it came down to is that I pick books based on the level of insight they may provide and how much it may challenge what I currently think or believe. For the most part, I find that in non-fiction, but every once in awhile I find it in fiction. Most often this is classics that have stood the test of time.
  
  Random blogs can be interesting or inspiring. The value isn't in what they say, but in how much they make you think or question things. Poorly written or researched opinions rare contain insight or thought provoking questions (as is suggestion FTA). I would prefer that if an article is short to state a problem and propose difficult to answer questions, then leave the reader to search for the answer, because the necessary information to answer clearly is rarely the scope of a blog.
  
  Some people read something and want to read more, others either forget, or just consider it all they need to do to affirm their opinion. This is why I get upset at people that generally criticize wikipedia as a whole. It is great for what it is, and a good place to start to get an idea of what you can learn. If all you ever read is the wiki article on something, then you are going to have the same issue as you would have with any subject for which you only read two pages on. Wiki is what it is and is great, for the thinker, and the non-thinker. Criticize a non-thinker for not thinking, not for the sources. I really liked what the author said about confidence of knowledge and opinions.
  
  --
  Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
42. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by phantomfive · 2009-06-02 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, it's a rhetorical technique as old as the hills. The proper way to answer it is to come up with your own statement that sounds solid and pithy, although possibly a vast simplification. Then, if you have time, you can go into a bigger explanation of why what you said was true.
  
  In this case, before you pull out the graphs, you can say something like, "But it was super-hot last summer, therefore global warming is true. Wait, that contradicts. Who is right??" Then pull out your graph and show who is right.
  
  Or you could try something more drastic, and sarcastically say, "Sure it was, but if you drop an ice cube into a boiling ocean, it's still going to melt. Now....look at these graphs............" Woah, boiling oceans, attention getter. Best part is, if they say, "wait, that argument doesn't make any sense" you can just say, "it's ok, neither does yours."
  
  --
  Qxe4
43. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Abcd1234 · 2009-06-02 06:01 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  As for the "one way hash" argument: while it's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials (pretty much anyone can be duped under the right circumstances, layman or not), the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism (really more a kind of paternalism) which has plagued academia in general and philosophy in particular for a very long time.
  Well, while that's a lovely sentiment, it doesn't actually qualify as a counterargument. Would you care to actually provide one?
  Sanchez's hidden assumption that cloistered academics would naturally make the better leaders or judges in arguments is as ultimately deluded as Plato's contention that only philosophers are suited to be kings.
  Funny, I don't see how he actually said that (although, I like how you assume all academics are "cloistered"... bigoted much?). He simple put forth the following:
  The less educated in a subject you are, the more likely you are to over-estimate your knowledge in that subject area. Combine that with his one-way hash argument (that it's easy to manipulate someone when explaining a complex concept, because truly explaining said concept would require a level of knowledge and detail that's impenetrable to the layman), and it's clear that a layman can be very easily duped.
  Therefore, a new type of discussion is needed, one where, rather than arguing a solution to a problem, you discuss all the issues underpinning the problem, and why selecting a solution is hard, thus disabusing said layman of their notion that they are, in fact, educated in the subject area. That way, the layman may be less easy to dupe, as they will be more aware of their own ignorance.
44. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously. I talked like this guy when I was in my sophomore year of highschool when my older brother took me to the side and said "Listen, no one listens to someone who talks like he thinks he's smarter than everyone else. They will just make fun of you as soon as your back is turned. Whenever I say anything that sounds remotely smart, my friends call me on it, saying 'look at the college boy!' because I sound like an idiot by sounding smart." His friends were an extreme example, but the principle was important.
  
  Later, I picked up Einstein's "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" and saw that the intelligence in the book was not written so it could be misunderstood by most, but it was dumbed down so a patient child could understand it -- and that's what made it a great book. This simplification didn't cheat the reader from understanding what relativity was, or its importance, but it allowed the non-physics majors to be shoehorned in, comfortably. Sometimes technical surveys need to be expressed in their native languages and obtuse jargons, but when you're actually attempting to teach a subject or relate it to the masses, you DON'T USE TERMS AND LANGUAGE THAT WILL ALIENATE YOUR AUDIENCE.
  
  Think about it this way... if your role were somehow reversed with your marketing team's. Suddenly, your company needs things sold or your computer won't work... so you go over to the marketing team and say "What can you guys do to get our product off the shelves?" and they give you a speech for 10 minutes using NOTHING BUT BUZZWORDS? Would you be impressed by how smart they are, or would you want them to shut the fuck up and do their fucking jobs -- because if they wanted to communicate with you, they could sure as hell do it in a non-fucked-up way?
  
  posting anonymously to preserve granted mod points in this discussion... but I better Slow Down Cowboy, It's been 42 minutes since I last successfully posted a comment...
45. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by nine-times · 2009-06-02 06:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Plato argued in the Republic (through Socrates) that only philosophers were suited to be rulers.
  Sorry, but I feel the need to interject something here. If you're reading Plato and thinking that Plato is making clear positive arguments through Socrates, you might want to go back and reread with a more critical eye. There's a lot of evidence all around to suggest that, not only did Plato not agree with a lot of things that he had Socrates saying in the dialogs, but also, within the dialogs, Socrates didn't even believe a lot of things that Socrates was saying. The whole thing makes a lot more sense if you consider Plato's dialogs to be almost like plays, in which Socrates is a very sarcastic and tricky character.
  In this particular case, it's not clear that Socrates actually believes that only philosophers are set to be rulers. He's setting up a sort of perfect/utopian society that a philosopher might dream up, and then following through on the logical conclusions and reducing the whole thing to absurdity. In many ways, what he's showing is that dreams of utopian societies eventually lead to horrific situations.
  I think the whole "one way hash" argument in the blog post is a little too clever and glib, but it is pointing at a very old and troublesome philosophical question: When a bad/false argument is more seductive than the truth, how do you convince a mass of people of the truth?
  Of course that raises other questions about truth and its value. Elsewhere in the Republic, this sort of question proposes the idea that leaders should be willing to lie in such a way so as to lead their people to a good end, at least in those cases where the truth is not persuasive enough. However, this proposition is also shown to be problematic.
46. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2009-06-02 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  As for the "one way hash" argument: while it's certainly true that laymen can be duped by impressive credentials..., the whole argument reeks of a peculiar variety of arrogant elitism (really more a kind of paternalism) which has plagued academia in general and philosophy in particular for a very long time
  The "one way hash" argument refers to the often true fact that it's difficult to explain something correctly and completely. Therefore, an argument that glosses over, rather than takes advantage of, nuance is easier to understand. Otherwise, so many counter-intuitive things have to be learned that most people give up.
  While I suppose it is similar to a strawman argument, it seems to advance by mischaracterizing the background knowledge that drives an argument, rather than the point being made.
  It's hardly elitist to note that most people are unwilling to fully educate themselves in a subject, and hence can be convinced of something that superficially seems correct. After all, if you were to tell the average person that there is absolutely no conflict between the scientific and biblical accounts of creation because time is determined by the observer, and hence 24 days can map easily onto the big bang account, for some position and speed of the narrator (which may have to change from day to day), they would get confused.
  It's somewhat ironic that your "one way hash" of the argument was modded Informative.
  
  --
  Your ad here. Ask me how!
47. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by dontPanik · 2009-06-02 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Giving this a +5 insightful is kind of ironic don't you think?
  Oh no you're already +4 insightful, it's going to be a recursive loop!
  
  --
  "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
48. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Idiomatick · 2009-06-02 07:25 · Score: 1
  
  As much as we hate to admit it the discourse on /. is much better than most places on the internet. I think that we collectively seem to agree that we should do better is important, it puts us a level above many places. As well we are fairly rigorous here. How often do you see fallacies pointed out or have arguments taken apart on a logical level? You will often see well known trolls modded to +5 for good comments showing we stay away from modding based on the poster. Certainly we have some issues like mac/pc fanboy fights. And we can be incredibly uninformed about things outside of our area of expertise. But usually that is fixed if you read through the discussion. I take pride in the fact that /. doesn't have a -1 disagree option (as someones sig points out).
49. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by HiThere · 2009-06-02 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  But philosophers ARE the ones most suited to be kings (well, most of them) because they are the ones least interested in power. This isn't a claim that they are suited, merely that they are somewhat less unsuited. (Programmers are up there too. And abstract mathematicians. And some applied mathematicians. And several sorts of artist. But not engineers. Nobody involved in the experimental sciences. They're too connected to achieving their ends in the physical universe. So they would want power as a tool.)
  The real problem with an average philosopher as king is that he wouldn't be even interested enough to do a decent job. But being interested for the power is a true disqualifier. (Not for being a king, but for being a good one.)
  My real feeling is that given the nature of people, the best way to choose executives and legislators would be by random choice among high school graduates. This makes it impossible to bribe them before they take the office. And it means that there aren't any re-election campaigns to take bribes to pay for. (If there were significant chance of this being implemented there are various "fine-tuning" tweaks I'd apply, but as there's no chance, why bother.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
50. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by FiloEleven · 2009-06-02 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, sure, in the case of a breakthrough that only makes sense. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of seeing an interesting /. comment and replying with a further exploration of the topic--agreement or disagreement with the comment's viewpoint naturally being part of that--or getting a new insight that isn't a breakthrough and wanting to discuss it with someone. The way I see it, there's not a great chance of good dialog, but I like to write anyway and there is a chance. Plus, there are certain topics in which I am interested that I know none of my real-life friends are, so taking a long shot with the greater internet population provides better odds for discussion, even if they're long.
  If you roll with a crew that routinely keeps you stimulated, more power to you and congratulations. Mine is pretty active as well, but writing on the internet for me can be an outlet as well as a test bed for some ideas. I think my intent was to say "don't write it off completely," but the fact that you are posting in the first place shows that you haven't, so I may as well shut up now. =)
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer.
51. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by HiThere · 2009-06-02 08:34 · Score: 1
  
  As a statistician, I claim that it *IS* possible to be unbiased. Of course, you've got to accept my definition of bias. (I.e., having an unbiased viewpoint would be equivalent to having a viewpoint the same as that of the mean viewpoint of your population sample.)
  Do you have a different definition of bias?
  N.B.: What I object to is that belief that an unbiased viewpoint is necessarily better.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
52. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Sj0 · 2009-06-02 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, when you're talking about getting more than half the country to vote for you, you're always going to have people who you'd rather not deal with following you.
  Every candidate has the voters they'd rather pretend don't exist.
  Frankly, I think after 8 years of "You gonna get raped" from Darth Vader, it makes sense that some people are clinging for dear life onto the positive and hopeful message Obama presents.
  I don't think Keynesian economics are sane, so his promises are hollow to me, but I can understand why people who still think the government can spend a country into prosperity are cult-like excited about Obama.
  
  --
  It's been a long time.
53. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by ioshhdflwuegfh · 2009-06-02 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  The best philosophic conversations that I've ever had were at a local coffee/tea shop with 4 pinball machines and $2.05 for a 10-cup pot of tea. We would meet regularly and discuss what was on our minds, and then play Addam's Family, Attack From Mars, or Midevil Madness for a few hours afterwards while having pots of good, fresh tea.
  FYI: Those were not philosophic conversations.
54. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by nine-times · 2009-06-02 09:51 · Score: 1
  
  This usually goes something like "I can't be unbiased so I may as well not try and I'm going to just present what I want without attempting to limit the bias."
  And that's where things fall apart. It's not the idea that we can't be unbiased, it's the conclusion that follows that becomes a problem.
  If you want to get into it on a real philosophic level (which I suppose is what's going on in some posts here) you'd first have to eliminate the ambiguity around what we mean when we say "bias", what an "unbiased opinion" would be, and what the value of being "unbiased" is. For example, you might argue that you can't be 99% unbiased any more than you could be 99% unique. You're either unique or you're not, biased or not.
  But to sidestep some of that: there's no necessary connection between, "I can't be unbiased," and "I shouldn't bother trying to be reasonable, so instead I'll go off the deep end voicing all of my opinions no matter how unfounded they may be." Maybe none of us can be unbiased, none of us can recognize our own bias, and maybe we shouldn't even try to be unbiased. But even if so, there may still be such a thing as being right or wrong, smart or stupid, reasonable or irrational, etc.
55. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by nine-times · 2009-06-02 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  But philosophers ARE the ones most suited to be kings (well, most of them) because they are the ones least interested in power.
  Didn't you notice some irony in that answer? A philosopher claims that philosophers should be put in power because they're the best suited, because they don't seek power. Doesn't it seem like he's presenting an argument that he should be put in power, which thereby suggests that he seeks power?
  What follows from the initial idea is also absurd. According to the proposed system, the way in which a philosopher king would be put into power is that a bunch of people ill-suited to power would need to track down the philosopher and forcibly place him in power. So the unwashed masses who aren't suited to make good decisions for themselves would need to be wise enough to choose the best ruler. The power-seekers would need to give up their power-seeking in order to place someone else in power. And when all that is done, the person in power would be held in power by force-- which is to say that he wouldn't be in charge. He would essentially be a slave who would be doing the will of the masses against his own wishes.
  The whole concept collapses in on itself in such a way that even if we were to accept that the ideal ruler is a disinterested philosopher, it becomes a self-contradictory and impossible ideal to bring into being.
56. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Sj0 · 2009-06-02 10:26 · Score: 1
  
  It's always safer to read philosophical works(even modern ones) as anthropological artefacts rather than as serious works of logic or reason.
  At the base of all philosophy is a gut feeling, with lots of flowery language to make it pretty and marketable. That's why so much of it is factually incorrect(Or do people really reverse-forget things?).
  
  --
  It's been a long time.
57. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by WCguru42 · 2009-06-02 10:47 · Score: 1
  
  I would suggest taking philosophy courses for social science electives if they allow you.... Philosophy and a sense of direction, often errant is all you got at the borders of any field.
  
  I agree with you that delving into a philosophy course or two is not a bad thing for any of us but I always found it amusing comparing myself (an engineer) to the philosophy majors. It was a knowledge and mind course, essentially, how can we be sure that what we know is true and justified. They would spend whole lectures debating over whether or not our physical senses were lying to us and I'm sitting there thinking, that's not important, it's what I can do with those sense that's important. It's just like in my field, science isn't what I concern myself with, but what I can do with what others have found in science is what matters to me. Not that science isn't important but taking that philosophy course really showed me that deep down I really am an engineer.
  
  --
  "Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
58. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Vu1turEMaN · 2009-06-02 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Errr....Are you saying that what was on our minds was not about philosophy? Cause we were surely discussing an article that we were all given the previous week about the likelihood of a Battleground God and pros/cons to the argument.
  I definitely didn't mean random thoughts on our mind were being discussed....I meant philosophic problems and papers that we had written or found.
59. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by nine-times · 2009-06-02 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  At the base of all philosophy is a gut feeling, with lots of flowery language to make it pretty and marketable.
  Sounds like a sort of philosophic theory that you have going there. But then maybe that's just your gut feeling, and there's nothing more substantial behind it?
  And factually incorrect? That seems like a strange charge to make against discussions which often aren't concerned with matters of mere fact, but are more likely trying to uncover our basis for being able to claim something as "fact".
  You're going to have to make a more complete argument if you want to convince me.
60. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Vu1turEMaN · 2009-06-02 11:02 · Score: 1
  
  When I was younger, I was certain that Milton Bradley stole my idea for UpWords and themed Monopoly boards, because I had developed them years before they did. The same applies to thinking through the internet....I'm damn near paranoid that another one of my great ideas will go and turn into someone else's amazing idea before I can fully realize it.
  That Google thing? My idea ;)
61. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by fractoid · 2009-06-02 14:48 · Score: 1
  
  A meta-meta-discussion's merit has nothing to do with the motives of the arguer, the credentials of the arguer, the slashdot ID of the arguer, the presence or absence of lolcats pertaining to the discussion, or the popularity of the argument. Full stop. No exceptions.
  
  Paraphrased from TFA for you. ;)
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
62. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by fractoid · 2009-06-02 15:00 · Score: 1
  
  Nice try, but I don't think it'll work this time. :P
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
63. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Sj0 · 2009-06-02 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  Your understanding of history is flawed.
  Philosophy, before it became pure masturbation in the intellectual realm, was once proto-science as well as intellectual masturbation, leading to plenty of factually incorrect conclusions.
  Are you prepared to defend the idea that all matter is composed of 4 elements?
  
  --
  It's been a long time.
64. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by metacell · 2009-06-02 18:20 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody mod this guy up!
  Oh no! I can't take any more irony!
65. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by metacell · 2009-06-02 18:38 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. Most good ideas never go anywhere anyway, because nobody puts any work in them. It's the work that makes a good idea great.
66. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by metacell · 2009-06-02 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  Good argument. I'd mod it +1 (Interesting) if I had mod points.
  I agree with your argument if we picture the philosopher-king as some kind of benevolent dictator. However, in a modern society, power is spread out between a lot of people: politicians, bureaucrats, legal professionals, CEOs of major corporations, political advisors, and so on. It wouldn't be too far-fetched to appoint philosophers as advisors, thus giving them power they don't really want, but motivating them with money, fame and/or simply being listened to.
  Still, the question remains of who would propose this idea. As you say, if philosophers proposed it, it would mean they were not suited.
67. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by nine-times · 2009-06-03 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  However, in a modern society, power is spread out between a lot of people: politicians, bureaucrats, legal professionals, CEOs of major corporations, political advisors, and so on.
  Yeah, but that doesn't really matter. What Socrates (and Plato) are really pointing to is more that there's an inherent problem in allocating power-- that the people who get into power are the people who are motivated most strongly to accumulate power to themselves, and among them the people who are best at gaining power for themselves. There's not really any possible mechanism for allocating power to the people who would wield it best-- assuming we could even agree on what the best use of power is.
  That's not to say that's all of what's going on in the Republic, but that's certainly one component of the discussion of the "philosopher king".
68. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by nine-times · 2009-06-03 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  Heh. I like your arguing style, especially since you're making the sort of arguments that were popular among Renaissance and Enlightenment philosophers.
  The problem is, it's sort of a weird circular reasoning to try to use science to undermine ancient philosophy, given that "science" as we know it is an offshoot of ancient Greek "natural philosophy". Basically, we're living in the intellectual house where Aristotle is the foundation.
  That's not to say that Aristotle (or other philosophers) knew everything or were right about everything, but modern scientists don't either. It's all just an issue of trying to experiment and explain as best we can with the tools we have available.
  Take your example of the 4 elements, and think about them more as the 3 states of matter (earth=solid, water=liquid, air=gas) plus energy (fire). Now saying everything in the universe consists of matter (in one of the 3 states) plus energy starts to sound a lot more like high school science class. It might not be completely accurate either, but it's certainly not stupid.
  But early scientists discovered that the earth was round, and even calculated it's size fairly accurately (no, it was not discovered by Columbus). They formulated geometry and algebra, discovered lots of basic physical laws worked, and understood a fair amount of biology (even understood some things about genetic inheritance, in spite of having no idea what the mechanism was). Newton was a natural philosopher more than he was a modern physicist. Even when Einstein rewrote the laws of physics, it was more an act of natural philosophy than anything else. He didn't start from a mathematical equation or an experiment in a lab, but he began his formulation of Relativity by asking what it meant to "measure" something.
  So I don't want to be so rude as to suggest that you don't know what you're talking about, but... well, you'll need to present a more thorough argument if you want to convince me.
69. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by HiThere · 2009-06-03 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  1) I'm not a philosopher. I (as opposed to Plato) was arguing that philosophers should be in power because they were less interested in power than most people. There is, of course, a statistical distribution of "love of power" among philosophers. The one's most interested are, by this criterion, unqualified.
  2) I didn't propose any way in which this would occur. I haven't imagined any that puts a qualified human philosopher in charge.
  3) My argument is loosely based on Aesop's "Better king log than king stork." In Aesop's fable, the king was a gift of the gods, and thus required neither agreement or support.
  4) All rulers are held in power by force. That this one would require the same is not an argument against it.
  5) Yeah, Plato is one of the philosophers that I would consider supremely unqualified. His creation, Socrates, however, would be a good choice. I'd prefer Feynman over Mother Theresa. But not Teller.
  6) Nobody can be a good president. The psychological characteristics necessary to deal with Congress prevent one from making choices good for the country, so you're either ineffectual or you make bad choices. Or, of course, both. This is why I proposed selecting both the president and the legislature by lot. (I'm not sure about the president. Congress requires general agreement to do anything, so individual aberrations tend to get weeded out. The president, however, acts as an individual. Single bad choices are much worse. I'd worry about this if my proposal had any chance of being put into action.)
  More on Plato: Plato wrote his "The Republic" after "leaving town for his health" after having dabbled a bit freely in politics. He's almost the antithesis of the psychological type I meant when I said "Philosopher". But people today tend to segregate themselves differently. Today people don't tend to go into philosophy unless they are rather uninterested in the mundane world. And love of power isn't one of their dominant characteristics. So there's no guarantee this same distribution of psychological types would continue if philosophers started getting picked for positions of authority. And it's the psychological type that's important.
  Additionally, it's almost certain that people would be very unhappy with a ruler that was so disinterested in power. This doesn't mean he'd be a bad choice, merely that people like a strong ruler. But strong rulers tend to be more aggressive than is good for the country. They tend to manipulate in various ways, and creating an external enemy is one of the traditional ways. But once you've created an external enemy, the next step is obvious...eliminate it. This has happened over and over throughout human history. (Not always successfully, but it's destructive whether successful or not.)
  OTOH, people are people. They only, en mass, react in a certain limited number of ways. It may well be impossible to have a just government. At least one judged and administered by humans. (If the legislators were actually held to the laws that they passed, then things MIGHT be a bit different. But possibly not. People can be incredibly short-sighted...and predict only what they want as the results of their actions.)
  FWIW, this argument is more important than is immediately apparent. The government decisions are increasingly being made by automated decision procedures. Bureaucracy is slowly giving way to something that hasn't yet been named. This means that both the vices and the virtues of Bureaucracy can't be expected to survive the transformation. (They may, but don't count on it.) So far it's still people making the decisions, albeit people at greater and greater remove from the event. This means that it's often still possible to appeal a decision of the system to a human decision maker. But yearly this is becoming less true. You want a fair system? This may give you a fair system, but one with no sympathy at all. At that point it becomes crucially important that the laws be just. A fair system enforcing unjust laws may be a nightmare from which we cannot awaken.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
70. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by nine-times · 2009-06-03 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  1) I wasn't claiming that you were a philosopher. I was saying that Socrates (who is the character usually being cited when people claim that philosophers should be put in charge) was being sarcastic. He was a philosopher who was basically telling other people, "You should put a philosopher (specifically: me) in charge, since we philosophers don't seek power and therefore would do a good job. Of course, I don't want the job, because I'm a philosopher, but that makes me the perfect candidate. Put me in charge!" It's actually fairly clever and funny, but modern readers tend to assume he's serious.
  2) I'm not just saying that you can't make it happen, I'm saying that this line of thinking, if you take it to its logical conclusion, exposes itself as being somewhat silly.
  3) Well that's my mistake. I thought you were referencing Plato. The guy you were responding to was certainly referencing Plato, and you presented the basic argument present in Plato, which may have also been influenced by Aesop (I believe Aesop came first). Either way, the Republic is a definite must-read if you're interested in the topic.
  4) In most cases where you'd say a ruler is "held in power by force", you'd probably mean that the ruler is the one wielding the "force" in order to keep himself in power. The absurd thing about the philosopher king is that he would have to be made king against his will, by force-- the people being ruled being the ones wielding the force.
  5) I don't know on what basis your making that judgement, so I have no idea whether I'd agree with it.
  6) I don't see how a system of set rules, absent human decision-making, can be "just". I suppose it depends on what you consider "justice" to be, but since you say you're not a philosopher, I would guess you wouldn't be interested in a question like "what is 'justice'?".
71. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by HiThere · 2009-06-03 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  1) The Socrates that we know is a literary creation. Quite fictional. (There are a couple of alternative portrayals that are less flattering than Plato's.)
  3) Plato came LONG before Aesop. And Plato was a political meddler, whereas Aesop was a slave.
  4) All rulers are held in power by force. I suspect that very few of them actually control the force without regard for other agencies. (Yeah, the philosopher-king, either in my form or in Plato's form, is something that could never happen.)
  5) I'm judging on the historical record of how much they desired power. The more they desired it, the less qualified I consider them. (There's also how much they would feel impelled to do a good job, but that's another axis.)
  6) I'm interested in justice, but to me it has a rather practical measure. It's a metaphor for good construction, as, say, a just tempered scale (music). It means something like well put together, as in the joints don't flex when they aren't supposed to, and do when they should. It's not the same as fair, which to me means that you can exchange sides without loss. (I.e., the metaphor is to a set of honest scales. [The kind that use weights.]) As such, people are required to judge as external observers, but aren't required as decision makers. This works for both fair and just, though they measure different qualities.
  Now I'll grant that this definition is rather problematic. I can't think of an objective measure for EITHER justice or fairness. But as systems become more automated we better come up with one! This is going to have practical impacts on our society. (In fact, it's already having such impacts, and neither justice nor fairness is readily observable in the results.)
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
72. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by nine-times · 2009-06-03 16:36 · Score: 1
  
  1) Yeah, I know. Did you notice that I called Socrates a "character"? I also posted elsewhere explaining, "The whole thing makes a lot more sense if you consider Plato's dialogs to be almost like plays, in which Socrates is a very sarcastic and tricky character."
  3) Well either way, that wasn't really the point. My point was that Plato's Republic was a definitive work on this topic. If Plato was first, that only supports the idea that the Republic is important.
  4) You're still missing the point on this one too. The "philosopher king" is not actually the king, but is the slave. He is not the person in power. That's how the system works out, because he is not the one keeping himself in power by force, but he's being kept "in power" by force, which means he's not actually the one "in power".
  5) I still don't really see what you mean there. I mean, I can understand that if you start with the assumption that seeking political power is a sign of being unfit to have power, then those people who you think haven't sought power would seem more fit. But are you trying to convince me about particular people?
  6) You'd have to convince me that any kind of an automated system without human intervention could even possibly be "just". I don't think that's the case. I'm not saying, "I don't think we've figured it out yet," or, "I don't think it's practically possible." I'm saying, "It's a contradiction in terms, and isn't even theoretically possible." Saying, "we should design a fair and just automated justice system that doesn't involve human judgement," is a bit like saying, "we should design a state-of-the-art powerful computer system that doesn't involve any kind of technology."
  But that's getting into a philosophic question, which you've essentially claimed to have no interest in such things. Saying "it's a philosophic question" doesn't lessen the practical impact. Philosophic problems have lots of very practical ramifications.
73. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Sj0 · 2009-06-04 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  Rather than stay with the Greeks, because you've got rose coloured glasses in that respect (Ignore the countless ridiculous trains of thought that more rigour could have easily kicked the feet out from under, focus on the few successes left), I'll use a more recent example.
  Nietzsche was a philologist, so he gained the same disrespect for first principles the Greeks had. He wrote book after book on philosophy, but was so busy talking about what would be good, he forgot to actually base it on anything other than "I think it'd be pretty cool if things were like this". Where does the concept of the ubermensch come from? "Well, the greeks talked about this and I think it'd be pretty cool too."
  He started with a floors and a roof hovering in mid-air, and build shaky walls around them, ignoring the foundation. That's a neat trick, but in the real world floors and roofs don't float. They need a strong foundation.
  Why did it take millennia for existentialism to come about? It's because of the poison that let philosophy use rhetoric to express opinions such as "Strong, decisive people are virtuous because they've got virtues because I said so" as a fundamental philosophical truth of the world. That's why, as I said, ancient philosophy is best taken as an anthropological artefact rather than any sort of real lesson on logic or reason. You practically agree with me by essentially saying "But...it's history! History is important!"
  
  --
  It's been a long time.
74. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by nine-times · 2009-06-04 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  Well first of all, cherry-picking some particular bad philosopher isn't a fair way to argue that philosophy isn't useful. Scientific studies constantly fail to produce helpful results, but we can't then conclude that science in useless. We look at the scientific successes, and certainly those are helpful.
  Second, if you think Nietzsche was trying to present a rigorous philosophic framework, then that's your first mistake. It's sort of like watching NOVA on PBS and saying, "SEE! Scientists don't prove things rigorously! I watched that whole show and there wasn't a single rigorous proof of the claims they were making!"
  Third, your talk about the Greeks "disrespect for first principles"-- where do you think we get the idea of logical "first principles"? Our whole concept of "first principles" can be traced back to Euclid and Aristotle.
  I'm sorry to say this because I don't like to sound insulting, but I think you aren't very well educated about philosophy, science, or logic. Have you ever read Aristotle? Have you read Plato? Are you aware of the degree to which modern science is based on ancient Greek concepts?
75. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by moosesocks · 2009-06-05 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  Most of the upper-level philosophical arguments I've seen against "bias" were usually written by scholars who just didn't realize their OWN bias. There is no such thing as an "unbiased" argument or perspective--even in hard science (much less something as "soft" as politics)
  Tsk, tsk. Using a straw man argument in a conversation about philosophy?
  The Plato example is nice, although you're missing the point. The Republic, Symposium, and the other socratic dialogues are philosophical parables, and were never intended to be used as an expression of the author's own views/opinions. In fact, they seem to have accomplished their task quite well, as you were able to spot the logical fallacy used by Plato in the Republic.
  
  --
  -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
76. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Sj0 · 2009-06-06 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  What strikes me is the lack of discipline in your arguments. You reiterated without substance, then once again accuse me of not knowing the subject.
  My main point was that greek philosophers are an anthropological interest, rather than a philosophical one. My supporting point is that they were crippled by their lack of solid first principles.
  My main point isn't at all challenged by your argument. Yes, old philosophy is what today's philosophy came from, just as old science is what today's science came from. However, that means exactly what I've already said: It's interesting from an anthropological point of view. Just as you don't need to know the etymology of a word to know how to use the word, and you don't need to know about al-Khwarizmi to use mathematics, old philosophy is interesting in the historical sense of understanding how thought became what it is today, it's not terribly important by itself. You'll never see a philosopher seriously advocating we follow the Nicomachean ethics. It's interesting because it helps establish what happens next in the story of philosophy. Thus, your argument supports my main assertion, rather than dissuade it. Every electrical engineer learns about how the field of electricity came from the Greeks rubbing amber with different substances(Hence electricity being named after the latin word for "amber-like"), but no engineer in the world actually has a use for that information beyond knowing where the much more refined and complicated study came from.
  As for my other point, it wasn't until relatively recently that philosophers started looking at first principles of different areas of thought in earnest(They looked at first principles, but the idea of applying it to the fundamentals of thought hadn't kicked in yet, though they skirted around it as the Greeks often did with brilliant ideas). This was a critical juncture, because before that time, any old philosopher could jump on a soapbox and claim their ethic was axiomatic. The greeks loved doing this. Aristotle tossed out a first principle with very little thought, and turned it into an 8 book set, laughably calling his thoughts spreading from "You want to get the good life and be happy" an ethic.
  What philosophers found was simple: Logically, it can be shown that there are no provably axiomatic first principles for many areas of thought. From there, new trains of thought must be explored to justify thinking -- or in fact, any venture of any kind.
  In my view, ignoring this was the sin of the Greeks, and of the philologist who took on a lot of their ideas, Nietzsche. Until you reject everything, you're not building anything from a solid foundation. Here in the North, you can build a very nice house and have it completely disappear into the muskeg. You need to scrape away the muskeg before you can build anything. Just like the house that disappeared, the Greeks, and Nietzsche, had many interesting and insightful pieces of architecture, buried and invisible.
  And that's why it's interesting from an anthropological standpoint and nothing more. It took millennia to show Democritus was on to something, but it was one thought experiment among an entire culture of philosophy. It rose slightly higher than some ideas because Democritus was slightly better at rhetoric, but even then his idea wasn't the prevailing theory of matter, just one of many. That doesn't sound much different than today, except that today we've got(with the exception of string theory, which I'm still positive exists soley as a joke some hipster put together as a clever deconstruction and reamalgamation of science into the exact thing it's not supposed to be) more sophisticated means to determine the worthiness of theories than simple rhetoric, which is good considering the complicated epistemological implications of the more complicated world created when we're throwing out unfounded axioms. Without the well-developed first principles(or maybe the more appropriate term is zeroth, since you need them before first principles are even possible), you don't even have a platform from which you can analyze the logic that comes after.
  
  --
  It's been a long time.
77. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by nine-times · 2009-06-07 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  What strikes me is the lack of discipline in your arguments. You reiterated without substance, then once again accuse me of not knowing the subject.
  I don't think you understand how this works. You claim things without any real evidence and showing ignorance of a subject, and I respond with actual evidence showing that you're wrong. If you respond with the same unsupported ignorant claims, then yes, I'll pretty much repeat myself.
  
  As for my other point, it wasn't until relatively recently that philosophers started looking at first principles of different areas of thought in earnest
  See, like this gem. What support do you have for this? Or this one:
  
  Aristotle tossed out a first principle with very little thought
  On what basis are you making this claim? I can't imagine anyone who's well educated on the subject would claim that Aristotle failed to put much thought into things. Have you actually read Aristotle?
  
  Just as you don't need to know the etymology of a word to know how to use the word, and you don't need to know about al-Khwarizmi to use mathematics, old philosophy is interesting in the historical sense of understanding how thought became what it is today.
  However, imagine this: imagine you studied geometry, and everything you learned took Euclid's geometry for granted. Imagine all your text books always just assumed what it meant for two lines to be parallel, assumed the Pythagorean theorem was true, etc, and you never saw any kind of proof for these things. Imagine modern mathematicians frequently made mistakes because they took those geometric principles for granted without fully understanding them. Wouldn't it then be worthwhile to go back and read some Euclid?
  
  Greeks rubbing amber with different substances(Hence electricity being named after the latin word for "amber-like"), but no engineer in the world actually has a use for that information beyond knowing where the much more refined and complicated study came from.
  I suppose you're right, except that the "refined and complicated study" doesn't replace knowing that you can generate electricity by rubbing different substances together. Your electrical engineer can't afford to forget about it, and people formulating new theories about electricity would do well to know the history of what we know about electricity and how we came to know it.
  And that's another place where your line of thinking falls apart. A philosopher is not analogous to an electrical engineer, but instead the person trying to develop a new theory about electricity. A philosopher is not the guy using the current understanding of physics to build things, but instead more analogous to the theoretical physicist who's trying to develop a new TOE. If you're trying to create a new TOE, you should want to know how our current theories were formulated, and where the ideas and concepts originated.
  
  What philosophers found was simple: Logically, it can be shown that there are no provably axiomatic first principles for many areas of thought. From there, new trains of thought must be explored to justify thinking -- or in fact, any venture of any kind.
  When are you saying they discovered that? Because as I said earlier, the idea of "first principles" is a Greek one, and they would say that first principles cannot be proven, by definition. If you're able to prove your first principles, then you should do so, and so those aren't your real first principles. The Greeks put a lot of debate into how you can arrive at first principles, and how you could try to keep bias and false ideas out of those principles. You can witness this in Plato, that being part of the purpose of writing the dialogs in debate form.
  
  Just like the house that disappeared, the Greeks, and Nietzsche, had many interesting and insightful pieces of architecture,
78. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by HiThere · 2009-06-07 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  6) Well get prepared for governments totally without justice and fairness then. Because they ARE becoming more automated. (To me it appears a practical question.)
  A philosophical question is, by definition, one that is considered because of love of knowledge. If you consider it because of practical implications, then it's not philosophical. I'm not a philosopher because my interests are founded elsewhere than in love of knowledge...usually practicality. This shouldn't be taken to imply that I'm not interested in remote consequences, but rather that I'm interested in what the observable consequences are or will be. And the observation can be statistical in nature.
  Observation is actually the wrong term, but it seems standard. What I actually mean is results that are predictable based on my model of the interactions that happen. Some of these results need to be observable to validate the model, but many of them may not be in any practical sense. They are still predicted actual consequences.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
79. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by nine-times · 2009-06-07 16:04 · Score: 1
  
  A philosophical question is, by definition, one that is considered because of love of knowledge. If you consider it because of practical implications, then it's not philosophical.
  Well first, I'm not sure that makes sense. "Knowledge" has lots of practical implications. But also you have your translation slightly wrong-- "philo-sophia" = "love of wisdom". Wisdom is very practical.
  And besides all that, "philosophy" over the years has taken on an alternative meaning, as "the study of the foundations of human study and knowledge." Now this typically leads people to put studies like epistemology, ontology, and even ethics/politics into the realm of philosophy, but also many people would say that laying the foundations for any field of study is a philosophic endeavor. It's only once the foundations are laid and the famework is set that the field of study starts to become "science".
  It gets to be a fine line, but just to give some contrast, the "scientist" who's designing a method to search for extra-terrestrial life is a scientist, but the "scientist" who's trying to figure out what it means to be "alive" is a natural philosopher. A physicist who's designing a particle accelerator is acting really more as an engineer. When the particle accelerator is built and a physicist is running experiments to try to find evidence of a particle he's theorized, that physicist is acting as a scientist. When a physicist looks at the outcome of those experiments, steps back and asks, "But what is a particle when it's that small? Is it still right to think of it as matter?" then he's acting as a philosopher.
  So you may be a political scientist looking at a situation and ask, "According to the framework my studies are bound in, what is the most peaceable solution to a problem like this?" And that's just political science. But when you start asking, "Is that solution just or unjust?" you've strayed into philosophy, practical or impractical as it is.
80. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Sj0 · 2009-06-08 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  I think at this point you should go back and re-read your posts. You obviously think more is there than you've actually written.
  
  --
  It's been a long time.
81. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by nine-times · 2009-06-08 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe you should go back and read some of my posts. It doesn't seem as though you actually read them the first time.
82. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Sj0 · 2009-06-08 05:54 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  In a nutshell, "Oh, but we came from there so they're important".
  I assure you, I will NEVER bring up the greeks amber experiments while designing a control system, I don't care if electricity is named after amber.
  It wasn't until the skeptics that the underlying principles were finally questioned. The field of epistemology thrived in greece, but beyond asking if there's truth, it's not until you question the very basic foundation of human existence that you start with a foundation for philosophy, and in particular, ethics.
  Assuming there's an objective truth, what assumptions am I making that can be somehow shown to be part of that objective truth?
  Millennia later the answer finally came about: We can't prove any of our assumptions regarding human existence are objective axioms. That's where things finally get interesting. After showing it in a logical, clinical manner, you end up with folks like the existentialists finally building the foundation we needed all along: In a nutshell, "We can logically prove we exist, and we're reasonably sure we're human, but beyond that, all axioms spring from our humanity".
  That's a key point, because you're then forced to immediately cast off a lot of the humanity in the universe because humanity isn't a universal value. Kicking away the arbitrary values of humanity, the universe stops being a place where Aristotle's prime mover can exist -- the world becomes a place where it's understood that the concept exists only in Aristotle's mind, as a by-product of how he thinks as a human.
  For this reason, even though the greeks are of some historical significance for their work, they're not actually significant because no matter how many solid principles they created, it was still walls hovering above the ground. Until you scrape away the muskeg, your beautiful house will disappear. Electricity is useless when it's just amber and fur.
  This is particularly important in ethics, because many axioms are based on our humanity and our current spot in history. The greeks and the christians wouldn't get along well, given the opposing characteristics they valued for ages, each considering their values axiomatic.
  
  --
  It's been a long time.
83. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by nine-times · 2009-06-08 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  In a nutshell, "Oh, but we came from there so they're important".
  Nope. Read again if you want to understand it. Or ignore me and go read a lot of philosophy. You'll understand it better if you're actually educated in the topic rather than taking my word for it. Plato and Aristotle are a good place to start, but you probably won't get it until you've read a lot more.
  But here I see you're actually wanting to get into actually talking about philosophy:
  
  Assuming there's an objective truth, what assumptions am I making that can be somehow shown to be part of that objective truth?
  Nope, sorry. The concept of objectivity as such is relatively modern. The Greeks didn't seem to think about things that way at all, and what's more they were probably more right.
  
  Kicking away the arbitrary values of humanity, the universe stops being a place where Aristotle's prime mover can exist -- the world becomes a place where it's understood that the concept exists only in Aristotle's mind, as a by-product of how he thinks as a human.
  Yeah, this is where modern thoughts about the "objective" kind of screw up: in thinking that the "objective" is a very real and better view of the universe, but unfortunately unattainable. The problem is that you're saying the moderns are better because they understand that you can't be objective, and yet the way in which you think they're better is that they're able to be more objective. It's a contradiction. If you're really disregarding the possibility of being objective, then your goal can't be "to be as objective as possible."
  What you have to understand about Aristotle is he's not really saying, "There is, objectively, a prime mover in existence," but rather something like, "From any human understanding of the universe, it will ultimately be necessary to assume a 'prime mover'. Without such a concept, humans won't be able to reason about their own world." Even in Plato, there are basically refutations of any ideas about objective access to the universe. It's not a very deep and protracted refutation because the idea didn't have the traction that it does today, but it's in there.
  But anyway, time and again, throughout the history of philosophy and science, you'll see that no one is able to create a model of our world without having some kind of stand-in for the prime mover. They might call it something a else, but it's still there. People still use the concept as the foundation for their understanding, but they understand it poorly, and therefore reach inaccurate or sometimes silly conclusions. If people understood old philosophers like Aristotle and Plato better, they'd make fewer of the sorts of mistakes you're making.
84. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by Sj0 · 2009-06-08 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  I hate to say it, but I'm not going to continue this discussion. It's one thing to disagree with me. It's quite another to begin every argument with the accusation that I don't know anything about the source materials all while attacking my interpretation of the source materials.
  You're being a dick. This could've been an interesting conversation. My mind could've been changed. Instead, you decided to say "come not unto me, for I am eruditier than thou". Enjoy your cave.
  
  --
  It's been a long time.
85. Re:I think I speak for many of us when I say... by nine-times · 2009-06-08 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick, but it doesn't seem like you've actually read the source material. My impression is you've listened to someone else describe the source material, and maybe that person only read some other writer who was complaining about the source material.
  Trying to change your mind? Fat lot of luck that will do me. You're not even offering support for your arguments, and you're making things up out of thin air. I'm not trying to convince you because you're not actually listening. I'm trying to convince anyone else who might bother to read this thread of arguments. And all I'm trying to convince them of is that it might actually be worth reading Aristotle and Plato before making up your mind that they're stupid, superstitious idiots who didn't think. I'm arguing that you might want to seek to understand something before dismissing it. I'm arguing that, if you're going to dismiss someone for making things up, not arguing things properly, and ignoring evidence, then it doesn't make sense to do so while making things up, failing to argue things properly, and ignoring evidence.
  But honestly, I addressed your complaints. I gave you answers to a lot of the things you've failed to understand. I've made suggestions where you can find more comprehensive answers than mine. I've done more than my share. You've more or less responded with "nah uh!" and expected that it would be enough to intimidate me since you didn't actually have an argument to support your claims. Sorry to disappoint, but you don't scare me. If you want to convince me, you're going to have to offer some kind of actual evidence that you at least have a firm grasp of the subject matter we're talking about.
Conservation of Mind. by Prysorra · 2009-06-01 21:28 · Score: 1

In the end, a hive mind is only one mind.
1. Re:Conservation of Mind. by machine321 · 2009-06-01 22:23 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  We disagree.
2. Re:Conservation of Mind. by __aaxwdb6741 · 2009-06-01 22:40 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  We are Blog. Intelligence is irrelevant. Resistance is futile. We will add your philosophical and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service ours.
3. Re:Conservation of Mind. by LeotheQuick · 2009-06-02 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  I guess it really depends *which* blogs you read. I have a very different opinion of blogs than yours, since my experience of them is mostly through my father who reads political blogs and listens to political pod casts most evenings. Not that blogs have the kind of refined presentation that television or newspaper news have, but I think as with anything the kind of material that gets the most attention tends to be the most outrageous, or the most widely appealing. One unpleasant side effect of capitalism is that the less substantial but more widely appealing consistently beats out the more substantial but more difficult to appreciate. Ah, I know this fact so well :-(
4. Re:Conservation of Mind. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  *whoosh*
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong by siloko · 2009-06-01 21:28 · Score: 2, Funny

'Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification . . .

Well the guys obviously wrong, or at least guilty of a typo - I think he meant stimulation of justification.
1. Re:Wrong, Wrong, Wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  By the way, go fuck yourself and your shitty referral link to your shitty fucking piece of shit game.
2. Re:Wrong, Wrong, Wrong by colinrichardday · 2009-06-01 23:48 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  I don't if he meant "simulation", but a simulation of justification makes sense (something appears to be justification even though it is not).
3. Re:Wrong, Wrong, Wrong by Repossessed · 2009-06-02 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  It's also very redundant. How can you have a simulation of something thats a product of bias in the first place?
  The GPs suggestion, 'stimulation of justification' makes even less sense though. Either way he seems to be intentionally obfuscating his argument by using lots of big words.
  
  --
  Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
4. Re:Wrong, Wrong, Wrong by colinrichardday · 2009-06-02 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  So all attempts at (epistemological) justification are biased? How would you justify such a claim?
  And what kind of bias?
5. Re:Wrong, Wrong, Wrong by Repossessed · 2009-06-03 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Fuck if I know what 'epistemological justification' means.
  In the context the OP is talking about, I'm pretty sure he means. "I believe X now how do I justify it".
  
  --
  Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
6. Re:Wrong, Wrong, Wrong by colinrichardday · 2009-06-03 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Epistemology is the study of knowledge, including how we can justify (or reject) our beliefs.
  By your response, I take it that by bias you mean confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is when we seek evidence that supports our beliefs and ignore/suppress evidence that doesn't. The OP might be doing that, but I prefer to believe (at least initially) that he is honest.
7. Re:Wrong, Wrong, Wrong by Repossessed · 2009-06-05 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, no, I'm not accusing the OP of bias*, just poor communication. I'm accusing the people he's talking about, specifically those seeking justification, of bias. If you're approaching a subject without bias you'd first seek reasons for a conclusion, no justification is necessary beyond referring to the original reasons.
  *I do assume this, but its not actually relevant.
  
  --
  Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
8. Re:Wrong, Wrong, Wrong by colinrichardday · 2009-06-05 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  But what if the original reasons, while supportive of your conclusion, are not themselves conclusive?
9. Re:Wrong, Wrong, Wrong by Repossessed · 2009-06-05 10:56 · Score: 1
  
  Then further investigation is needed. Though as the OP points out, most people can't really do that much investigating on their own. Bias also starts to come into play at this point, even in the best of people.
  
  --
  Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
Dangers of being an arrogant ass by syousef · 2009-06-01 21:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Locking up knowledge so that only specialists get access is a stupid, destructive, elitist practice that is self defeating (who do you think funds most work???) and detracts from the life we're all capable of leading. Those who Suggest that popular accounts can't be good are just making a poor excuse for their own inability to communicate. Over-simplification isn't the whole problem. Poor communication is.
Most people over the age of about 12 (well 16 in some places) understand that you won't get all the detail from a popular article. Popular articles are about giving us the flavour of what's being discussed. Without them a great deal of human knowledge is complete inaccessible to the masses. Hell, even the most intelligent of us doesn't have time to specialise in every field.
It can be done, or it can be done poorly. Done well people get a flavour for the complexity of the topic, understand the limitations of the popular description, walk away with an appreciation for the topic and perhaps get to chat to other intelligent people about the wonders of it. Take a look at Sagan's Cosmos, Brian Greene's Elegant Universe (whether or not you think String theory is the way forward), any Attenborough documentary (if you can stay awake - I must confess the man's voice is a cure for insomnia which is a pity because I think his documentaries are so well done)
Done poorly Joe Schmoe walks way with a misunderstanding based on poor analogies and either thinks the topic is a total waste of time and money or rhat he could do better at the field with no specialist knowledge. See almost any human interest piece on the news, idiotic wildlife entertainment shows like Steve Irwin's tripe, and all reality TV.

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
1. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by DMiax · 2009-06-01 21:55 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Locking up knowledge so that only specialists get access is a stupid, destructive, elitist practice that is self defeating (who do you think funds most work???) and detracts from the life we're all capable of leading. Those who Suggest that popular accounts can't be good are just making a poor excuse for their own inability to communicate. Over-simplification isn't the whole problem. Poor communication is.
  Since the summary clearly states that culture should not be locked up, you completely missed the point. Which is: can an expert (in any field, not just philosofy) divulge and disseminate his/her knowledge without the general public assume they are omniscient experts too?
  Note however that the question arises also in scientific/technological matters. For example most Slashdotters assume to be authorities on any of those. Look at all the bad programming/computer administration advice you can get from the comments. (Sending my karma to hell for implying that slashdotters are less than omniscient on computer subjects)
  In the end, the article is right and probably more general than that. We non-experts know nothing about climate change and we cannot understand the merit of the debate. A seemingly winning argument for us could be a huge logical fallacy if we knew a little more than that. The only remedy is to put trust in those we call experts, which is difficult because everybody pretends to be one. Bonus points for a working solution.
2. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by pjt33 · 2009-06-01 22:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's even more messy than that. In many areas (climate change is one, but pretty much any area where people are trying to influence politicians) I know I'm not an expert and don't understand the real issues but I can also see that one or both sides of the debate are depending on invalid or misleading use of statistics. So it's even harder to work out who the experts are, because in their efforts to disseminate their knowledge some step out of their area of expertise and come across as incompetent.
3. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by VoidCrow · 2009-06-01 23:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  > It can be done, or it can be done poorly.
  But the point is that for many ideas, the majority of people are not in a position to evaluate whether the exposition is done well or poorly...
  Even a topic as superficially obvious as evolution benefits from a basic mathematical intuition and a nodding acquaintance with mathematical complexity. Most popular descriptions I've seen of the evolutionary process characterise it as 'random chance', whereas it's a more complex mechanism comprising the following elements:
  
  A sieving process - everything that slips through the sieve *dies* or fares less well
  A fitness memory - the set of genomes across a genetically similar population, or an *individual* genome where fitness in not communicated.
  Optionally, a mechanism for distributing a subset of working fitness characteristics throught a genetically similar population (sexual reproduction or sideways gene transfer).
  An underlying randomisation driver in the form of things like cosmic ray damage and other influences that might tend to change the genome data.
  So, option (a) random chance or option (b) the more complex system with its attendant subleties?
  Option (a) genuinely *does* give irreducible complexity, whereas in option (b), the numbers work and you can use the mechanism to practical effect in genetic algorithms...
  Which option sells best when a confident, charismatic person sells it to a typical member of the public? It's the easiest thing in the world to ignore the subtleties inherent to a complex topic. We're set up to do it - if we were not, we'd spend all our time gazing at the intricate designs in the rug and tracing them back to their religious, mathematical, philosophical and social roots. We'd starve or be eaten.
  Is it arrogant and elitist to understand something which the majority of people have difficulty with? In the above instance, no-one is hiding the knowledge, and yet there's no shortage of people who doubt evolution. Finally, it's an argument from personal experience, but I'm from a working-class family. The rest of my family would glaze over and say something rude if I tried to talk about this kind of thing. They don't want to know. Ironically, they *do* believe in evolution, but the keyword here is *believe*. Place them in a different context, around glib people with a different agenda, and they'll believe that the Great Marmoset scooped up its poop and moulded it into a patty-cake, and thus we have the world. Forgive me if my arrogant elitist frustration leaks out all over the floor.
4. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by addsalt · 2009-06-01 23:35 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The rest of my family would glaze over and say something rude if I tried to talk about this kind of thing.
  I think you are getting to the root cause of what I think the article missed. Most people are not interested in actually striving to find out the truth (regardless of what the truth happens to be). Pop philosophy is helping people justify the beliefs they already have, regardless of what it is. To do that, all you need is a plausible sounding argument.
5. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by Curunir_wolf · 2009-06-02 00:08 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So, you're saying "just shut up and do all these green things we tell you to, pay your carbon taxes and offsets and inflated energy bill - and everything will be fine. We're the experts and we know what's best?"
  I predict that this will work out at least as good as when the "experts" said "just shut up and give us your money to invest - the market will work just like we say it will." And when the "experts" said "just shut up and eat what we tell you and avoid these things we tell you and you will be healthy and live to 100"...
  I would say that it is just as important to question the self-appointed experts in any field as it is to defer to their wisdom on the topic. Trusting the "Educators" with public education hasn't improved the public schools, either.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
6. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by plover · 2009-06-02 00:18 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It's not just misleading use of statistics -- those are easier to identify since they do deal in factual numbers. It's the underlying political agendas that get people to mislead through omission, commission, or outright lying. In the end it's not about whose argument is more correct, and not even who has the "more authoritative authority." It's about whose argument swayed the people in power. We can all sit here at our keyboards whining about how stupid Jack Thompson is, or how evil Comcast is for opposing net neutrality, but in the end it's not about convincing us -- it's about convincing Congress (or Parliament or whatever they have where you live.)
  And even though we'd like to think differently about their abilities, Congress is not very different than Joe Sixpack. Sure, they'll stack their offices with competent and smart advisors (we hope) but with the hundreds of bills they have to review, and the fact that a well-reasoned, well-researched letter only puts a checkmark in the "for" column that's equally counted against Cletus' "The TV dun tell me it's bad" means that the philosophical and scientific arguments are ultimately worthless.
  The scientific campaigns can be spun in whichever direction they're needed, regardless of their methods, their science, or their outcome. The real lesson is "Do not waste your time and money on science, but spend it only on the advertising campaigns that promote whichever viewpoint puts more money in your pocket." Pay an actor to wear a lab coat when he delivers your message. Have him wear a hard hat and carry a clipboard. Pose him in front of a very large machine, or a pristine meadow. That's where your dollars have their biggest effect.
  
  --
  John
7. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by smchris · 2009-06-02 01:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Most people over the age of about 12 (well 16 in some places) understand that you won't get all the detail from a popular article.
  Never been to a Mensa meeting, eh? Not to knock a group I belong to, and where I met my wife, but the Expert-on-Everything is common. Really, it's just GIGO at work coupled with a state of mind. Reading widely does not make one literate if the content read is Time, Newsweek, Reader's Digest and Discover. However, the sad thing is that said Mensan can be excused in American culture because reading Time, Newsweek, Reader's Digest and Discover actually is relatively elite. A soc professor I had got off topic many years ago and asked our class what we thought were the most popular American reading materials. Some people were coming up with outrageous answers like the New Yorker. I thought I was being sociologically clever with the supermarket shelf Reader's Digest. I was on the right track but he said it was the National Inquirer. That makes me conclude that a large part of the sociology of the pop expert is that the standard for popular reading is so abysmal in America that a person can feel justified as a lay expert merely by reading faithfully from among a selection of the mediocre.
8. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by TheTurtlesMoves · 2009-06-02 01:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Pay an actor to wear a lab coat when he delivers your message. Have him wear a hard hat and carry a clipboard. Pose him in front of a very large machine, or a pristine meadow. That's where your dollars have their biggest effect.
  Reminds me of a funny story. We got a new shiny 1.3Million dollar mass spec machine. The national news paper comes in to do a story. The ask if we can take a photo with "that machine in the background, because it looks more credible as a expensive scientific instrument...".
  
  It was the printer.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
9. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 02:06 · Score: 0
  
  And when you help your parents with their computer problems, surely you give serious consideration to their theory that their computer got a virus from the TV because they're connected to the same power strip and they watched a show about piracy yesterday? And respectfully listen when they are advised by their neighbour, who fixes computers with *common sense*, instead of all that mumbo jumbo about 'you-es-bees' and 'dee-vee-ays' and 'raym'?
10. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by Boiling_point_ · 2009-06-02 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  Who made you such an "expert" then?
  
  --
  "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
11. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by plague3106 · 2009-06-02 02:11 · Score: 1
  
  Locking up knowledge so that only specialists get access is a stupid, destructive, elitist practice that is self defeating (who do you think funds most work???) and detracts from the life we're all capable of leading. Those who Suggest that popular accounts can't be good are just making a poor excuse for their own inability to communicate. Over-simplification isn't the whole problem. Poor communication is.
  Yes, it is a communication problem. The problem is that your average layperson has the attention span of a gnat, and won't listen to the correct argument, which may require quite a bit of setup that the bogus arguement doesn't. Did you read the artcle? oh, never mind..
  Most people over the age of about 12 (well 16 in some places) understand that you won't get all the detail from a popular article. Popular articles are about giving us the flavour of what's being discussed. Without them a great deal of human knowledge is complete inaccessible to the masses. Hell, even the most intelligent of us doesn't have time to specialise in every field.
  You're giving people way too much credit. They read the article, and think that's that. I hate the news for just this reason; they never go into enough detail or even explain what the relevence is... they're' too busy interviewing the dumb farmer hick who had a tree (and NOTHING of value to say) land on his barn in the last wind storm.
12. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by digsbo · 2009-06-02 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is that most people (yes, most) filter out the available information which may be contradictory to their beliefs. Most people are somewhat insecure about the mass of confusing information, and get very angry when you challenge their opinions with facts. The hippie-wannabe college girls, upper-middle-class white liberals, young republicans, and fifty-something religious right types all do this.
  The amount of available information is too much for most people to handle, and as a result we have ignorance by choice, rather than because of unavailability of information. We don't teach Socratic Method in schools, and as a result people remain ignorant.
13. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by DMiax · 2009-06-02 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'm saying that telling real experts from crackpots with political agenda is hard, Pretending we can fully understand what is outside our expertise is dumb and makes everything worse for everyone. Because, you know, you will support a random opinion which you have little understanding of, but you will pose as an expert to everyone else.
  But sure, go ahead and base your informed decisions on http://simple.wikipedia.org/ ...
14. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by jedidiah · 2009-06-02 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Just you wait. Give Microsoft a few years and they will make this absurdity a reality.
  They did it with email. They can do it with power strips too.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
15. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by breagerey · 2009-06-02 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  It seems you've missed the point.
  
  There is likely a qualitative difference in the information you get from a 'self-appointed expert" and an actual expert.
  
  It's likely that most 'self-appointed' experts don't have the requisite knowledge of the subject (whatever it may be) to allow them to see through a well crafted 'one way hash' type argument.
  Determining who the actual experts really are and what their biases are is a more attainable goal for most than unwinding an argument that requires advanced knowledge of the subject.
  
  Recognition of our own lack of knowledge in a particular area should lead us to defer (in some measure) to actual, not self-appointed, experts.
  Just like deferring to the knowledge of a surgeon rather than an auto mechanic in the proper circumstance.
16. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by mdarksbane · 2009-06-02 02:44 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  And even though we'd like to think differently about their abilities, Congress is not very different than Joe Sixpack.
  I may be stating the obvious, but it was that realization when I was in high school that turned me into a (small 'l') libertarian.
  I was on a job shadowing trip to visit with our local state representative. We got to follow her around all day, talk a bit about current policy issues, and see how the different committee and general assembly sessions worked.
  And that was the strongest impression that I walked away with... they were all so average.
  I had somehow grown up with the idea that whether politicians were lying crooks or paragons of virtue, they were something slightly above the average idiot in my classes. I imagined Machiavellian schemes to reward the fats cats that got them into power or grab more power for themselves, opposed by those few good men who had somehow managed to survive the grindings of the political machines.
  What I saw was just a bunch of middle aged men and women who seemed in general to be less intelligent (or at least no more) than the people I met at random social events whom I knew I could already argue and problem-solve circles around.
  I guess I expected them to be smart the same way people generally expect doctors or scientists to be smart. Maybe not all brilliance, but at least hitting that "I went to the gifted classes" level of intelligence.
  My friend got into a policy argument with our representative over some local environmental issue - it was a big deal at the time, and in her district. The rep stated her "for or against" position, then handed it off to her intern, a college guy who was barely older than us, and seemed to be overall worse-informed than my friend on the arguments for and against the issue, and why the rep was against it (aside from the real answer, which was "my majority leader told me to be").
  The realization that our all-powerful government was being run by people whom I wouldn't trust to run my school or do my taxes made a big impression. I used to think that the problem was just overcoming the negative influences on government - the bribes, the lobbyists, etc. Now I just hope they don't drive the bus into a ditch.
17. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by Neeperando · 2009-06-02 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  So, you're saying "just shut up and do all these green things we tell you to, pay your carbon taxes and offsets and inflated energy bill - and everything will be fine. We're the experts and we know what's best?"
  Fair enough, but I could make the same argument from the other side: So you're saying "just close your eyes and don't worry about it, and everything will be fine. We're the experts and we can confidently tell you that climate change is nonsense put forth by greedy hippies trying to steal your money."
  I guess the point of TFA is that unless you want to dedicate years of your life to learning the ins and outs of climate science, you're just going to have to trust someone. I don't know who you should trust, though, because your point is valid. The people claiming to be experts don't necessarily know what they're talking about.
  
  --
  Being a computer scientist means you tell people how computers should work, not that you know how they actually work.
18. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  I've often found that with non-geeks it's neither intelligence nor my communication skills, it's their interest that doesn't go beyond a certain limit. Or you could say, their endurance. Or their eagerness to learn, to really understand. That's what distinguishes programmers from script kiddies. They could really learn about things, but they don't care enough, they just want something that works somehow, for now. They're not curious. They see machines as tools, not as toys or something to explore. I will never understand those people, but they're in the majority.
19. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by dogeatery · 2009-06-02 03:39 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  You mentioned it, so I'll chime in: One of the most disappointing things I ever heard was from a friend who interned for a Texas congresswoman. Every letter and phone call and email gets put in a pile of "for" and "against", separated out by each issue. Nobody (important, at least) reads anything deeper than to learn the writer's/caller's position. It's easy to see why Congress is so spineless and indecisive, easily swayed by oversimplified rhetoric: because their constituents are too.
  Side note: That's why I was so shocked a few weeks ago to hear Sen. Jim Webb on the radio talking about the complex issues surrounding prison reform, his experiences in other countries and the realistic case for legalizing certain drugs.
20. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by Curunir_wolf · 2009-06-02 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  So, you're saying "just shut up and do all these green things we tell you to, pay your carbon taxes and offsets and inflated energy bill - and everything will be fine. We're the experts and we know what's best?"
  Fair enough, but I could make the same argument from the other side: So you're saying "just close your eyes and don't worry about it, and everything will be fine. We're the experts and we can confidently tell you that climate change is nonsense put forth by greedy hippies trying to steal your money."
  Well, if you're gonna be rolling the dice, maybe it's better not to bet the entire farm on the outcome.
  Seriously, what's wrong with taking the warnings at face value, and prepare for the possibilities? That would seem to be the prudent course of action, rather than throwing all these resources at trying to change the outcome with some really expensive policies that have only a slim chance of working anyway.
  The worst part of the whole "CO2 is pollution" mantra is that if just a portion of the vast resources and lobbying went into stopping things that we already know are harmful pollutants, we could implement some real positive change. But of course Monsanto and ADM won't allow us to reduce phosphorous run-off in any meaningful way, so Chesapeake Bay will continue its slow death. And of course we can't worry about what RoundUp and pesticides are doing to our soil and food supply when we've got polar bears and melting ice to worry about.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
21. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by MythoBeast · 2009-06-02 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  While I agree that limiting intellectual discussion to the higher halls of intelligencia is dangerous, destructive, and ultimately pointless, it does help to get some perspective.
  Blogs are often the realm of the amateur philosopher where people repeatedly rehash things that have been either established or disproven decades ago. They talk about other things, though, and provide information to people who don't have it yet. Just because this information is redundant to what's going on somewhere else doesn't mean it isn't useful.
  But the writer is correct in that many people present arguments about things that really have no validity, and then they expect others to act on their arguments. The concept of "family" is a good example. What is a family? Why is an adoptive family less valuable than a genetic one? Why would gay parents be less loving than straight ones? Does a family suffer if it's a man and his mother raising a child instead of a man and the child's mother? Or is it all equivalent if slightly different in a way that we personally disapprove of? We don't even bother to define the word "family" before we start insisting that "family values" are of primal importance, and yet the stupid people fall for it.
  The argument of mind and brain is similar, but another order of magnitude tougher to understand. Nonetheless, people who have never bothered to think about the definitions make statements about them that they expect everyone else to take seriously. It's fine if we all recognize that this is all in fun, with maybe a bit of brain candy thrown in for good measure.
  
  --
  Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
22. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by Abcd1234 · 2009-06-02 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, he does address that point, but primarily in his "one-way hash" article, wherein he brushes across the issue of online echo chambers... which is precisely what you're describing.
23. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 07:51 · Score: 0
  
  Urge to kill...rising...
24. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by Bastard+of+Subhumani · 2009-06-02 08:09 · Score: 1
  
  They're smart. That bumbling medocrity is a clever act and many, including you, fell for it.
  
  --
  Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
25. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by nine-times · 2009-06-02 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Locking up knowledge so that only specialists get access is a stupid, destructive, elitist practice that is self defeating
  It doesn't seem to me that the author was advocating "locking up knowledge". In fact, it's not clear to me that the author was really advocating anything. He seems merely to be making observations about the sort of discourse that is going on, and some of the difficulties we face in creating a truly useful discussion rather than a collection of glib remarks. Let's face it, these issues are complex. It's not merely "experts" making things more complicated than they need to be (which is sometimes a component).
  You bring up physics as an example and talk about Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe". I've read that, as well as "Brief History of Time," and other similar physics books, and yes, they give you vague ideas about modern theoretical physics, and that's great. However, they don't give you a very deep understanding that qualifies you to take part in a real debate on these subjects. For example, I think relativity is conceptually simple in comparison with string theory, but I've run into quite a few people who've read these sorts of books and still don't understand why the ability to travel faster than light is theoretically equivalent to time travel.
  There is value in having a deep knowledge and understanding of a topic, and real depth can't be imparted to a layman quickly and easily. That's a real problem as sciences progress and fields become increasingly specialized. The unfortunate truth is that we do rely on the authority of experts, and we must do so even though we don't have a way to measure the true expertise of those "experts".
  For a computer-related analogy, it reminds me of an interview that I had for a consulting job once. I won't go into the technical details (partially because I don't remember them well), but I knew this guy through a friend of a friend... that sort of thing, and when I went in, we had a conversation that went like this (this is simplified and more blunt than the real conversation:
  
  Him: I have this very complicated issue and I'm looking for someone who can make this work the way I want it to, and for so little money it will basically be free to me.
  Me: I can't do that. I can propose this other solution which will work almost as well, or we can do it the way you want but it will be very expensive.
  Him: Well, I just had an interview with a guy who said that he can do what I want for as cheap as I want it.
  Me: That doesn't sound right to me. I would guess that your last interview wasn't completely honest, or else he doesn't know what he's doing.
  Him: Well you're making a bad sales pitch. The last guy is telling me that he can give me exactly what I want, exactly how I want it. You're saying I can't have what I want. You understand that there's no way I can hire you.
  Me: Well I won't argue with you, except to say that it seems unlikely to me that the other guy can deliver what he's promising.
  I didn't get the job. I found out after the fact that the interviewer came to regret his decision, since the other interviewee couldn't, in fact, deliver on what he promised. The company wasted a lot of time and money paying for a solution that didn't work. On the other hand, how was the interviewer to know? It could have just as easily been that I was the charlatan, aiming to bilk extra money from his company for a relatively simple task? Or maybe the other interviewee was a complete techie badass who really could achieve incredible things for small amounts of money. Not being an expert himself, he had to trust someone, so naturally he chose the one with the best sounding story. Unfortunately, the best sounding story isn't always the truth.
26. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by Jay+L · 2009-06-02 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  The ask if we can take a photo with "that machine in the background, because it looks more credible as a expensive scientific instrument...". It was the printer.
  Metoo!
  We had many millions of dollars of minicomputers, but there was one piece of gear that absolutely had to be front and center, framed by the windows in the data center doors.
  It was the X.25 handler, and it had blinking red transmit/receive LEDs for every telecom line.
27. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 09:34 · Score: 0
  
  It's Readers' Digest, you cretin. Mensa member my shiny ass.
28. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by Hognoxious · 2009-06-02 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  Who made you such an "expert" then?
  The lady of the lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite...
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
29. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by ioshhdflwuegfh · 2009-06-02 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  (Sending my karma to hell for implying that slashdotters are less than omniscient on computer subjects)
  You karmawhore you.
30. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by mdarksbane · 2009-06-02 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  If that was their plan, it backfired a bit, since it convinced me to never vote for any of them again ;-)
31. Re:Dangers of being an arrogant ass by Lunzo · 2009-06-02 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  In a democracy you get the politicians you deserve. If they're average people then they sound fairly representative of the nation. I'd like to remind you that 50% of the population are below average (median) intelligence.
The web gives us all a voice by BadAnalogyGuy · 2009-06-01 21:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

When Planned Parenthood was founded, many people were disgusted at the thought of an agency dedicated to abortion. Worse, though, was the fact that PP was founded in order to control the population of undesirables, and Sanger, the founder of PP, was especially eager to label non-whites as undesirable.
Now, here's the dilemma. If we take the position that speech itself is relatively useless since anyone can do it, and that only actions are important since only those willing to act will effect true change, then how do we reconcile the good which PP has brought while taking into consideration the completely immoral basis upon which it was founded?
Sanchez is wrong in his supposition that speech itself is wrong. Speech leads to debate, and debate can bring out the truth. The ancient Greek sophists knew this, and thus we have the practice of oratory.
1. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 21:41 · Score: 0
  
  the fact that PP was founded in order to control the population of undesirables, and Sanger, the founder of PP, was especially eager to label non-whites as undesirable.
  Can't you come up with something that's actually true to push your political agenda?
2. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Omestes · 2009-06-01 22:24 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Actually Sanger was a eugenics follower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics_and_euthanasia
  Not all good ideas must come from good intentions. Planned Parenthood, in its modern conception might be a good idea, but it was originated from bad ideas.
  Sometimes it shocks me how ignorant most of my fellow Americans are of their negative history. This is especially true of eugenics. Hitler actually ADMIRED us, he wrote a letter to Woodrow Wilson claiming as much. It was a big, accepted deal before WWII put a sour flavor into our mouths.
  I wish we remembered, since Darwinism is still misused to tragic ends. Socioeconomic Darwinism is still flaunted among the extreme libertarian/Randian /. crowd, even if it is a dire fallacy which lead to some serious negative consequences. those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
3. Re:The web gives us all a voice by linzeal · 2009-06-01 23:45 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The Nazis used the well-kept journals of plantation owners in the Americas in formulating schedules for slave workers in rocket factories and elsewhere. By the end of the war the Germans were measuring how many calories in food and how many lives would be lost for each rocket made.
  
  --
  An Education is the Font of All Liberty
4. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 23:51 · Score: 0
  
  cool story bro
5. Re:The web gives us all a voice by destroyer661 · 2009-06-02 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  it shocks me how ignorant most of my fellow Americans are of their entire history. This is especially true of everything.
  Fixed that for you.
  
  --
  #define true false // Have fun debugging!
6. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Curunir_wolf · 2009-06-02 00:26 · Score: 1
  
  I wish we remembered, since Darwinism is still misused to tragic ends. Socioeconomic Darwinism is still flaunted among the extreme libertarian/Randian /. crowd, even if it is a dire fallacy which lead to some serious negative consequences. those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
  Except they don't call it "Socioeconomic Darwinism", they call it "Capitalism", and it actually has a pretty good history of improving living standards and prosperity. It works because when, for instance, big, inefficient, companies that - say, make cars - encounter changing conditions and are unable to adapt, they die out and then the smaller, more nimble companies take over resources and begin to prosper.
  No one would ever try to stop this natural process of letting the big, inefficient dinosaurs die off so that the smaller and more adaptable could fill the void. I mean, that would be crazy, right?
  Huh? Do what? Ha ha - oh, sure, they're gonna build Volgas or something I guess! Seriously? Wow.
  Okay... um... Nevermind.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
7. Re:The web gives us all a voice by divisionbyzero · 2009-06-02 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  I wish we remembered, since Darwinism is still misused to tragic ends. Socioeconomic Darwinism is still flaunted among the extreme libertarian/Randian /. crowd, even if it is a dire fallacy which lead to some serious negative consequences. those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
  I completely agree. Nothing really annoys me more than the glib espousal of Socieconomic Darwinism. The crowd you mentioned tend to be ignorant and very vocal. But I think it is also important not to "suppress" an idea because it leads to a negative outcome. Much of the last fifty years of ethics in continental philosophy has been spent deliberately constructing an ethics that will prevent another holocaust (or any type of justification of the previous one). Granted the holocaust was evil and any ethics that allows it is questionable, but many flavors of continental philosophy have gone so far in that direction that they have undermined any possibility of authority at all (even truth). Obviously this is counter-productive because without any authority everything is permissible and you are back where you started again.
8. Re:The web gives us all a voice by superdana · 2009-06-02 00:39 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Regardless of Sanger's intentions, the birth control pill wouldn't have had any funding if it weren't for her (and her rich friends). The advent of the pill coincided with a dramatic increase in college attendance by women, and without it, the concept of the modern working woman simply wouldn't exist.
9. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 00:46 · Score: 0
  
  Actually Sanger was a eugenics follower
  You say that like it's a bad thing.
10. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Attila+Dimedici · 2009-06-02 02:23 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Please explain the fallacy of Socioeconomic Darwinism without relying on religious terminology.
  Granted, one of the groups that were major proponents of applying Darwinism to socioeconomics (the Nazis) was largely wiped out. However, that does not prove the the idea wrong. It just proves that the Nazis socioeconomic program was anti-survival, not that the philosophical underpinnings were wrong.
  I believe that the Nazis were wrong because they were evil, but if there is no God, the word evil is meaningless.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
11. Re:The web gives us all a voice by garett_spencley · 2009-06-02 02:59 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  The GP made a really good point against himself.
  
  which lead to some serious negative consequences. those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
  Socialists love to bring up poor factory conditions and the deplorable conditions of early insane asylums etc. And then they accuse capitalists of not knowing or understanding history, when in fact it is they who don't have a good historical grasp.
  Before emancipation we had Feudalism where the Serfs would tend the land of the Lords in exchange for the means of subsistence. After the fall of Feudalism all the Serfs were free but they had nothing. They chose to work in those factories because for the first time they were allowed to keep what they earned. The result was a huge increase in the standards of living for the lowest classes and a massive population boom.
  Many insane asylums were little more than prisons, because the so-called "doctors" were making profits keeping those people there. They were deplorable but they were fueled by Britain's "Poor Law" which forced the homeless into horrible community housing and the mentally ill into those disgusting asylums. However, as a result of emancipation the medical sciences received a huge boost. While before the mentally ill were considered possessed by evil spirits and put through torturous exorcism rituals, now medical researchers were treating their illnesses as pathological and began to open hospitals and find ways to treat these patients humanely. When the public caught wind of the deplorable conditions of the asylums they began removing their loved ones and gradually the asylums went out of business.
  Unlike communism, capitalism is not a "Utopia". It is not perfect because humans are imperfect. No amount of "social engineering" or "central planning" will make a perfect society for that reason alone. Capitalism provides a gradual increase in the standards of living for everyone over time. But Utopians and central planners love to context-drop. They pick out specific temporary problems, and pretend that they're representative of the larger concept.
12. Re:The web gives us all a voice by jbengt · 2009-06-02 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Sanger's stand on eugenics, from the Wikipedia article you linked in a way that implies that she favored killing of undesirables:
  
  'Nor do we believe,' wrote Sanger in Pivot of Civilization, 'that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.'
  
  All the news from Germany is sad & horrible, and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right.
  
  "We maintain that a woman possessing an adequate knowledge of her reproductive functions is the best judge of the time and conditions under which her child should be brought into the world. We further maintain that it is her right, regardless of all other considerations, to determine whether she shall bear children or not, and how many children she shall bear if she chooses to become a mother... Only upon a free, self-determining motherhood can rest any unshakable structure of racial betterment"
13. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  Hitler actually ADMIRED us, he wrote a letter to Woodrow Wilson claiming as much.
  
  Those 20's sings outside of US golfclubs where to the tune: "No dogs, no negroes, no jews"
14. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Omestes · 2009-06-02 05:40 · Score: 1
  
  But I think it is also important not to "suppress" an idea because it leads to a negative outcome.
  Never stated that I'm for suppression of any idea. I do wish there was a way to automatically attach historical footnotes to uninformed comments though. Though sometimes I feel feisty, and would like to claim "you don't have a right to ignorance". That becomes a rather sticky position though.
  Off topic; I always had a warm spot for Continental Philosophy, though it is almost impossible to pick up here in the States. I got lucky in my undergrad program to have two migrant Continental drift in from Canada, other than that all I could find in practically available universities was boring analytical philosophy. If I wanted to major in philosophical logic, I would have probably picked math or CS.
  Luckily, I had a very good philosophy of science guy available, to maintain my interest.
  American philosophy departments really need to diversify a bit. I find the post-War Continental thoughts to be very important for the reasons that you state. The European intellectuals bent inward, and tried to discover the "how" and "why" of the atrocity that was WWII, which is more important to me than moving a bunch of lifeless (and ultimately meaningless) symbols around. ...but many flavors of continental philosophy have gone so far in that direction that they have undermined any possibility of authority at all (even truth).
  Which flavors, pre tell, to risk veering even further off topic.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
15. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Omestes · 2009-06-02 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  , they call it "Capitalism", and it actually has a pretty good history of improving living standards and prosperity.
  Pure capitalism is just like pure socialism, ineffectual, untried, and inhumane. It's naive dogma.
  Social Darwinism is when people say "the poor are poor by their own choices, and thus deserve all that that get", which is fallacious, and rather sociopathic.
  No one would ever try to stop this natural process of letting the big, inefficient dinosaurs die off so that the smaller and more adaptable could fill the void. I mean, that would be crazy, right?
  See, there is the fallacy. Economy is not a natural phenomena, its made made, no matter what market ideology you want to accept. Also, the poor, and unproductive are not a species, nor is it a genetic condition to be weeded out. If we kill everyone making below 20k a year, in a generation there will be a whole new crop of poor, disenfranchised people. If we do this over and over and over, the problem will never go away. This isn't Evolution.
  Poverty isn't genetic, and therefore isn't under the same rules as evolution. Instead of disparaging the disenfranchised, we should be asking why they are disenfranchised!
  Also the second an mere idea becomes hostile to humanity, it deserves nothing but contempt.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
16. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  Also the second an mere idea becomes hostile to humanity, it deserves nothing but contempt.
  Which is why centrally planned economies deserve nothing but contempt. Compare how humanity was treated in East Germany 1945-1985 to how humanity fared in West Germany during the same period.
  
  Economy is not a natural phenomena, its made made, no matter what market ideology you want to accept.
  Bullshit. Assuming you meant "man made", just because it is "of men" doesn't make it artificial. A free market is not an "ideology" - it's a system of peaceful exchange, and yes, it's naturally occurring. All you need is a way of keeping the peace. When you start imposing rules is when it starts becoming artificial. Here's a clue for you: every economy is capitalistic. The only difference is who controls the capital. A free market it can be "anyone". In other systems it's "just us" (or even "just me").
  You're saying that one person or one small group of people can make better decisions than a huge collection of people arriving at a consensus. There is no way that's correct.
17. Re:The web gives us all a voice by ChaosDiscord · 2009-06-02 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  After the fall of Feudalism all the Serfs were free but they had nothing. They chose to work in those factories because for the first time they were allowed to keep what they earned.
  I don't think a lot of serfs headed over to the nearest factory looking for work, mostly because factories wouldn't exist for generations to come.
  
  --
  Search 2010 Gen Con events
18. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Curunir_wolf · 2009-06-02 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Pure capitalism is just like pure socialism, ineffectual, untried, and inhumane. It's naive dogma.
  Nice strawman you've got, there.
  
  --
  "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
  --- Jerry Garcia
19. Re:The web gives us all a voice by dontPanik · 2009-06-02 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  I think that you live up to your name, because I don't think your analogy of planned parenthood is very relevant. Sanchez doesn't talk about an argument between actions and speech as you do.
  
  Also, weren't the sophists looked down upon by Socrates because the sophists would simply use ill-formed logic to make people believe in a point (here is the wikipedia article on Sophists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophists)? You say that debate brings out the truth, but a sophist's debate wouldn't if they just argued one way and didn't use logic.
  
  I don't think that truth can be gained from a debate. All you do in a debate is yell and chest-pound. Truth is obtained by thoughtful discussion between people who know what they are talking about.
  Sanchez makes the point that we have too much chest-pounding and Column A Opinion vs. Column B Opinion: Choose one! and I agree with him.
  
  --
  "Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
20. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Omestes · 2009-06-02 07:33 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why centrally planned economies deserve nothing but contempt. Compare how humanity was treated in East Germany 1945-1985 to how humanity fared in West Germany during the same period.
  Not disagreeing with you there.
  All you need is a way of keeping the peace. When you start imposing rules is when it starts becoming artificial.
  Where is the line between keeping the peace, and imposing so many rules as to make it "artificial"? Perhaps that's the real topic for debate in areas like this.
  Here's a clue for you: every economy is capitalistic
  Agreed, and point taken.
  You're saying that one person or one small group of people can make better decisions than a huge collection of people arriving at a consensus. There is no way that's correct
  I didn't say that, nor do I believe that. I do think, though, that capitalism, and economies, should always be forced to be humane, and within the limits of the social values of the culture they're embedded in. Basically, we should regulate them so they don't become hostile to people, not that we should completely control it. It should be free, but constrained, I suppose.
  This is what I'm getting at, there has never been a completely free market, there always has been organized social pressure to keep it in check.
  As stated, mere money and individual greed should be used contra to humanity, to should be used in a way that benefits it.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
21. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Omestes · 2009-06-02 07:36 · Score: 1
  
  Nice strawman you've got, there.
  Thank you.
  I was addressing your own straw man. I wasn't disparaging "capitalism" as a whole, just a narrow fringe view that is prominently represented on Slashdot. Capitalism is fine and dandy, I have nothing against it. When it trumps human values, and becomes an poor ad hoc justification for blind greed, then its absurd.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
22. Re:The web gives us all a voice by EvolutionsPeak · 2009-06-02 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  My Kingdom for some mod points!
23. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  Socioeconomic Darwinism is still flaunted among the extreme libertarian/Randian /. crowd...
  Rand on Skinner's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity":
  
  The book itself is like Boris Karloff's embodiment of Frankenstein's monster: a corpse patched with nuts, bolts and screws from the junkyard of philosophy (Pragmatism, Social Darwinism, Positivism, Linguistic Analysis, with some nails by Hume, threads by Russell, and glue by the New York Post).
24. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 10:29 · Score: 0
  
  "I wish we remembered, since Darwinism is still misused to tragic ends. Socioeconomic Darwinism is still flaunted among the extreme libertarian/Randian /. crowd, even if it is a dire fallacy which lead to some serious negative consequences. those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it."
  Ahh, yes, the dire fallacy that freedom is good leads to those damn negative consequences like productive, good people getting ahead in life while ridiculous, useless chaff die off, ultimately leading the human race up to the stars and beyond.
  Terrible thing... think of all those dead-weight, useless people that would have to go get jobs!
25. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Omestes · 2009-06-02 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  Wait... wait...
  When did I say "freedom is bad"? Freedom is awesome as long as it doesn't restrict other people's ability to be free. Since other people being free is as awesome as you or me being free.
  Go freedom! Woohoo!
  Terrible thing... think of all those dead-weight, useless people that would have to go get jobs!
  Nah, with an attitude like that I really would have nothing against taxing the hell out of you and giving it to them. They seem to have more worth as people than you, monetary worth be damned.
  Yes. Mr. Troll. I was mean.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
26. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 14:29 · Score: 0
  
  If there is no God, there is no objective meaning of evil. Humans will create good and evil till the very end. /semantics
27. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Alex+Belits · 2009-06-02 20:29 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why centrally planned economies deserve nothing but contempt. Compare how humanity was treated in East Germany 1945-1985 to how humanity fared in West Germany during the same period.
  And this is exactly a type of "one-way hash" argument that the article described.
  First and foremost, in its core it's "status quo is best" argument that decries alternatives to the only thing target audience had experienced.
  It points to one of the "best" implementation of Capitalism with "worst" implementation of socialism that happened to be geographically close. Those implementations also happen to be most praised/vilified by 50 years of propaganda, both blown out of proportions.
  It implies that readiness of many Eastern Germany inhabitants to "escape" to the West was based on informed choice and not massive amounts of such propaganda.
  It ignores the fact that after re-unification of Germany, conditions in its Eastern part of it ended up getting worse than they were under Communists.
  And, of course, it ignores the fact that USSR, another Socialist country, contrary to Americans' beliefs supported higher average standard of living than their own country for most of its the post-WWII history. This is even more ironic considering that its superior public education system allowed population to realize that not all problems can be solved by voting of laymen or competitive marketing, or at least did so until it was overwhelmed by propaganda between late 80's and 90's -- something that proud Americans now (correctly) describe as "they hate our freedom".
  However arguing against that would not only require debunking 50 years of myth-building but a discussion of things, most of American population is unable to process.
  Now, before you respond with the usual American ideological crap, please don't forget that you will be talking to a person who actually lived in both USSR and US, and therefore has first-hand experience of everything you think, you know about your supposed enemies.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
28. Re:The web gives us all a voice by divisionbyzero · 2009-06-04 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  I can't do full justice here to my assertion that "many flavors of continental philosophy have gone so far in that direction that they have undermined any possibility of authority at all (even truth)." Well beginning with Marx truth is subverted by the means of production (i.e. what appears to be true does so because of the means of production); Nietzsche suggests truths are the result of the imposition of the conditions that allow the strong to thrive on the weak; Heidegger provides what he considers a more fundamental interpretation of truth but in his later work it seems that what can be seen as true is determined by the particular epoch of impersonal being; Derrida mashes all of this up with a dash of Kierkegaard and creates deconstrucion(ism) which is probably the most evasive resistance to any authority (except perhaps some sort of idiosyncratic authenticity unintelligible to others). From there spring a lot of the resistance philosophies like post-colonialism, feminism, etc. We can't forget Foucault and his analysis of the subtleties of power's construction of truth throughout history. Finally Levinas' elevation of the Other above truth where the Other is the divine or something of the divine. Obviously this is very schematic and probably very controversial. I don't think you'd find another person who would agree with all of those characterizations but it's not a bad starting point.
29. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Omestes · 2009-06-04 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  I'd say in a broad (very very broad) sense your characterizations are correct. Though your quick portrait of Derrida is... overly generous, in my opinion.
  I don't know where Heidegger and Foucault, come in. I'm a general fan of them both, but they both strike me as somewhat fatalistic (there is no escape really, only acceptance). And you, of course, run into the problem of asserting that there is no Truth, when you obviously want this to be, and the reasoning behind it, to be accepted as such. This is especially a bugbear in Foucault, he too must represent some power, and thus his works are to some extent not his own.
  Yes, I'm being simple.
  I haven't touched much on Levinas, outside of his impact on modern social sciences. Perhaps I should go back and read some of his work (it is sitting around gathering dust on my shelves).
  Truth, it seems, is indeed a slippery thing. Drawing the line between "hard" truths, like math, physics, and logical deductions, and "softer" truths, like those dealt with by the Continentals.
  Have you much experience with Richard Rorty?
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
30. Re:The web gives us all a voice by divisionbyzero · 2009-06-08 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  No. I haven't read much Rorty. He's seemed a bit sensationalist and not attuned to the subtleties of more technical discussions. But to be fair, I haven't given him a chance and my impression is second hand at best. Do you have any recommendations?
31. Re:The web gives us all a voice by Omestes · 2009-06-08 07:18 · Score: 1
  
  Try Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, its one of his earlier works, and is before he got so political. It is an attempt to generally rectify Contintental with Analytical philosophy (basically trying to meld Heidegger to James' Pragmatism, Wittgenstein and some modern epistemology...).
  Be warned, he is one of those modern philosophers who seems to enjoy running around proclaiming "philosophy is dead", which is a pet peeve of mine.
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Time for philosophers to take a stand. by lxs · 2009-06-01 21:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Let's have an international philosophers strike to protest. Let's bring this planet to it's knees!
1. Re:Time for philosophers to take a stand. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 22:28 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Just remember not to take them out to dinner or you'll just end up deadlocked.
2. Re:Time for philosophers to take a stand. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 22:40 · Score: 0
  
  "Might I make an observation at this point?" inquired Deep Thought.
  "We'll go on strike!" yelled Vroomfondel.
  "That's right!" agreed Majikthise. "You'll have a national Philosopher's strike on your hands!"
  The hum level in the room suddenly increased as several ancillary bass driver units, mounted in sedately carved and varnished cabinet speakers around the room, cut in to give Deep Thought's voice a little more power.
  "All I wanted to say," bellowed the computer, "is that my circuits are now irrevocably committed to calculating the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything -" he paused and satisfied himself that he now had everyone's attention, before continuing more quietly, "but the programme will take me a little while to run."
  Fook glanced impatiently at his watch.
  "How long?" he said.
  "Seven and a half million years," said Deep Thought.
  Lunkwill and Fook blinked at each other.
  "Seven and a half million years ...!" they cried in chorus.
  "Yes," declaimed Deep Thought, "I said I'd have to think about it, didn't I? And it occurs to me that running a programme like this is bound to create an enormous amount of popular publicity for the whole area of philosophy in general. Everyone's going to have their own theories about what answer I'm eventually to come up with, and who better to capitalize on that media market than you yourself? So long as you can keep disagreeing with each other violently enough and slagging each other off in the popular press, you can keep yourself on the gravy train for life. How does that sound?"
  The two philosophers gaped at him.
  "Bloody hell," said Majikthise, "now that is what I call thinking. Here Vroomfondel, why do we never think of things like that?" "Dunno," said Vroomfondel in an awed whisper, "think our brains must be too highly trained Majikthise."
3. Re:Time for philosophers to take a stand. by andy.ruddock · 2009-06-01 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  And just who will that inconvenience?
  
  --
  God: An invisible friend for grown-ups.
4. Re:Time for philosophers to take a stand. by Chemisor · 2009-06-01 23:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "Isn't it odd? When a politician or a movie star retires, we read front page stories about it. But when a philosopher retires, people do not even notice it."
  "They do, eventually."
5. Re:Time for philosophers to take a stand. by diablovision · 2009-06-01 23:18 · Score: 1
  
  This time, the grammarian's are with you's.
  
  --
  120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
6. Re:Time for philosophers to take a stand. by maxume · 2009-06-01 23:30 · Score: 1
  
  You got the joke!
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
7. Re:Time for philosophers to take a stand. by Socguy · 2009-06-02 00:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, you might bring the planet to its knees, but who would know it?
8. Re:Time for philosophers to take a stand. by paazin · 2009-06-02 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  Let's have an international philosophers strike to protest. Let's bring this planet to it's knees!
  Oh no! How am I going to get my take out delivered now? :(
9. Re:Time for philosophers to take a stand. by Hurricane78 · 2009-06-03 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Well, now that you already are on your knees... I'd have some...uum...protein...for ya! :P
  
  --
  Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Philosophy of Mind by etymxris · 2009-06-01 21:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Cutting through the needless walls of text by both Sanchez and Brady, let me summarize the current state of the philosophy of mind:
1) We are little closer to reading off "beliefs" from human brains than we were 30 years ago.
2) Media often overgeneralizes the results of neuroscientists.
3) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.
4) Religious people have a problem with (3).
5) Philosophers base their careers trying to argue for or against (3).
6) More specifically, philosophers think too highly of functionalism.
I say this as a philosopher and not a scientist, but having studied these topics for a while, I have more respect for the scientists than the philosophers.
1. Re:Philosophy of Mind by digitig · 2009-06-01 23:04 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Cutting through the needless walls of text by both Sanchez and Brady, let me summarize the current state of the philosophy of mind:
  1) We are little closer to reading off "beliefs" from human brains than we were 30 years ago.
  In what sense is that "philosophy of mind"?
  
  2) Media often overgeneralizes the results of neuroscientists.
  You could have stopped at "2) Media often overgeneralizes"
  
  3) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.
  True. Again, what's that got to do with the philosophy of mind?
  
  4) Religious people have a problem with (3).
  Which religious people? I don't know of any who have a problem with that. I know of some who have a problem with the identification of "mind" with "brain", but then I know lots of non-religious people who have the same problem so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
  
  5) Philosophers base their careers trying to argue for or against (3).
  Care to name any who do that? I don't know of any; (3) just isn't seen as a philosophical question.
  
  6) More specifically, philosophers think too highly of functionalism
  
  Again, any philosophers in particular? Did you say something earlier about overgeneralisation?
  
  I say this as a philosopher and not a scientist, but having studied these topics for a while, I have more respect for the scientists than the philosophers.
  Since you've pretty much only cited science, and called it philosophy (except in (6) where you've overgeneralised) I think it's clear that you have more respect for the "scientists" than for the "philosophers", but what do you think "science" and "philosophy" actually are, and what do you think is their relationship? You seem to see them as rivals, which is odd...
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
2. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Chemisor · 2009-06-01 23:04 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  > 3) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.
  As a programmer, I must point out the obvious analogy: "the computer is still nothing more than a collection of transistors", and reply that if that were so, nobody would have to argue whether it is better to run Linux or Vista. Philosophers would do much better once they explicitly state that there is a difference between hardware and software, that they are, respectively, the brain and the mind, and that anyone trying to conflate the two is either a con man or an idiot.
3. Re:Philosophy of Mind by etymxris · 2009-06-01 23:27 · Score: 1
  
  I meant that religious people have a problem identifying mind and brain, and I meant to say that those two are pretty much identical.
  The Churchlands espouse eliminativism, which is basically arguing for this identification. Most other philosophers in the subject argue against it. Most scientists studying the brain try to stay away from philosophy.
  Wikipedia has done a fine job of listing authors seminal in functionalism. Functionalism is central to contemporary philosophy of mind among analytic philosophers. Doing a complete survey of academic philosophers to somehow prove this would be difficult. But I'd be interested in hearing what topics are more central to modern analytic philosophy of mind. I'm not so clear on continental philosophers, but both the article and the one it's replying to are of the analytic tradition.
  Most anthologies on philosophy of mind, such as this one, are certainly concerned about the relationship between mind and brain. Looking at the table of contents of the previous anthology provides a glimpse at people who make their careers discussing such things. Of course, these are largely seminal authors, the people working in the field is much larger.
4. Re:Philosophy of Mind by etymxris · 2009-06-01 23:32 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I realize very well what you're saying. That line of reasoning has been around, and readily acknowledged by philosophers, for over 50 years. The whole idea behind functionalism is categorizing the brain as "hardware" and mind as "software". I'm saying too much has been made of this distinction, however. Does this mean that computers will never "think" like humans do? No, not really. But the brain as forged by millions of years of evolution is very different than computational algorithms engineered in 100 or so years by humans. We should learn much more neuroscience before we starting where, if anywhere, can we find the dividing line between the brain's "hardware" and "software".
5. Re:Philosophy of Mind by linzeal · 2009-06-01 23:41 · Score: 1
  
  Physicalism in both the limited sense of identity theory and in a broader sense of the supervenience; and before that the reductionism, of Physicalism in regards to the philosophy of mind is an often broached topic nowadays.
  
  --
  An Education is the Font of All Liberty
6. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 23:41 · Score: 1
  Which religious people? I don't know of any who have a problem with that.
  Well, there are two possibilities.
  
  You don't know any religious people.
  Religious people don't want to sound like complete bumpkins by not acknowledging a biological reality. ("Oh, but then there's the soul," they go on.)
7. Re:Philosophy of Mind by SpeedyDX · 2009-06-01 23:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You may want to be more specific. I don't think anyone really argues against (3). The issue isn't whether the brain is a mass of cells, but whether (3a) the mind is anything over and above that mass of cells. Both the physicalist and the dualist can accept (3), but they would vehemently disagree over (3a).
  I'm not sure why you think philosophers think too highly of functionalism. It is a philosophy that works for many areas of interest. I personally don't think that functionalism fully captures all the relevant issues in the philosophy of mind, but there is still a coherent and compelling argument from that side. Functionalism can help the physicalist account for subjective experiences like qualia.
  I also don't think that it's fair to say that only religious people have a problem with (3) (or more precisely, my revised version, (3a); also, I'm aware you didn't say "only", but given the context, one would likely imply as such). I'm non-religious, but I tend to lean more towards the dualist position. Furthermore, the great empiricist David Hume may have argued against a substantivalist immaterial mind, but given his other philosophical works, I think he would not necessarily disagree with a property dualist position.
  I guess what I'm trying to say is that your post shows exactly the problem with which the article is concerned. Incomplete oversimplifications of the matters at hand will tend not to be very substantially rich. I'm sure you have arguments to support your positions, and I have little doubt that they will probably be good arguments, but because you have oversimplified your position, the arguments become weak and insubstantial. In fact, in previewing my own post, my own briefly extended arguments are very philosophically weak as well. The important questions are as follows: Is it possible to reduce philosophically (and perhaps scientifically) complex arguments to newspaper- or blog-sized articles without undermining the sophistication and nuances of such arguments? Is it possible to do so keeping in mind that the readers or consumers of such articles have little to no background information about the matters at hand?
  I'm currently working on a side project about the ethics of information dissemination and this is exactly the type of question in which I am interested. Is it ethical for a journalist or blogger or what-have-you (hereafter collectively known as "journalist" for ease) to provide incomplete information? This question is somewhat less controversial, because a journalist's job is, basically, to summarize and disseminate. But is it ethical for a journalist to disseminate incomplete information in a way that disproportionately favours one set of arguments over others? For example, if a study shows that a certain compound that is richly found in food xyz is good for you but other studies show that food xyz taken as a whole is bad for you, is it ethical for the journalist just to mention the first study without mentioning the latter studies? We hear about such stories all the time in headlines such as "Red wine may increase your life span!" or "One aspirin a day may reduce risks of heart attacks!"
  To tie it back to your post, was it ethical for you to simplify the issues so much so that it seems to disproportionately favour your conclusion? The article's worries are not unfounded, and your short and succinct post shows exactly why that is so.
8. Re:Philosophy of Mind by digitig · 2009-06-02 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  I meant that religious people have a problem identifying mind and brain, and I meant to say that those two are pretty much identical.
  Ok, that's very different to what you wrote. I still don't think that's a specifically religious issue, though -- most notions of free-will seem to depend on some separation of mind and brain, and although I'm blowed if I can see how it could work, free-will is hardly an exclusively religious issue.
  
  Functionalism is central to contemporary philosophy of mind among analytic philosophers.
  But surely analytic philosophy has been in retreat since Popper?
  
  Most anthologies on philosophy of mind, such as this one, are certainly concerned about the relationship between mind and brain.
  Quite. Which is why I was surprised you didn't mention it, but only addressed "brain"!
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
9. Re:Philosophy of Mind by etymxris · 2009-06-02 00:13 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Having done philosophy for a while, I just got tired of countless intuition pumps that do little more than restate predetermined conclusions. I think it's better to cut away the needless scaffolding of intricate arguments and just state the conclusions we're trying to arrive at. This, at least, is academically honest.
  I would also prefer that "simpler" positions are the default. The mind is just the brain. If it is not, we'd need a good reason to think this. I know it's hardly an argument, but I've yet to hear anything to convince me otherwise. The more fantastic the arguments I hear, the more weary I get. Mental zombies and Chinese rooms are just some of the most egregious. The entire enterprise of philosophy of mind has yet to shed it's Cartesian dualistic origins. When it gets past that I might start paying attention again.
10. Re:Philosophy of Mind by digitig · 2009-06-02 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  You don't know any religious people.
  I know lots.
  
  Religious people don't want to sound like complete bumpkins by not acknowledging a biological reality.
  You don't think it possible that they actually accept the biological reality?
  
  "Oh, but then there's the soul," they go on.
  Which is in no way contrary to the belief that the brain is a collection of cells. Try to get hold of a copy of Daniel Dennett's lecture "Where Am I" for an materialist atheist view of how the existence of a soul can be consistent with the brain as a collection of cells.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
11. Re:Philosophy of Mind by etymxris · 2009-06-02 00:19 · Score: 1
  
  Functionalism is central to contemporary philosophy of mind among analytic philosophers.
  But surely analytic philosophy has been in retreat since Popper?
  Oh no. They are still around. Most people just stopped paying attention to them. At this point I can't say I blame them. This may have started around the time of Popper but I don't think he takes any particular credit for this.
12. Re:Philosophy of Mind by JasterBobaMereel · 2009-06-02 00:25 · Score: 1
  
  The two real problems are
  Journalists/Bloggers *generally* have no training in the sciences (or often any field outside "Media") and so are not the ideal people to explain any ideas in a specialist field, since they do not understand them ...
  Specialists in the field are often very bad at explaining their work since they are not trained in communicating ideas to lay people
  The people who have been best at explaining complex ideas have been people who work in the field but also have media training (Carl Sagan springs to mind as an example), these are rare, and often Journalists who do not know enough to properly explain suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect and oversimplify
  
  --
  Puteulanus fenestra mortis
13. Re:Philosophy of Mind by digitig · 2009-06-02 00:39 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. But a rarely mentioned problem of physicalism is that it's hard to see how reason (as opposed to qualia in general) emerges from physicalism, and it seems to me to be impossible to justify why what we perceive as reason can actually be trusted. So under physicalism, if we assume that reason can be trusted we come to the contradiction that it cannot. If we assume that reason cannot be trusted then we cannot come to any conclusion (because to do so we would have to trust reason). I don't have a viable alternative to physicalism, and it's this argument that has led me to believe (not "know", obviously!) that nothing can be known.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
14. Re:Philosophy of Mind by digitig · 2009-06-02 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  I did say "in retreat", not "annihilated" :-) Popper did rather lay into them, but I doubt he was alone.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
15. Re:Philosophy of Mind by digitig · 2009-06-02 00:43 · Score: 1
  
  The two real problems are
  Journalists/Bloggers *generally* have no training in the sciences (or often any field outside "Media") and so are not the ideal people to explain any ideas in a specialist field, since they do not understand them
  
  I have training in science, engineering, linguistics and philosophy -- I just don't have time to blog!
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
16. Re:Philosophy of Mind by CraftyJack · 2009-06-02 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  there is a difference between hardware and software...anyone trying to conflate the two is either a con man or an idiot.
  So then what do you make of: "My favorite programming language is solder."?
17. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Chemisor · 2009-06-02 01:08 · Score: 2
  
  > But the brain as forged by millions of years of evolution is very different than computational algorithms engineered in 100 or so years by humans.
  > We should learn much more neuroscience before we starting where, if anywhere, can we find the dividing line between the brain's "hardware" and "software".
  Just because you don't know absolutely everything about the brain, doesn't mean you can not distinguish its hardware from its software. The line most definitely exists, as should be obvious to anyone from the fact that we think faster than the brain can physically change. "Where" you draw it is also pretty obvious if you have ever written a program. The only unknown, quite separate from the "where", is finding out how the hardware and the software work. Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence is a very good book on the subject.
18. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Chemisor · 2009-06-02 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  > So then what do you make of: "My favorite programming language is solder."?
  A bad analogy. A complex mechanical system, like, say, a car engine, requires a lot of "programming" to work together correctly. Modern engines have computers with software controlling everything, but older engines only have mechanical components. The feedback loops in their operation are occasionally described in software terms, but because there is no conceptual entity "deciding" to do things, we don't call it that. Flow of control in a program has internal state and internal logic that is not embodied in any physical entity, and that is what makes it software.
19. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  I realize very well what you're saying. That line of reasoning has been around, and readily acknowledged by philosophers, for over 50 years.
  WELL over 50 years: at least since Descartes, and arguably since Plato.
20. Re:Philosophy of Mind by etymxris · 2009-06-02 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Descartes said the brain interacted with the mind, but he never said anything like "the mind is software that runs on the hardware of the brain." As far as I know, no one had that idea until modern computers were invented.
21. Re:Philosophy of Mind by etymxris · 2009-06-02 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  Just because you don't know absolutely everything about the brain, doesn't mean you can not distinguish its hardware from its software.
  No, it wouldn't mean that. I didn't make that inference. However, it is nonetheless true that we have little idea what the "software" of the brain comprises. If we did have such an idea, we'd certainly have done a better job by now of codifying it into computers.
  
  The line most definitely exists, as should be obvious to anyone from the fact that we think faster than the brain can physically change.
  I'm not sure what you mean mean by "thinking faster than the brain can change." Do you have a source that clarifies this point? I was under the impression that our thinking is actually pretty slow, thus our difficulty in swatting flies, among other tasks.
  
  "Where" you draw it is also pretty obvious if you have ever written a program. The only unknown, quite separate from the "where", is finding out how the hardware and the software work.
  I program for a living, have degrees in CS and philosophy, yet I don't see this as obvious at all. I also don't see the "where" and "how" questions being all that separate. If we could successfully identify the "software", then we could codify it into an algorithm, even if we didn't know exactly how it did its job. There are certain neural circuits that we have isolated in crabs and such that we know work, but not exactly how. I'd hardly call them "software" though.
  
  Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence is a very good book on the subject.
  I'm going to have to apologize as I'm not going to invest enough time in a random internet discussion to read a book. But any points of his you want to bring up here I'll listen to.
22. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Chemisor · 2009-06-02 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  > I think it's better to cut away the needless scaffolding of intricate arguments and just state
  > the conclusions we're trying to arrive at. This, at least, is academically honest.
  If you do that, you have a religion. Science requires that your conclusions be supported by evidence.
  > I would also prefer that "simpler" positions are the default.
  "Simpler" for whom? What a mathematician considers a simple idea might be utterly incomprehensible to a layman. Take the idea of virtual entities, which is the entire basis of the whole mind-brain controversy. A simple example of it might be this web page. It is currently stored in the cache of your browser as a file on your hard drive. While there are indeed physical bits on the hard drive that map directly onto the letters you are seeing on your screen, there is no physical entity or relationship corresponding to the file containing them, or to the directory containing the file, or the cache structure your browser maintains. All these entities are virtual, existent only in the simulated environment run on your computer, and there is no way to "see" them by examining the physical parts of the computer to any conceivable depth. Contrast that with a mechanical feedback system, like a flyball governor; the feedback is a concept, just like a file is, but it has a direct physical interpretation, evident from examination of the physical components of the system; any alien dropping onto our planet and seeing it will come up with the feedback concept just by looking. To find a file you need to extract the information stored on a physical device and then interpret that information in a specific way. If you don't know that way; for example, if you don't know how an ext2 filesystem is structured, or how the hard drive is partitioned into sectors, then you will not be able to come up with any files or even an idea of a file if you didn't have one before. Furthermore, virtual objects can depend on other virtual objects; the hard drive could be encrypted, adding yet another layer, and preventing anyone from discovering the virtual structures hidden in it.
  Once you understand the concept of virtual objects and concepts and the distinction between them and physical objects and relations, it is very simple. Not only that, but it is something I deal with every day on my computer, and is a tangible and obvious part of my life experience. But most people find it completely incomprehensible, since it is not a part of their nontechnical everyday experience.
  > The mind is just the brain. If it is not, we'd need a good reason to think this.
  That reason is that ideas you are thinking right now do not have physical existence in your head. They are virtual entities, like the file on your hard drive. The distinction between the brain and the mind is necessary for the same reason we make a distinction between the computer and the web browser running on it: the former is physical, the latter virtual.
  > The more fantastic the arguments I hear, the more weary I get.
  > Mental zombies and Chinese rooms are just some of the most egregious.
  The Chinese room argument is a very good example of the misunderstanding of the physical/virtual distinction. The man in the room follows instructions like a computer, and is the physical part of the system. He can not translate Chinese any more than a computer running babelfish, but the virtual entity he creates by his operation can. The computer is not the program, the brain is not the mind, and the Chinese room is not the set of rules being executed in it. The translator "program" has no physical existence, and the reason people still bring up the argument is that they obviously can not find it. But that is so because they are looking in the wrong place; looking only at the physical components and ignoring the virtual objects created by their operation.
23. Re:Philosophy of Mind by etymxris · 2009-06-02 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  No epistemic criteria will escape that dilemma. It either justifies itself circularly or falls into an infinite regress of justifications. This problem has nothing to do with physicalism--it applies to epistemology in general. And it's not specific to reason either. Substitute your favorite epistemic criterion for "reason", and it will hold just as well.
  At a certain point you have to take things as given, as ill founded as they may nonetheless be. You can try to shake out the kinks by going round and considering each belief in light of the others. You may not achieve Truth, but you will at least approach consistency. That's much more than most people manage.
24. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Beezlebub33 · 2009-06-02 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Try Where Am I. I'm not sure that this is the soul that religious people mean though.
  
  --
  The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
25. Re:Philosophy of Mind by slim · 2009-06-02 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  Just because you don't know absolutely everything about the brain, doesn't mean you can not distinguish its hardware from its software.
  That sounds tremendously difficult to me.
  I have a friend with an EE background, who is fond of reminding us "anything that can be done in software, can be done in hardware". Given a hardware implementation and a software implementation of the same algorithm, an end user wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
26. Re:Philosophy of Mind by digitig · 2009-06-02 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure it is, either. Nor am I sure it isn't. In my experience, the religious concept of "soul" isn't well enough defined to answer that question. Not consistently, anyway -- it's always a bit shaky lumping "religious people" all together, as there is quite a bit of diversity.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
27. Re:Philosophy of Mind by slim · 2009-06-02 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Flow of control in a program has internal state and internal logic that is not embodied in any physical entity, and that is what makes it software.
  No. It's a mathematically proven fact that any computer program that runs on a Von Neumann machine can be implemented in hardware. That could be custom silicon chips, wires and valves, or cogs and axles. Doesn't matter.
  State is always represented physically somehow - be it a charge in a transistor, the position of a cog, the firing of a neuron. Nothing is ever *entirely* abstract.
28. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Chemisor · 2009-06-02 03:52 · Score: 1
  
  > I have a friend with an EE background, who is fond of reminding us "anything that can be done in software, can be done in hardware".
  That's not what I mean. When someone says "it can be done in hardware", he just means he will not need a CPU to do it. There are many electronic constructs out there that run "programs", but aren't processors because they are designed to run just one program. That one program can not be changed without changing the hardware, which is why it is not called software. There is, however, still a distinction between the program and the hardware that runs it. One is physical, the other virtual.
  > Given a hardware implementation and a software implementation of the same algorithm, an end user wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
  I am not talking about what is, not what it looks like. Just because you can't tell Diet Coke from regular, doesn't mean the they have the same composition.
29. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Chemisor · 2009-06-02 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  > I also don't see the "where" and "how" questions being all that separate. If we could successfully identify the "software", then we could codify it into an algorithm
  You would not be able to implement Google's page ranking algorithm unless you know how it works, but that will not stop you from identifying the difference between Google's servers and the search engine that runs on them.
  > I'm not sure what you mean mean by "thinking faster than the brain can change."
  Ok, that was not well stated. I am trying to describe the difference between physical and virtual entities; I came up with a somewhat better explanation in another thread.
  > I'm going to have to apologize as I'm not going to invest enough time in a random internet
  > discussion to read a book. But any points of his you want to bring up here I'll listen to.
  If you are interested in how the brain works, you really should read the book. But the basic point made there is the same is mine: brain is the hardware, mind is the software. The book explains how the neocortex is almost entirely homogeneous (yes, there are references), and hypothesizes that all regions of the brain are actually generic hardware running different software. It has more on the physical brain structure, and how this software actually works.
30. Re:Philosophy of Mind by slim · 2009-06-02 04:25 · Score: 1
  
  the program and the hardware that runs it. One is physical, the other virtual
  So if I translate a program into a circuit board (I believe there are compilers which output circuit diagrams) you can point at a wire or transistor and say 'that one's virtual'?
  With the brain it's more complicated. Whereas a computer is an unchanging piece of hardware that's programmed by applying electrical charge, the brain is hardware that self-modifies (by building new neurons and new connections between them).
  > Given a hardware implementation and a software implementation of the same algorithm, an end user wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
  I am not talking about what is, not what it looks like. Just because you can't tell Diet Coke from regular, doesn't mean the they have the same composition.
  Not that it's relevant, but Diet Coke tastes quite different from regular Coke.
  But getting back on subject, "what it looks like" is very important. It's most of what we have to go on when it comes to consciousness. You've suggested that it's quite obvious where the "hardware" of the brain ends and the "software" begins -- but it doesn't seem at all obvious to me, for the exact reason that wherever the boundary lay, the observable effect would be the same.
31. Re:Philosophy of Mind by slim · 2009-06-02 04:27 · Score: 1
  
  Apologies for terrible quoting. Let me try again.
  
  the program and the hardware that runs it. One is physical, the other virtual
  So if I translate a program into a circuit board (I believe there are compilers which output circuit diagrams) you can point at a wire or transistor and say 'that one's virtual'?
  With the brain it's more complicated. Whereas a computer is an unchanging piece of hardware that's programmed by applying electrical charge, the brain is hardware that self-modifies (by building new neurons and new connections between them).
  
  I am not talking about what is, not what it looks like. Just because you can't tell Diet Coke from regular, doesn't mean the they have the same composition.
  Not that it's relevant, but Diet Coke tastes quite different from regular Coke.
  But getting back on subject, "what it looks like" is very important. It's most of what we have to go on when it comes to consciousness. You've suggested that it's quite obvious where the "hardware" of the brain ends and the "software" begins -- but it doesn't seem at all obvious to me, for the exact reason that wherever the boundary lay, the observable effect would be the same.
32. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  You know, its funny, because I basically agree with what you are saying, but I don't think you "get" the Chinese Room. You defer the problem to the virtual entity that is created, but *there is no necessity for such a virtual entity*. One way to view the argument is Occam's Razor: as there is no need for the virtual entity to exist and no reason for it to, it does not. Or, the way I would put it, "it is useless to say there is one because it cannot be tested for. The lack of testing is the result of it having no effect and no impact."
  Even more specifically, the Chinese Room is a targeted argument against a manufactured target, "strong AI". So unless you espouse the doctrine Searle ascribes to strong AI then it can simply be ignored as irrelevant.
  Note that the argument I present does not work in reflection to disprove virtual entities. For example, if you have a case where there *is* a purpose to ascribing the existence of a virtual entity then the "useless" component cause the argument to fail.
  The mind is clearly greater than the sum of its parts -- that is the physical components that are traditionally associated with it. Nailing that down gets quite tricky, but just being difficult in no way disproves it.
  I rather like your example of the file system vs the flywheel. It makes the concept clear without resorting to uselessly elaborate language. A very good job of explaining a concept.
  thoromyr
33. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Belial6 · 2009-06-02 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that new pathways can be created is not a difference between computers and the brain. A simple example of a computer that can use software to make new pathways would be to hook two FPGAs up to each other, and have a program that instructs one FPGA to make changes to the second, and then the second reprograms the first. This could go on indefinitely. We certainly have computers that can make new hardware pathways to themselves.
  
  Continue on with the rest of the argument...
34. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind#Dualist_solutions_to_the_mind-body_problem
35. Re:Philosophy of Mind by digitig · 2009-06-02 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  Dualism doesn't seem to me to gain anything -- it just pushes the problems into whatever reality the "ghost in the machine" inhabits. It doesn't solve any of the problems, it just moves them and makes them harder to analyse.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
36. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Chemisor · 2009-06-02 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  > State is always represented physically somehow - be it a charge in a transistor, the position
  > of a cog, the firing of a neuron. Nothing is ever *entirely* abstract.
  Physical representation is not the same as physical identity. A flipflop can be in two physical states, each with its own recognizable physical identity. That is, you can look at it and unambiguously distinguish the two states as two different voltage configurations. A number stored on a collection of flipflops is physically represented by their states, but its identity is not physically encoded anywhere. There is no physical connection that makes a flipflop state map to the logical value of zero or one; these are arbitrary, assigned by us for the purpose of computation. Likewise, there is no physical reason to group a collection of bits into a number, no physical reason to interpret them as a 1, 2, or 4 byte integer, no physical reason to interpret them in LSB or MSB format. The number does not physically exist: it is the way we choose to interpret a particular arrangement of physical states, and thus exists only in the mind of the interpreter, be it you or the computer. Contrast this with a physical relationship, say, "inside". If a ball is inside a box, the relationship is a physical fact, unchanged by what you want to think of it. While you can suddenly decide to read all numbers in LSB format and have them all come out as valid numbers, you can not decide that "inside" suddenly means "outside" and make the ball magically leave the box.
37. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Chemisor · 2009-06-02 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  > So if I translate a program into a circuit board (I believe there are compilers which
  > output circuit diagrams) you can point at a wire or transistor and say 'that one's virtual'?
  Of course not. A transistor or a wire is never going to be virtual, by definition. A virtual entity, such as a number, exists in the information generated by a physical machine. The machine is real, the number is virtual. The number is represented by a collection of physical states, but its identity is whatever we want it to be. You must define how a physical representation maps to virtual concepts, just as you must define how words in a language map to physical objects around you. In contrast, physical relationships, like the law of gravity, already exist in reality, and do not require any arbitrary creative activity on your part. (It is important to emphasize that the concepts describing the law of gravity in your mind are virtual, mapping to the physical relationship that is the law of gravity. Gravity exists in reality, the word "gravity" exists only in your mind)
  > You've suggested that it's quite obvious where the "hardware" of the brain ends and the
  > "software" begins -- but it doesn't seem at all obvious to me, for the exact reason that
  > wherever the boundary lay, the observable effect would be the same.
  Observable to an ordinary person through ordinary means. To such superficial observation it indeed makes no difference how the brain works internally. But if you were to actually examine the brain cell by cell, to the deepest available physical detail, the difference would be very important. No matter how hard you search, you will not find memories and beliefs in any particular cell. You will only find physical representations of data encoding those memories and beliefs. These represenations are stored on the hardware - cell shape and connections, resistances of various interfaces, neurotransmitter density, etc. But the data that they represent is the software, having meaining, and thus existence, only to the machine that runs it - the physical brain.
38. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Chemisor · 2009-06-02 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  > I don't think you "get" the Chinese Room. You defer the problem to the virtual entity that is created,
  > but *there is no necessity for such a virtual entity*. One way to view the argument is Occam's Razor:
  > as there is no need for the virtual entity to exist and no reason for it to
  I am not postulating the existance of some hypothetical virtual entity; I am pointing to the obviously existent entity in the statement of the problem and stating that it is virtual. That entity is the process of translation itself. Just as a running program stores its state in memory, the translation process stores its state in the mind of the man in the room. The stepid variable, for example, that indexes into the rulebook and determines the next rule to apply to the data. A computer would store this variable in a number, stored in a register, stored using a collection of physical transistor states. The Chinese room stores stepid in the mind of the man in the room, who stores the number as a virtual number entity in his mind, stored somehow in the physical cells inside his brain. This variable is a virtual entity stored as a virtual entity stored on a physical brain. The translation process is the collection of these variables, the rules themselves (when loaded into memory), the rulebook, and whatever mental subroutines the man uses for the physical motions of translation. This process is an entirely virtual entity, which changes as the translation progresses, and converts its input into its output by "thinking".
  > For example, if you have a case where there *is* a purpose to ascribing the existence of a
  > virtual entity then the "useless" component cause the argument to fail.
  The Chinese room argument is said to fail because it is impossible to determine who is actually "thinking" in Chinese. The man is not thinking because he does not know chinese, the room is a passive entity, and so is the rulebook, and neither can take any action. My answer is that the virtual entity of the translation program is "thinking". The man in the room is the active physical entity running the translator, and in this example the man is the hardware (along with the room, for storage), while the virtual "thinking" program he is running is the software.
39. Re:Philosophy of Mind by FiloEleven · 2009-06-02 07:09 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  3) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.
  Careful.
  I realize that you're probably speaking colloquially here, but you are taking abstraction too far. If the brain is nothing more than a mass of cells, you should have no problem with me scooping yours out of your skull and replacing it with a head of lettuce, which is also nothing more than a mass of cells and therefore equivalent by that standard.
  The cells of the brain (and the entire human body) have characteristics that differ significantly from other kinds of cells, and the structure in which brain (and body) cells are organized is important as well. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a philosopher arguing for (3) as it stands. Too much abstraction and generalization leads to absurd conclusions like mine in the paragraph above.
  In fact, that is one of the issues discussed in the article. What I wrote above in the absence of common sense sounds perfectly plausible given your assertion. When people in advanced fields do the same thing we can't rely on common sense to show readers the possible flaws of logic, yet in the majority of cases they aren't given enough space to elaborate the concepts upon which they rely instead of glossing over them.
  This answers all the posts above decrying that the article is BS because "you should be able to explain it to an interested party." Well, nobody is saying they couldn't if they were given sufficient time or space, but they're not. We should understand this well given the many, many, many instructions to RTFA instead of basing statements or arguments on the summary--the summary does not and often cannot tackle the subject with the same depth as the full article. In the same way, a one- or two-page writeup on global warming, for example, likely cannot convey enough information to inform the reader on which side of the debate has more supporting evidence. (And the fact that I was compelled to write "likely" shows that it is difficult for a layman to even determine the level of detail needed for a good analysis.)
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer.
40. Re:Philosophy of Mind by MindlessAutomata · 2009-06-02 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  Absolute certainty is out of the question, and if you mean "know" in that case, sure.
  I don't see how reason emerging from physicalism is any more of a problem than "reason" emerging from AI or similar. Reason cannot be absolutely trusted, but that's one reason we use more empirical criteria in the sciences for coming to (tentative) conclusions. I don't see how this at all refutes or poses a problem for physicalism. It only shows that that all beliefs must be tentative and that our understandings of things may be inherently flawed, and that absolute knowledge is out of the question.
41. Re:Philosophy of Mind by MindlessAutomata · 2009-06-02 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed. Dualism is god-of-the-gaps of philosophy of mind, and anyone espousing it can probably be safely ignored in the manner that creationists can be safely ignored. Dualism just appeals to people's emotions or commonsense notions regarding cultural precepts of how things appear to be, but these are not good justifications.
  A mind-is-brain solution (monism) is the only sensible one.
42. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Homburg · 2009-06-02 08:56 · Score: 1
  
  But surely analytic philosophy has been in retreat since Popper?
  In the very narrow sense of analytic philosophy originally proposed by Russell, Moore, and the Logical Positivists, in which philosophy consists of the formal analysis of propositions, analytic philosophy has been dead for a long time, at least since Wittgenstein became the later Wittgenstein. Which is why, when people say "analytic philosophy," they usually mean something broader, a tradition of philosophy which descends from Russell and Moore and from later reactions to them. In this wider sense (in which Popper himself is an analytic philosopher), analytic philosophy is still the dominant approach to philosophy in the English-speaking world.
43. Re:Philosophy of Mind by MindlessAutomata · 2009-06-02 08:58 · Score: 1
  
  I think distinguishing hardware from software on a fundamental level is looking at the problem all wrong. Software really is just a function of hardware and physical changes made in hardware, whether it's magnetic or electrical states. The brain's software is really just hardware, hence his statement.
  We do not think faster than the brain can physically change. Every "thought" (note the scare-quotes) has corresponding neural firings or such. These are just as important as increased neural connectivity or, say, increased release in neurotransmitters.
  I find that the metaphor between "software" and "hardware" is a very limited one. The brain is nothing like a PC with a hard drive or RAM or such. That's not to say the brain isn't computational, merely that comparing the hardware/software on, say, a PC versus the brain is not (in my opinion) that apt an of analogy.
44. Re:Philosophy of Mind by Homburg · 2009-06-02 09:12 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The relationship between the physical and the virtual isn't philosophically any simpler than the relationship between the mind and the body, though. If "the brain is hardware and the mind is software" is just a metaphorical way of making the distinction between physical and virtual clear, fine; but it's a mistake to think it tells us any more than that. The problem is, the terminology is likely to mislead us into thinking that the mind is like the kind of software that runs on computers, where in fact there may be no similarity between the two.
45. Re:Philosophy of Mind by digitig · 2009-06-02 09:52 · Score: 1
  
  Reason cannot be absolutely trusted, but that's one reason we use more empirical criteria in the sciences for coming to (tentative) conclusions.
  No, that's not why we use empirical criteria. We use empirical criteria because reason is incomplete, not because it can't be trusted. Making anything of empirical observations still requires reason, so if reason can't be trusted then adding empirical criteria doesn't help.
  
  I don't see how this at all refutes or poses a problem for physicalism. It only shows that that all beliefs must be tentative and that our understandings of things may be inherently flawed, and that absolute knowledge is out of the question.
  It's perhaps a strength of physicalism that it poses the problem. Yes, it leads to the conclusion that "all beliefs must be tentative and that our understandings of things may be inherently flawed", which is all I wanted to claim. Other metaphysical assumptions (for example "God told me so!") may not lead to the same conclusion, but that's because they're weaker, not stronger than physicalism. They don't have the substance to allow such clear (if undesirable) conclusions.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
46. Re:Philosophy of Mind by lennier · 2009-06-02 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  "As a programmer, I must point out the obvious analogy: "the computer is still nothing more than a collection of transistors", and reply that if that were so, nobody would have to argue whether it is better to run Linux or Vista."
  Huh?
  See, this is why I am not a philosopher. That statement is trivially refutable, verging on nonsense, to me.
  1. A computer - or at least its CPU - IS nothing more than a collection of transistors.
  2. And yet, the software it runs DOES determine how it operates.
  3. These are the foundations of computer science.
  Obviously, the defined behaviour of 'transistor' implies 'a thing which stores electric current and modifies its behaviour based on both its 'hard' interconnections and its 'soft' electrical state. Therefore, the existence of such a thing as a single 'transistor' implies the existence of both 'hard' wiring and 'soft' state - memory. Memory implies storage, and from knowing the wiring of those transistors, the initial state of the storage, and the rules governing how each transistor changes state, we can deduce everything about how they operate together and how they behave as a unit.
  We call these 'circuit diagrams' in the biz, you know.
  Also trivially obviously, 'software' is very much a product of the physical computing platform it runs on. Any actually existing computer as 'a collection of transistors' - bearing in mind that it is THE NATURE OF THAT CONNECTION which is extremelly important, it's not just a 'bag' of transistors but a 'graph' - but you know the importance of precise logical connection because you''ve done philosophy right? - has certain very obvious properties - discrete voltage levels, which imply a binary code, which imply registers, which plus decoding logic imply opcodes, which plus a sequencer imply a von Neumann machine
  I really truly do not understand this argument that 'the whole is more than the sum of its parts'. No, it's not. At least not in this example. The whole literally *is* the sum of its parts. That's the definition of 'whole'. Understand the parts of a computer, and you understand - at least in theory - everything about it. Your understanding may be limited by your capacity for observation and memory and deduction, but not the system *itself*.
  Let me say that again. The behaviour of a system does not 'emerge' in some mysterious manner from its configuration. ITS BEHAVIOUR IS ITS CONFIGURATION seen in spacetime.
  Now. Difficulties come in because real computers are actually only approximated by their circuit diagrams and real programs are only approximated by the statements we make about what they *should* do and are *attempting* to do. The state space of a computer if you include the atomic-level (not even quantum-level) interconnections of all its bits is pretty darn big so in practice we don't look at it, we make simplified models and look at those models instead.
  And 'computer science' as a discipline is less about what *actual* computers do and more about what people think idealised *representations* of computers 'ought' to do. About formal models of functions and computability, etc.
  So perhaps in that sense you could say that the *formal model* of an idealised computer is somehow 'different' from *the actual computer* - but to say that there's a difference between hardware and software *themselves* makes no sense to me.
  Software (electrical state) is a subset of the properties of hardware. That's how come we can *execute* it on hardware.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
47. Re:Philosophy of Mind by lennier · 2009-06-02 11:13 · Score: 1
  
  "A number stored on a collection of flipflops is physically represented by their states, but its identity is not physically encoded anywhere. There is no physical connection that makes a flipflop state map to the logical value of zero or one; these are arbitrary, assigned by us for the purpose of computation. Likewise, there is no physical reason to group a collection of bits into a number, no physical reason to interpret them as a 1, 2, or 4 byte integer, no physical reason to interpret them in LSB or MSB format."
  That's a good argument, but I don't agree that it's correct. In fact I think a little thought can serve to invalidate it.
  If you look at a single instant in a running computation - a snapshot in time of a single register, say - yes, you couldn't determine from that what voltage level indicates '1' and what indicates '0', which ordering LSB/MSB is correct, etc.
  However. That's an illusion, because we're dealing with systems embedded in space-time which are processes, not just disconnected snapshots of state. When you look at the changing state of a physically-realised computer over time, you will notice converging patterns of behaviour, and it's that *behaviour* which gives the semantics for the physical representation of numbers.
  For instance: a 01 bit and a 10 bit that enter a black box device which emits a 11 bit... after a while, and in context, it would appear sensible that that device is a binary adder. (It could also be a logical 'or', so there's certainly ambiguity here... but if you had more bits and you saw over time that 001 000 == 001, 001 001 == 010, etc... then you would be able to generate from those observations the semantics / truth table of binary addition.
  More obviously, if you have, say, a voltage pattern arbitrarily represented as '0101' in a aparticular register and it was always correlated with, say, a motor moving five inches... you now have a direct physical *semantic* definition of number, with no human observer or mind required. In this instance, '0101' in this place literally does MEAN 'move five inches' because there is a causal relationship between the one and the other.
  I don't know if philosophers agree with this definition of 'meaning' but it works perfectly well for me. Meaning or semantics is a causal relationship between one entity and another, regardless of any outside entity's ideas about symbol mapping. Meaning is connection, nothing more or less.
  That's how debugging programs works, anyway. The programmer's hardest job is clearing their mind of invalid symbol/meaning associations and working out what the *computer* really 'thinks'... in other words, what one entity is *really* causing to happen in another entity. A philosopher or deconstructionist literary theorist might think they can stare at that '0101' and say 'I hereby deem you to mean VANILLA SUNDAE'... but that's not a 'real' meaning because it's not a causal relationship obeyed by physical reality.
  OTOH, if a programmer writes in BASIC 'A$="VANILLA SUNDAE" then now they have established a legitimate meaning relationship between "A$" and the string "VANILLA SUNDAE"... because they've create a real, actually-existing, causal relationship.
  And that's all we need to create 'meaning' out of 'purely mechanical' components, I think.
  However, I believe there's something else going on with the mind/brain connection than with the computer/software connection, because of 150 years worth of evidence about psi and altered states of cognition, where information is being transferred without regard to the normal laws of physics. See http://www.amazon.com/Irreducible-Mind-hard-find-contemporary/dp/0742547922 for the gory details and more footnotes than you can poke with a sharp stick. But I think the general idea of 'meaning is connection' is well established.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
48. Re:Philosophy of Mind by lennier · 2009-06-02 11:32 · Score: 1
  
  "The cells of the brain (and the entire human body) have characteristics that differ significantly from other kinds of cells, and the structure in which brain (and body) cells are organized is important as well."
  Obviously. But surely the structure and characteristics of those cells, and the spatial connections between them, is strictly implied in the words 'nothing more than'? Nothing more than also means 'precisely equal to', and you can't have a structured set of data be be precisely equal to some other structured set of data.
  The works of Shakespeare may be nothing more than a sequence of Roman letters, but it is the *precise sequence* of those letters which make them the works of Shakespeare. Nobody ever argues that because Hamlet is 'just' a sequence of letters that we could scoop out those letters and replace them with the letters from Dr Seuss' 'The Lorax' and have them be the same work. Any more than one would say that even though the Linux kernel is precisely the same as the sequence of bytes representing it, that you could replace those bytes with /dev/rand and have the program be the same.
  So why would you think of arguing the same for the human brain?
  However, it seems to me that the mind-brain question is much more interestingly like asking whether the *thoughts* of Shakespeare can be limited to being 'nothing more than' or even 'precisely equal to' the *written works* of Shakespeare, which is a very different thing indeed.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
49. Re:Philosophy of Mind by MindlessAutomata · 2009-06-02 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  No, that's not why we use empirical criteria. We use empirical criteria because reason is incomplete, not because it can't be trusted. Making anything of empirical observations still requires reason, so if reason can't be trusted then adding empirical criteria doesn't help.
  I don't disagree. ("Pure") Reason just cannot be fully trusted because it is incomplete. That's essentially what I meant. I was thinking a bit in line with all those silly a priori proofs of, say, God's existence or whatnot.
  
  It's perhaps a strength of physicalism that it poses the problem. Yes, it leads to the conclusion that "all beliefs must be tentative and that our understandings of things may be inherently flawed", which is all I wanted to claim. Other metaphysical assumptions (for example "God told me so!") may not lead to the same conclusion, but that's because they're weaker, not stronger than physicalism. They don't have the substance to allow such clear (if undesirable) conclusions.
  Good, but I don't find it to be a problem really. At least not one that is inescapable.
50. Re:Philosophy of Mind by FiloEleven · 2009-06-02 16:01 · Score: 1
  
  But surely the structure and characteristics of those cells, and the spatial connections between them, is strictly implied in the words 'nothing more than'?
  That is exactly the gap in thinking that we can fill in for such a simple example but could easily miss in something more exotic or domain-specific, giving the layman a false impression that may lead to a false conclusion. Even here the act of making the implicate in your original statement explicate more than doubled the size of the original statement. I can imagine that an article on something more complex could grow fourfold or more if a meaningful level of accuracy was desired.
  
  However, it seems to me that the mind-brain question is much more interestingly like asking whether the *thoughts* of Shakespeare can be limited to being 'nothing more than' or even 'precisely equal to' the *written works* of Shakespeare, which is a very different thing indeed.
  I spend a fair amount of time going down that rabbit hole (and its connecting warrens) myself. It isn't limited to written works, either: even something as mundane as the Empire State Building exists simultaneously as a physical building as well as a concept or experience in the minds of millions of people, but how? Your original statement still stands: we are little closer to pulling that image from someone's head now than we were thirty or even a hundred years ago. Consciousness and self-awareness is the hardest thing we have attempted to understand, and it will likely retain that distinction far into the future.
  
  --
  Your brain is not a computer.
51. Re:Philosophy of Mind by The_Quinn · 2009-06-04 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  it seems to me to be impossible to justify why what we perceive as reason can actually be trusted
  And just how do you intend to prove that one cannot trust reason without using reason and logic?
  
  it's this argument that has led me to believe (not "know", obviously!) that nothing can be known.
  This doesn't even make sense. A belief in something is a form of knowledge. Specifically, it is a type of "knowing" in which you have some evidence, some logical reasoning that lends credibility. But it is still a form of knowing.
  If you want to say you literally don't know anything, then please - don't even bother opening your (what would logically have to be) useless mouth (I say useless because if our minds are actually incapable of doing the kind of processing you claim you don't believe in, then why inundate the world with the meaningless dribble of vocal vibrations?)
  Any person who tries to negate knowledge, existence, identity, etc. must rely on those very concepts to even utter the negation. That is why they are considered, at least in the Objectivist philosophy, axioms
  
  --
  Mine is Good
52. Re:Philosophy of Mind by The_Quinn · 2009-06-04 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  3) The brain is still nothing more than a mass of cells.
  
  5) Philosophers base their careers trying to argue for or against (3).
  That is a real sad state of affairs: at a time in the world when people are in the most desperate need for a philosophy that can conceptualize, integrate, and concretize the knowledge we need to survive and flourish as a species, instead we are inundated by the disintegrated quibbling over fragmented minutia.
  In my opinion, philosophers are solely responsible for the unrelenting rise of religion, by virtue of the abdication their intellectual responsibility. Whereas the enlightenment philosophers gave us the (re)birth of reason, industrialism, individual liberty, Capitalism, and the general increase in prosperity across the globe, subsequent philosophers have largely worked to dismantle their tenuous work, leaving people to choose between the unknowability of a secular world or blind faith in a mystical world.
  
  --
  Mine is Good
53. Re:Philosophy of Mind by digitig · 2009-06-05 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  it seems to me to be impossible to justify why what we perceive as reason can actually be trusted
  And just how do you intend to prove that one cannot trust reason without using reason and logic?
  It's important in philosophy to be very precise with language. I didn't say that one cannot trust reason and logic, just that it seems to be impossible to justify trusting them. In practice I don't seem to be able to avoid trusting them, but I'm conscious that the skyscraper I'm sitting in has no foundations.
  
  it's this argument that has led me to believe (not "know", obviously!) that nothing can be known.
  This doesn't even make sense. A belief in something is a form of knowledge. Specifically, it is a type of "knowing" in which you have some evidence, some logical reasoning that lends credibility.
  That seems to be a problem of terminology. As I intend it, "belief" is less than knowledge. You have to believe something to know it, but you do not have to know it to believe it. And it doesn't need evidence or logical reasoning -- it could be an "irrational belief". Actually, I prefer the term "arational", because "irrational" commonly suggests contrary to reason, and as you point out reason itself depends on axioms that are not supported by reason -- reason does not support itself, lifting itself up with a skyhook -- but are not contrary to reason.
  
  If you want to say you literally don't know anything, then please - don't even bother opening your (what would logically have to be) useless mouth (I say useless because if our minds are actually incapable of doing the kind of processing you claim you don't believe in, then why inundate the world with the meaningless dribble of vocal vibrations?)
  I don't claim that I don't believe in that sort of processing -- I do believe in it. I just don't know it.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
54. Re:Philosophy of Mind by digitig · 2009-06-05 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking a bit in line with all those silly a priori proofs of, say, God's existence or whatnot.
  The trouble I have with those a priori proofs of God's existence is that the thing they end up (often quite convincingly) proving never seems to have any relationship to anything I'd think of as "God" -- they end up proving the existence of the laws of physics or something like that.
  
  Good, but I don't find it to be a problem really. At least not one that is inescapable.
  I find it inescapable -- after all, what is there to escape into?
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
55. Re:Philosophy of Mind by The_Quinn · 2009-06-05 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  it seems to be impossible to justify trusting them.
  Just look at the contrapositive: it is impossible to justify not trusting them (without actually relying on them in the justification)
  
  That seems to be a problem of terminology. As I intend it, "belief" is less than knowledge. You have to believe something to know it, but you do not have to know it to believe it.
  You are confusing certainty with knowledge. A belief, a fact, a supposition - are all knowledge. They only differ in how you know them, and how certain you are.
  The way you are trying to define would make it sound that nobody can know anything unless they are omniscient (i.e. only a person who knows everything can know anything).
  
  --
  Mine is Good
56. Re:Philosophy of Mind by digitig · 2009-06-05 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  it seems to be impossible to justify trusting them.
  Just look at the contrapositive: it is impossible to justify not trusting them (without actually relying on them in the justification)
  As I said, precision is important. I did not write "it is impossible to justify not trusting them" -- your contrapositive is the contrapositive of a straw man.
  
  That seems to be a problem of terminology. As I intend it, "belief" is less than knowledge. You have to believe something to know it, but you do not have to know it to believe it.
  You are confusing certainty with knowledge. A belief, a fact, a supposition - are all knowledge. They only differ in how you know them, and how certain you are.
  I think you are confused here, or maybe it's just a terminology problem. If I say "I believe x" I certainly don't mean the same as if I say "I know x". "Believe" is (for me at least) a much weaker claim than "know"
  
  The way you are trying to define would make it sound that nobody can know anything unless they are omniscient (i.e. only a person who knows everything can know anything).
  How so?
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
57. Re:Philosophy of Mind by The_Quinn · 2009-06-05 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  I did not write "it is impossible to justify not trusting them" -- your contrapositive is the contrapositive of a straw man.
  I know you did not say that. I said it. I was assuming you had some background in basic logic. You don't, and that's fine - most people don't. It's basically a way of proving something by showing that the negation of the opposite is false, i.e. NOT (NOT (P)) => P
  
  I think you are confused here, or maybe it's just a terminology problem. If I say "I believe x" I certainly don't mean the same as if I say "I know x". "Believe" is (for me at least) a much weaker claim than "know"
  You are actually quite amusing. I see you write things with "I think...", "I certainly...", " ... is .... " - these are all statements of knowledge.
  The next time you write back to me, try removing all forms of the verb "to be", since if you don't really know if anything really is anything in particular, then you certainly shouldn't be using the verb "to be" in a sentence.
  I mean, just look at your sentence:
  
  I think you are confused here, or maybe it's just a terminology problem. If I say "I believe x" I certainly don't mean the same as if I say "I know x". "Believe" is (for me at least) a much weaker claim than "know"
  Now, bit by bit
  
  I
  You start your sentence with an identification of yourself. What makes you think there is a "you". If you can't know there is a "you", why are you flapping about on the internet?
  
  I mean
  You mean? If you don't know that you can mean something, why are you talking as if you can?
  
  look at your sentence
  If you don't know there is a "me", why would you instruct me to "look", (and if you don't know that there is such a thing as looking, why tell people to do it? And what makes you think there are sentences?
  
  I think you are confused
  If you don't know that your words mean anything, why are you saying them to me?
  
  or
  If you don't know there are alternatives, why use the word "or"?
  
  maybe it's just a terminology problem
  Maybe? Doesn't that imply that there is a truth, and you are just not certain? Do you know there is a truth? If not, why bring it up?
  
  If I say "I believe x"
  
  certainly don't mean the same
  certainly? Sounds like a strong word coming from you.
  I could go on, but the funny thing is, every time you try to convey a thought to me, you are betraying yourself. You allow things that you "know" to simply spill out into your sentences, and then try to tell me that you don't really know anything. It is a little amusing, and a lot contradictory and hypocritical.
  
  --
  Mine is Good
58. Re:Philosophy of Mind by digitig · 2009-06-05 20:51 · Score: 1
  
  I did not write "it is impossible to justify not trusting them" -- your contrapositive is the contrapositive of a straw man.
  I know you did not say that. I said it. I was assuming you had some background in basic logic. You don't, and that's fine - most people don't.
  
  I do have extensive training in formal logic, thanks very much -- I'm a Z and VDM practitioner. Now look at what I actually wrote, and try forming the contrapositive of that, without rewording it first to something you wish I had said because it's easier to knock down. If you can't form a simple contrapositive you're in no position to get snarky about other people's logic.
  
  I think you are confused here, or maybe it's just a terminology problem. If I say "I believe x" I certainly don't mean the same as if I say "I know x". "Believe" is (for me at least) a much weaker claim than "know"
  You are actually quite amusing. I see you write things with "I think...", "I certainly...", " ... is .... " - these are all statements of knowledge.
  The next time you write back to me, try removing all forms of the verb "to be", since if you don't really know if anything really is anything in particular, then you certainly shouldn't be using the verb "to be" in a sentence.
  I have taken care to justify the use of the verb to be. You are arguing against your preconception of what solipsism is, which seems to be metaphysical solipsism, without actually reading what I am arguing for, which is epistemiological solipsism. There is no problem with using the verb "to be" in epistemiological solipsism because I believe (but do not know) that the external world exists.
  
  You start your sentence with an identification of yourself. What makes you think there is a "you". If you can't know there is a "you", why are you flapping about on the internet?
  I don't need to know: belief is sufficient for me to make that statement. The rest of your point by point analysis fails on the same grounds, because it all attacks the metaphysical solipsism that I do not hold.
  
  every time you try to convey a thought to me, you are betraying yourself.
  I would do a lot better if you actually read what I wrote, rather than responding to what you wanted me to write. As homework, I suggest you learn the difference between metaphysical and epistemiological solipsisms, and check your stock arguments to see whether they apply to both. Before you accuse somebody of hypocrisy, at least do them the decency to read what they're actually saying.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
59. Re:Philosophy of Mind by The_Quinn · 2009-06-06 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the reply. I think I would find it much more interesting if I actually thought that you "knew" any of it.
  
  --
  Mine is Good
KISS by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 21:44 · Score: 0

Keep It Simple, Stupid!
I don't see the point in discussing this article. by tnok85 · 2009-06-01 21:44 · Score: 5, Funny

Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving us some simulation of justification for what we wanted to believe in the first place.
new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 21:48 · Score: 0

ok some random guy writes a piece of verbal masturbation because he can't stand people who have the ability express ideas in such a way that they can actually be understood by others, while clearly demonstrating that he put lots of effort into making sure that his text can't be understood unless by a marginally small & elite portion of society. But hot damn it made him feel great when he used all those sophysticated words!
1. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by damburger · 2009-06-01 22:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  ok some random guy writes a piece of verbal masturbation because he can't stand people who have the ability express ideas in such a way that they can actually be understood by others, while clearly demonstrating that he put lots of effort into making sure that his text can't be understood unless by a marginally small & elite portion of society.
  
  Thanks for mashing your fists on the keyboard. It was a valuable contribution that makes us all intellectually richer.
  The expression of ideas in the media IS a big problem. Noam Chomsky (some random guy, don't worry about it) has made similar points on the pitfalls of brevity in the media. I have read articles in New Scientist by a scientist discussing how to debate with creationists, in a limited time frame, when they ask short pithy questions which require long answers to refute. It is a widely recognised problem which, to date, hasn't found a satisfactory solution.
  The fact is, some things are too complicated to form an informed opinion on without graduate level study. It is OK to have elites. As someone with no medical training, I am very grateful that there are elite surgeons around to perform any procedures on me I might need in the future, rather than some bloke with 'common sense' who saw an episode of Casualty and reckons he can have a go at it.
  
  But hot damn it made him feel great when he used all those sophysticated words!
  Being able to spell 'sophisticated' is not a sign of being an intellectual elitist.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
2. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 23:01 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  But hot damn it made him feel great when he used all those sophysticated words!
  Being able to spell 'sophisticated' is not a sign of being an intellectual elitist.
  You might want to check your sarcasm meter. It seems to be malfunctioning.
3. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by damburger · 2009-06-01 23:59 · Score: 1
  
  I don't believe the AC in question has the capacity for sarcasm. In any case, it wasn't funny at all.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
4. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by tnk1 · 2009-06-02 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  I agree about the problem of brevity in the media. The problem is, however, that the media needs to be brief.
  If you really look at every policy, regulation and law that the government handles and every issue that society faces these days, there's absolutely no way one person can grasp enough of it to even pretend to make an informed choice on 99.9% of them. Only the gloss of the media gives us even the barest possibility that we can make any sort of decision using experience that is not our own or hearsay.
  The media is really the only way most of us get any idea of what the issues might be. We all know it's overly brief, and frequently biased, but there's really nothing else out there. People don't have the time to sit around and read Foreign Affairs, The Economist, and a host of other periodicals that go into more depth. They get maybe an hour a day at best to absorb the news.
  I probably spend a lot more time than most reading as much as possible about whatever I can get my hands on, and I can tell you I still can do little better than gloss over extremely important topics that I vote on very couple of years.
5. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by dgriff · 2009-06-02 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  The fact is, some things are too complicated to form an informed opinion on without graduate level study. It is OK to have elites.
  Phew, that's ok then. I was beginning to worry that investment bankers might not have actually known what they were doing in the run up to the credit crunch.
6. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by damburger · 2009-06-02 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Which is why, as it stands, you need experts. That way, the only think you need to have in depth knowledge of is identifying real expertise, enough to trust it. Science works as a unified(ish) discipline because, even though scientists in one field know no more than the layman about other scientific fields, they understand the methods that span across all (true) science to weed out bullshit, allowing them to be confident in the work of scientists in fields well outside their own.
  I admit it is more difficult in politics, economics and so on than in the hard sciences, but it should still be possible for a discerning citizen to root out the bullshit. Thing is, as you said it takes time. I often think that the absurdly long working hours in anglophone countries (and the 'protestant work ethic' from which they probably sprung are more about keeping people distracted than about increasing productivity.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
7. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by damburger · 2009-06-02 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  I said 'elites' not 'greedy tossbags who might as well have had a drunken weekend in Las Vegas with everyone's pension funds'.
  Having retards at the top of the financial services industry doesn't necessarily mean that there cannot be experts in other fields of human endeavor.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
8. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by dgriff · 2009-06-02 02:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  And how do we differentiate between elites and retards? Remember that for years we were told that all the brightest mathematicians and physicists were now working on financial derivatives because only "rocket scientists" could understand them.
9. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by Deanalator · 2009-06-02 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  We all know that Compsky's beef with the media comes from the fact that he talks slow, and doesn't keep track of how long he is talking for :-) He also tends to take the Juggernaut stance in a debate and keep right on talking no matter what else is going on. I think every interview that I have ever seen with him, they had to end it by cutting him off mid-sentence.
  He's got some great things to say, and is damn good at saying it, but from what I have seen, he doesn't seem to be the best at having symmetric conversation.
10. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by Jimmy_B · 2009-06-02 04:14 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And how do we differentiate between elites and retards? Remember that for years we were told that all the brightest mathematicians and physicists were now working on financial derivatives because only "rocket scientists" could understand them.
  We differentiate between them by requiring them to have their research published and subjected to peer review. The financial sector preferred to keep secrets rather than publish and never had any peer review, so when they thought they had the brightest mathematicians and physicists, they were only fooling themselves.
11. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by superwiz · 2009-06-02 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is, however, that the media needs to be brief.
  The media needs to be critical of the government. It's the very reason it is given the power to be uncensored. It's meant to be the natural predator on the power structure. It doesn't matter if it is brief or lengthy. Sometimes the problems are complicated and might take a while to explain. That's ok. As long as the media is both critical and accurate, it is doing its job. In its current form it acts as a cheerleader for the power structures. As such, it does not fulfill its mandate.
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
12. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by damburger · 2009-06-02 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  We were told that, most of us didn't believe it. The appearance of people believing it was maintained by media outlets owned be people who were deeply invested in the 'truth' of the system.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
13. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by droptone · 2009-06-02 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  I have read articles in New Scientist by a scientist discussing how to debate with creationists, in a limited time frame, when they ask short pithy questions which require long answers to refute. It is a widely recognised problem which, to date, hasn't found a satisfactory solution.
  Massimo Pigliucci made a similar point on one of the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe podcasts; I believe it is this one. Basically, each side is allotted X minutes. The creationist, since they seem to be disinterested in actual research before formulating a question, will bring up Y number of objections to evolution. The advocate for evolution must then rebut each point if they want to be viewed as competent by the audience. As you pointed out, explaining why some creationist objection is worthless takes a bit of time because the real world is complicated. Explaining why the human eye is not an example of a miracle takes a while. So Pigliucci and the like have steadfastly refused to debate creationists since they thought that the creationists were being unfair.
  
  The only solution that I have seen offered is that you need to be very discriminating in who you debate with. You need to pick people who have a history of a) playing fair and b) being genuinely insightful. This same process needs to occur in people's personal lives as well. We all have some friends where it is blatantly obvious that they are more concerned with defending their idea than approaching the truth. This requires a level of trust that can be rare, since you have to be willing to possibly a) be extremely wrong about something and b) say something that some would find offensive (regardless of whether the idea is right or wrong). These friends (and debaters) need a level of intellectual honesty that is rarely found, and which I think philosophy can help people achieve. They need to be able to take quite seriously the pros and cons of all their views, and any complex idea will have pros and cons. We all have many beliefs that we cannot sufficiently justify (What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty by John Brockman has columns by leading intellectuals discussing what they believe to be true but do not have adequate evidence for). We need to understand what those ideas are and be comfortable with challenges, but as I mentioned before, this requires a level of intellectual honesty that is rare.
  
  --
  Every post I make begins with the assumption P=~P.
14. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 07:32 · Score: 0
  
  Noam Chomsky (some random guy, don't worry about it) has made similar points on the pitfalls of brevity in the media.
  He of all people. If anyone's guilty of populism in science it's Chomsky. That he's not an expert in what he usually writes about doesn't excuse him.
15. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by damburger · 2009-06-02 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Accusing Chomsky of populism is one thing, accusing him of being a hack at linguistics just makes everyone laugh at you.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
16. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by damburger · 2009-06-02 12:42 · Score: 1
  
  Bill O'Reilly talks quickly. Being quick, brief, or even pithy doesn't make you right. Chomsky is notable because he is an academic who isn't afraid to talk like an academic in front of a non-academic audience, regardless of how that might make him look. When was the last time you saw him asked a question that could be accurately answered in a single paragraph?
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
17. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by Alex+Belits · 2009-06-03 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  I admit it is more difficult in politics, economics and so on than in the hard sciences, but it should still be possible for a discerning citizen to root out the bullshit.
  The problem is, politics and economics describe and prescribe how people are supposed to behave based on their knowledge of politics and economics. In other words, nothing but circular reasoning.
  Without politicians people would not know that they have to hate those who support some but not other ideologies other than their own. Without economists most people would not even believe that they have to be greedy and selfish (if it was indeed "natural", people would not have to specially describe it as being opposed to "generous" and "altruistic" -- "natural" behavior would be in the middle of perceived scale).
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
18. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by Alex+Belits · 2009-06-03 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, wow.
  So if the media will publish nothing but conspiracy theories, it will perfectly perform it function -- distracting the public from real problems and creating distrust for all speech by polluting it to the level that it becomes unusable.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
19. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by superwiz · 2009-06-04 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  So if the media will publish nothing but conspiracy theories, it will perfectly perform it function
  I don't believe the gp was so long that you had to reply to the first sentence and completely ignore the rest. Did you miss the whole part about the media's responsibility to be accurate?
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
20. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by Alex+Belits · 2009-06-04 16:22 · Score: 1
  
  I don't believe the gp was so long that you had to reply to the first sentence and completely ignore the rest. Did you miss the whole part about the media's responsibility to be accurate?
  This whole discussion is based on the premise that media can not possibly be accurate because it addresses people who can not understand essential details of the issues being described.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
21. Re:new tag needed: verbalmasturbation by superwiz · 2009-06-05 17:53 · Score: 1
  
  Wow! Just wow! The whole discussion attempted to establish this premise. If it were based on it, it would be easily dismissed outright. I disagreed with that conclusion of the discussion by attempting to offer an alternative view point. You showed that if 10% of what I had to say were true, disaster would ensue. I pointed out that it sometimes helps to look at the whole 100% (it being all 4 sentences and all). And your counter argument is that I contradicted the original discussion? Well, duh!
  
  --
  Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Re:I don't see the point in discussing this articl by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 21:48 · Score: 1, Insightful

Bear plastic swim pen. Compact fire records handle, bottle papers giant sky on box fro and seventeen.
Short summary by oneplus999 · 2009-06-01 21:55 · Score: 1

What might be more helpful, at least in some instances, is ...[n]ot âoethe case for policy Aâ vs âoethe case for policy Bâ but âoethe epistemic problems that make it hard to choose between A and B,â as though (I know, itâ(TM)s crazy) the search for truth were more than a punch-up between mutually exclusive, preestablished conclusions. The message is not (to coin a phrase) âoewe report, you decideâ but âoewe report on why youâ(TM)re not actually competent to decide, unless youâ(TM)re prepared to devote a hell of a lot more time, energy, and thought to it.â
Thought I'd do a short summary of his argument by just presenting the results... now you have everything you need to know to discuss this subject! No need to rtfa.
I know better by Chrisq · 2009-06-01 21:57 · Score: 3, Funny

The guy reckons that people who know least about a complex subject generally think that its simple and that they know a lot about it, whereas experts know that there are many complexities and know that their knowledge is limited.

Bah, rubbish - what does he know about it?
1. Re:I know better by Sj0 · 2009-06-01 23:20 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is always that we're presented a boolean decision for a complex, multi-variable problem. Are you for or against? Are you on our side or their side? Even if you try to present a more complicated argument, people will still bring you down to the level of "for/against".
  In reality, we don't do things this way. I almost never make decisions by completely rejecting the options I don't take. Good opinions are more nuanced than that. Even if I need to make a choice, often I'll make it with caveats. I bought a car recently, but I there's a lot of reasons I like trucks and SUVs too.
  In this world of pop philosophy, you can only have one opinion, and it has to be absolute and filled with contradictions. There's never a third option. Even if you have a third point of view, you'll be pidgeonholed into established viewpoints
  A good counter-example, a lot of Ron Paul supporters during the election had Obama as their second choice. Dogmatic people would consider it a contradiction. "YOU CHOOSE EITHER DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN!", but his supporters had a different point of view entirely.
  
  --
  It's been a long time.
2. Re:I know better by Meneth · 2009-06-02 00:38 · Score: 1
  
  In a better country, you would've had seven or eight choices instead of just two.
3. Re:I know better by TubeSteak · 2009-06-02 01:27 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is always that we're presented a boolean decision for a complex, multi-variable problem. Are you for or against? Are you on our side or their side?
  The pithy way to respond to any binary "X or Y" question is to say "or".
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
4. Re:I know better by garett_spencley · 2009-06-02 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  The charge of "oversimplification" is usually a disguised means of evading essentials. It often works because the person presenting the argument will experience doubt; thinking that the accuser possesses some knowledge that he lacks. Of course, if the accuser did have more knowledge of the problem he would make a refutation instead of charging the presenter with "oversimplifying".
  When I hear the term "pop philosophy" I think of Immanuel Kant or William Hegel, or even Plato. These philosophers waged a full out assault on logic and reason. By speaking to confuse instead of persuade they preyed on the fact that the human brain develops concept formation at a very young age, and that the fully developed consciousness has the process automatized. Because most people think in terms of higher concepts and rarely bother to stop and think about what axiomatic concepts and percepts the higher concepts reduce back to, the attacker can convince the victim that concepts don't refer back to reality at all. By presenting arguments like "how do you define 'number' ?" the attacker convinces the subject that reality is entirely in one's mind. There are lots of consequences to this, but one of them is the "oversimplification" attack. When someone speaks in terms of irreducible primaries the accuser does not know how to recognize them or refute them.
  Percepts are not "true" or "false" they just are. And all concepts reduce back to percepts. "Higher" concepts are integrations of more basic concepts, but eventually all concepts reduce back to some existent. Which is neither right or wrong it just is. A concept is invalid if it cannot be linked back to reality.
  The "oversimplification" attack is not a refutation it is an attempt to evade having to check an argument's concepts and their correspondence to reality. "It might be true for you but it's not true for everyone." What is truth ? Truth is that which conforms to reality. Either an argument rests on demonstrable, axiomatic primaries or it does not.
  When speaking of subjective decision making (which you were): how we make our decisions rests on our philosophy. Philosophy has three main branches: metaphysics (that which pertains to existence), epistemology (how we know things) and ethics (our actions). The three fundamental questions pertaining to these three branches of philosophy are "what do I know?", "how do I know it?" and "what should I do?" Most people take those for granted, and deal with them almost always on a subconscious level, and don't realize that their philosophy of choice will dictate how they go about answering those questions.
  Because most people don't ever bother with philosophy (I'll admit that growing up I even thought of philosophy as sitting on a rock trying to decide if a tree has a soul) they get their philosophy from the world around them. Pop culture, their parents, government etc. It's no wonder then that their decisions and opinions are full of contradictions, and when someone speaks in terms of irreducible primaries they're accused of "oversimplifying".
5. Re:I know better by Sj0 · 2009-06-02 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for illustrating my point.
  As we can see, in this case the oversimplification is used to create the illusion that there are only two choices: Always accept presented dichotomies as axiomatic, or always get lost in pointless detail like an 18th century philosopher. This isn't the case.
  When I was a computer tech, The only person I ever had issues helping was my mother. She'd read every thing she saw and she'd try to force me to make a choice about everything she saw, and the choices she gave were always the obvious ones (OK or cancel?). In reality, the path isn't always A or B. Her oversimplification of decisions didn't reduce the decisions to their essence, they made the decisions complicated by forcing a false dichotomy. I'm not clicking on A: or C:, I'm clicking on the tools menu. I'm not clicking "ok" or "cancel", I'm asking if she's got the disk in the drive.
  Given the old false dichotomy "This statement is false", you can get caught up in whether the statement is true or false, but the oversimplification makes the answer infinitely complicated. By letting up just a little -- not so much that you start down the path of philosophical masturbation and questioning if you can even prove you exist, but enough that you can see the obvious -- the answer becomes clear: The statement is nonsense, neither true nor false.
  
  --
  It's been a long time.
6. Re:I know better by Neeperando · 2009-06-02 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  I don't tell people I'm against abortion, because I'm afraid they'll think I'm Pro-Life.
  I don't tell people I don't think God exists, because I'm afraid they'll think I'm an Atheist.
  I certainly never share both those opinions with people because they're such <sarcasm>obvious contradictions<\sarcasm>.
  You're right, it's almost impossible to share your nuanced opinion with people, because they as soon as they hear certain key words they'll lump you in with the crazies associated with that viewpoint.
  
  --
  Being a computer scientist means you tell people how computers should work, not that you know how they actually work.
7. Re:I know better by c0d3g33k · 2009-06-02 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  In a better world, we would not need to make those choices, since anyone willing to take the job would do the best for all concerned.
8. Re:I know better by garett_spencley · 2009-06-02 04:02 · Score: 1
  
  You completely missed my point. And I'm not sure what yours is, because you're using the word "dichotomy" as an equivocation. I cannot tell if it is intentional, but it makes your first paragraph nonsensical.
  A dichotomy is a division of a whole into two non-overlapping parts. I was not dealing with dichotomies. I was not trying to say that there are two choices (although fundamentally we do have to chose between life or death, but that's irrelevant to my point). My point was that concepts are mental integrations of percepts, treated as units distinguished by their essential characteristics, omitting specific measurements. Percepts form the basis of all human knowledge. Thus concepts always have to link back to percepts. That's all I was saying. You seem to have interpreted me as claiming that "we either chose to link concepts back to percepts, or we chose not to and, most importantly, those are the only two options we have." What I was saying is that concepts are mental integrations of percepts, and that some people don't understand that, and try to evade dealing in terms of fundamentals as a consequence.
  "Choice" implies alternatives. "Alternatives" does not imply any fixed quantity. Which alternative one chooses depends on one's values. Values are hierarchical and the values one adopts will depend on one's philosophy of choice. So of course choices do not always reduce to two options (outside of the choice to live or die).
  If your mother's choices did not reduce the decisions to their essences then she did not comprehend the appropriate concepts. A computer's user interface is an abstraction on top of it's hardware. Many people new to computers do not grasp that the concepts within the interface reduce back to the physical hardware and correspond to it's various states. In the end I think we might be saying the same thing. "A:" is a concept that reduces to a physical disk drive within the computer. "A:" is not a glass of water.
9. Re:I know better by Sj0 · 2009-06-02 08:12 · Score: 1
  
  Ironically, you looked my point straight in the eye when you said it yourself: "If your mother's choices did not reduce the decisions to their essences then she did not comprehend the appropriate concepts. A computer's user interface is an abstraction on top of it's hardware. Many people new to computers do not grasp that the concepts within the interface reduce back to the physical hardware and correspond to it's various states." -- EXACTLY. Her 'A or B' view of the world has completely discounted the idea of 'C, D, E, F, or some combination of them'. She's chosen the oversimplified version of what can be considered, and no other options exist.
  The article itself points to this phenomena. "So the setup is 'snappy, intuitively appealing argument without obvious problems' vs. 'rebuttal I probably don't have time to read, let alone analyze closely.'".
  We're not talking about some ideal of philosophy where a Zen philosopher can reduce all problems to their essence and from there find simple, elegant, and correct solutions. We're talking about pop philosophy where the most marketable solutions are the most popular, and the more complex, but more correct solutions aren't even part of the discourse.
  
  --
  It's been a long time.
10. Re:I know better by Hognoxious · 2009-06-02 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  The guy reckons that people who know least about a complex subject generally think that its simple and that they know a lot about it, whereas experts know that there are many complexities and know that their knowledge is limited.
  
  Sounds like the Dunning-Kruger effect.
  A good way to spot it is when you explain why something won't work, or can't be done, or can't be done the way they (in their utter ignorance) suggest or (in their utter arrogance) insist; their eloquent counterargument invariably begins with "But can't you just...".
  Just do what? Appeal against the laws of thermodynamics. To whom? Abolish gravity. I'll start a petition, shall I?
  I find "liberal arts" types are the worst offenders.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Schools. by Celeste+R · 2009-06-01 21:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

There are things to be said about people being able to be stupid. You can't force intelligence on people (except when they're teachable.)
If you want people to be intelligent, go into politics and try to change the system. Chances are: you'll be pressured into not doing it. The system is skewed against the educational sector; and the pay that teachers get reflects that.
Investment in America's future as an intellectual powerhouse is limited at best. Public schools generally teach people enough to -get by-, and not to really understand what's around them. It's only every once in a while that you see a public school that really teaches things like philosophical ethics.
Over-simplistic arguments are the natural result of people who want to be intellectual about things (while doing so with limited knowledge.) If you want them to have more concrete arguments, they have to expand their knowledge. Granted, some people just don't want that, but the vast majority of people wouldn't mind getting it if it was presented to them.
"Because they said so" isn't good enough when it comes to thinking for yourself.

--
There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
1. Re:Schools. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 22:28 · Score: 0
  
  The problem isn't teacher pay. The problem is a system that considers teaching to be a "profession" and gives every lousy teacher tenure simply because they managed to not get fired for three years.
2. Re:Schools. by Celeste+R · 2009-06-01 23:05 · Score: 1
  
  Just to clarify, so we're on the same page, I'm talking about the public school system. Colleges and such have it better.
  Why should any reasonably intelligent person teach? Most people know that there's only barely enough to pay the bills in it. After all, if they can apply themselves in a way that is more fulfilling, teaching is like a "last resort" kind of thing.
  We ultimately end up with more and more mediocrity just because of our complacency to their needs. Half-baked ideas are taught in school because that's what put the teachers themselves there.
  Tenure isn't a problem here; it's a system that works well enough. The problem is we're seeing the negative aspects a system where you're getting out what you put in; pitting mediocrity against mediocrity is no surprise, just as pitting excellence against mediocrity is no surprise.
  If you want intelligent people to teach, then pay them as such. Raise the bar, and don't accept mediocrity just because it's all you can find. Raise it socially as well, so that the teachers aren't just glorified babysitters.
  Other countries fare better than ours, because their standards are higher. Is that such a big surprise?
  
  --
  There are no perfect answers, only the right questions. More questions at http://foresightandhindsight.blogspot.com/
3. Re:Schools. by KeithJM · 2009-06-02 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  You can't force intelligence on people (except when they're teachable.)
  Man, I hate to be pedantic, but people who are teachable are already intelligent. People who can learn but haven't are ignorant, not unintelligent. Intelligence is basically a measure of teachability.
4. Re:Schools. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 01:29 · Score: 0
  
  Have you ever been a teacher?
  I was--right out of college. I went into teaching because it was what I wanted to do, not as some "last resort." Like a lot of teachers, I was interested in making a difference in kid's lives and perhaps passing on the love of learning that my teachers instilled in me to a new generation.
  Was the pay great? No, but when you consider the fact that I worked 9 months out of the year it was both adequate and equitable with the pay offered at other just-out-of-college jobs.
  What's broken is not the public education system (though I can hear the screams of outrage, even as I type this) What is broken is our society:
  Where personal responsibility has been completely abrogated--neither little Johnny nor his parents can possibly be held accountable for his actions, as obviously it is the teacher's fault that he failed to complete his homework, lacks the self-control to keep from hitting other students, and cannot possibly be bothered with paying attention.
  Where political considerations outweigh all others--principals cannot support their teacher's decisions, as they report to the school board (elected by those same "I am the center of the universe parents") who will censure them at the drop of a negative comment at the next public school board meeting. And teachers cannot honestly answer questions from students without fearing the same censure.
  Where the common "glue" that held civilization together--respect for private property, the rights of others, and the rule of law--has become so threadbare that we take housing from the poor to build strip malls, we've condoned waterboarding, and we're now nominating Supreme Court justices based on what they "feel" the law should be.
  I got out of teaching after three years. Not because the pay was bad, or the standards were low, or any of the nonsense reasons you read people giving for leaving the profession. I left despite the fact that I enjoyed the time in the classroom with the kids because the parents and principal made it almost impossible to do what they were ostensibly paying me to do.
5. Re:Schools. by c0d3g33k · 2009-06-02 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  Yup. Ignorance is only ignorance if it is dispellable. Stupidity is forever.
6. Re:Schools. by dragonturtle69 · 2009-06-02 14:01 · Score: 1
  
  <Heavy Cynicism>
  Public education exists to guarantee that the proletariat is educated enough to be productive mammals in the predicted environment. This includes public funding of higher education. Some students will exceed, some will fail, but most will just go along. Funding, and standardized tests to keep or obtain future funding, controls what is taught and how.
  And no, paying on a thirty year mortgage does not make one a property owner, not if they still earn a living by selling their labor.
  </Heavy Cynicism>
  And I agree, never ever is "Because they said so" acceptable. One needs to at least think if what "they" said is reasonable.
  
  --
  "What luck for the rulers that men do not think." - Adolph Hitler
So what he's basically saying is... by lanceblack · 2009-06-01 21:58 · Score: 5, Funny

oversimplifying is bad?

--
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." Darwin
1. Re:So what he's basically saying is... by findoutmoretoday · 2009-06-01 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  <quote>oversimplifying is bad?</quote> Well said. And according to Ockham even that is not always true: Better a simple mistake than a brilliant error.
Communication by siloko · 2009-06-01 22:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Over-simplification isn't the whole problem. Poor communication is.
You got it right there, if you can't communicate complex ideas to interested parties outside your field then you don't properly understand your field. Intelligence comes into it but only to a point . . . why use three syllables when one will do!
1. Re:Communication by VoidCrow · 2009-06-01 23:06 · Score: 1
  
  > why use three syllables when one will do! Sometimes you have to use a whole different language. And, some concepts don't transfer well to some people. People are individually *different*.
2. Re:Communication by VoidCrow · 2009-06-01 23:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  > Intelligence comes into it but only to a point . . .
  Out of interest, what is that point?
  Are you saying that the vast majority of the human race will have a good intuitive understanding of physics if only the argument is put well enough in sufficiently clear english?
3. Re:Communication by siloko · 2009-06-01 23:41 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  If you have an audience that is sufficiently interested in your subject to be reading/hearing whatever material you are presenting and you are still unable to presnt your ideas in such a way that the majority of that audience understands you then things have gone wrong:
  either
  you misunderstood your audience
  or
  you don't sufficiently understand your topic
  or
  you're an inherently bad communicator.
  Of course there can be other explanations but I am talking generally here. Perhaps the ideas ARE actually extremely complex, sure these exist, but they are the exception not the norm.
4. Re:Communication by moeinvt · 2009-06-02 00:07 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  " . . .if you can't communicate complex ideas to interested parties outside your field then you don't properly understand your field."
  I think it depends what field you're in, and the background of who you're trying to communicate with. An engineer talking to another engineer or scientist in a different field is one thing, an engineer talking to a dental hygienist is something else entirely.
  Try explaining transient noise analysis, the hot electron effect or negative bias temperature instability in integrated circuits to a non-technical audience. Even if you start out with an "interested party", they'll turn into an expressionless zombie before you've finished.
  It's not always a simple matter of communication skills. Some ideas require a foundation of knowledge, without which, the idea is nearly impossible to conceptualize.
5. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 00:07 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. And if you drop an object out of your hand while standing on the moon it will float- just ask Buzz Armstrong.
6. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 00:19 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I believe Feynman made exactly that point, and created a lecture series to do just that with Quantum Electro Dynamics.
  Apparently it worked, which suggests that the point has some validity.
7. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  yes. check out the feynman lectures.
8. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 01:54 · Score: 0
  
  "Are you saying that the vast majority of the human race will have a good intuitive understanding of physics if only the argument is put well enough in sufficiently clear english?"
  For what it's worth, that is pretty much what Richard Feynman has been saying an practicing.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-z5SJcatr8
9. Re:Communication by DerekLyons · 2009-06-02 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  if you can't communicate complex ideas to interested parties outside your field then you don't properly understand your field
  That depends greatly on the background of the interested party and whether you mean "given them a Saturday morning cartoon version" or "lead them to understanding the complete picture". The former is trivially easy. The latter, much harder because it depends greatly on the background of the interested party - if they lack sufficient background you end up "teaching them your field" as opposed to "communicating your idea".
  
  Intelligence comes into it but only to a point
  Horseshit. If the person to whom I am trying to communicate the idea lacks the requisite background, then they don't have the requisite background. Period. We're back to the "Saturday morning cartoon" versions which leaves the interested party with the false belief that they understand something.
  
  why use three syllables when one will do!
  Because all too often, one syllable won't do if actual understanding is your goal.
10. Re:Communication by foniksonik · 2009-06-02 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  Just use a car analogy for guys (baseball works in some circles) or a shopping analogy for girls (sorry girls it's the only thing you all do).
  That show Numb3rs provides a good example of how to create an analogy to describe a complex mathematical theorem/algorithm/concept.
  I'm not saying that analogies are accurate, just that they bring the audience closer to understanding what's involved in the problem scenario. If you can get someone to understand the problem, then your solution will make a lot more sense...
  In fact having just read my own words, I'd say that not stating the problem being solved for is probably the biggest mis-communication of all. Here's an example:
  1) "The answer is 4096"
  2) "How did you arrive at your answer? and what is it an answer for?"
  1) "You wouldn't understand, it's a math problem"
  2) "Try me"
  1) "Nah, I depend on grant money and it doesn't pay enough for me to take time to explain the problem. The other experts in my field know what I'm talking about since they're also studying this problem and that's all I care about - peer review, not your uninformed opinion."
  2) "OK, thanks then... 4096 huh... who'd a thunk it, now what's on TV tonight..."
  
  --
  A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
11. Re:Communication by OctaviusIII · 2009-06-02 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  I think it also has to do with curiosity. For example, a friend of mine is involved in cancer research and recently finished some long-term research she was doing and got published. Now, biology is NOT my strong point, not in the least, but after listening to her talk about protein expression, mitocondria, DNA and a host of technical terms, I can say that I have a better understanding of what cancer research does and the barriers to a cure. It wasn't that she's a superb orator or teacher, but simply that I was interested enough to ask clarifying questions and she was patient enough to answer them.
  
  If the listener is curious and the speaker patient, then knowledge on a specialized subject can be transferred.
  
  --
  What's this? Another weblog? On transit?
12. Re:Communication by jbengt · 2009-06-02 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  . . . why use three syllables when one will do!
  Often because the three syllables have a meaning somewhat different from the one syllable.
13. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Try explaining transient noise analysis, the hot electron effect or negative bias temperature instability in integrated circuits to a non-technical audience. Even if you start out with an "interested party", they'll turn into an expressionless zombie before you've finished.
  The problem here is the relevance. There has to be some concrete reason which forces the interested party to understand issues outside her field. The communicator have to "bind his variables" in such a way that the language used can be mapped to useful and important concepts of the listeners field. An example would be a systems biologist who could use some of the models of material or quantum physics. A mathematician is often required to bind these kinds of fields together. As to the non-technical (non-educated) audience, well, most things that can't be seen with a naked eye are basically in the realm of religion and philosophy. The existence of creationists is a good indication of this.
14. Re:Communication by eiMichael · 2009-06-02 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  Even if you start out with an "interested party", they'll turn into an expressionless zombie before you've finished.
  If they're interested, why exactly would they turn into an expressionless zombie? I'd argue that you've stopped communicating clearly and are likely just regurgitating what you heard or read on the topic without understanding it.
15. Re:Communication by wild_quinine · 2009-06-02 02:47 · Score: 1
  
  It's not always a simple matter of communication skills. Some ideas require a foundation of knowledge, without which, the idea is nearly impossible to conceptualize.
  This amounts to a form of inadvertant snobbery.
  If you can't effectively summarize the functional or foundational knowledge of your discipline then that is your failure to communicate. You don't need to explain ideas to the nth degree before someone can get on board with them.
  "Negative Bias Temperature Instability (NBTI) is a key reliability issue that is of immediate concern in p-channel MOS devices stressed with negative gate voltages. NBTI manifests as an increase in the threshold voltage and consequent decrease in drain current and transconductance." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBTI
  I don't have any background in this stuff, and that summary makes a lot of sense to me. I don't need to know how to do something in order to understand what it does, and even roughly why it does it.
16. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  There's no need to invoke these rather abstruse ideas from circuit analysis as examples. Without sufficient preparation, even much simpler and everyday concepts can thwart the common understanding.
  I was once attempting to explain the simple physics of wheel motion to a group of people. Concepts such as static and kinetic friction, as well as the idea that work is equal to a force multiplied by a displacement, are quite alien to an untrained mind. Left to their own intuitions, this group could only completely distort and malign the true principles that are involved in a rolling wheel.
17. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 03:17 · Score: 0
  
  its like a car analogy
18. Re:Communication by vadim_t · 2009-06-02 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, then please explain that in layman's terms, without looking every term in wikipedia. Specifically:
  What is a p-channel MOS device? What's a real world example of one?
  What does "negative gate voltage" mean?
  What is the "threshold voltage"?
  What is the "drain current"?
  What is transconductance?
  Why is a decrease in drain current and transconductance a bad thing?
  I think the grandparent made the point perfectly. That sentence alone is full of terms that make it completely incomprehensible to anybody without at least some knowledge in the subject matter. At the very least, understanding how a transistor works is needed to understand that sentence.
  So, can you take that one sentence and translate it into something that doesn't assume any knowledge about electronics, transistors, or electricity beyond the very basic level most people are familiar with?
19. Re:Communication by david_thornley · 2009-06-02 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  Or your audience just refuses to understand. How do you tell somebody that a depressive can't just decide to cheer up? (I'd love to know, personally, and so would a whole lot of other people.)
  Now, suppose that you're a good communicator, understand your topic and audience, the audience is interested, and the ideas are not overly abstruse. Say you're talking about climate change. Now suppose that there's another person who also talks, and whose views are opposite yours.
  Now, how do you convince the audience? I honestly can't tell how accurate Feynmann is in "Q.E.D.". Since it's Feynmann, and he did know quantum electrodynamics, and was a tremendously good communicator, I assume it's all accurate (except for the parts he says are approximate). However, I'm doing it by trusting Feynmann as an authority.
  What would be really nice is if we could have a public debate on climate change, or any other technological problem, where a reasonably intelligent member of the audience could come to the correct conclusion from the information given. Sure, I can understand what's going on when told, but I can't on my own tell which of two explanations is the correct one.
  
  --
  "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
20. Re:Communication by Bender0x7D1 · 2009-06-02 05:01 · Score: 1
  
  But it isn't a requirement to learn about every underlying feature in order to learn the issue at hand.
  For example, here is discussion Mutex vs. Semaphore, where the concepts are compared to toilets. Very understandable to the average person and completely ignores everything going on "under the hood". They might not be able to create their own libraries for this, (or even code at all), but they can understand what they do and how they are used. You can then discuss real-world examples with them even if they have no knowledge of the underlying details.
  In this case, you don't need to describe what MOS really is, you could describe it using a bad analogy like a light switch. We don't make light switches out of copper since it would electrocute us when we turned on the light. We also don't make our light switches 3-feet high. MOS is the material and design that we have come up with so we can turn the really small switches on and off without needing to get a finger inside to flip an actual switch. Want to describe p-channel - do it in terms of a strainer. We want holes of a certain size in a strainer so water goes through easily but the pasta does not. We also want different numbers and sizes of holes when we are sifting flour. If we use a flour sifter on our spaghetti, it will take forever for the water to drain and everything will get cold while we wait. In this case, the p-channel is the number of holes in our strainer and it is dealing with electrons instead of water or flour.
  Sure, they won't be able to discuss how to build a p-channel MOS, and the design trade-offs, but that isn't the purpose. The point is, by relating concepts to what they are familiar with, they can understand the general idea.
  
  --
  Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
21. Re:Communication by ultranova · 2009-06-02 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  It's not always a simple matter of communication skills. Some ideas require a foundation of knowledge, without which, the idea is nearly impossible to conceptualize.
  
  This amounts to a form of inadvertant snobbery.
  
  No, it amounts to stating the obvious. Of course you need to have background knowledge to understand complicated ideas.
  
  If you can't effectively summarize the functional or foundational knowledge of your discipline then that is your failure to communicate. You don't need to explain ideas to the nth degree before someone can get on board with them.
  
  Yes, you do. I've seen so many instances of Quantum Mysticism I'm thoroughly convinced that modern physics is genuinely difficult to conceptualize. It's not because the scientists lack communication skills, it's because the subject matter is so far outside the realm of everyday experiences of most people, and in fact often appears to be in direct contradiction to common sense.
  
  "Negative Bias Temperature Instability (NBTI) is a key reliability issue that is of immediate concern in p-channel MOS devices stressed with negative gate voltages. NBTI manifests as an increase in the threshold voltage and consequent decrease in drain current and transconductance." from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBTI
  I don't have any background in this stuff, and that summary makes a lot of sense to me.
  
  Without background knowledge the summary is utter gibberish, since it's not possible to even know what field it's referring to. You do have that background knowledge, at least enough to recognize some of the terms and have some idea what the heck it's talking about, you're just comparing your level to that of an expert.
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
22. Re:Communication by nine-times · 2009-06-02 06:32 · Score: 1
  
  You got it right there, if you can't communicate complex ideas to interested parties outside your field then you don't properly understand your field.
  
  I don't think that's true. Wouldn't you at least preserve the possibility that someone could be knowledgeable about their field but a very poor communicator? I feel like I've known lots of smart people who are just very bad at explaining their own thoughts.
23. Re:Communication by adonoman · 2009-06-02 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  It's not necessarily a matter of snobbery, it's just a matter of the amount of effort an expert invests into understanding a topic. When my wife asks me what I'm doing at work, the best I can do is give some vague analogies that give her a rough idea of what I'm doing, since she really doesn't have the interest in learning about the details of programming in general, and of the problem at hand in specific. Likewise, when she tells me about her work, I don't have the background to understand much more than surface glossing of molecular biology.
  For her to put herself in the position to judge what programming technique would be best in a given situation would be silly. And I wouldn't pretend to be able to offer her advice on the synthesizing technique she should you for a specific situation - she knows all the details way better than I ever will. Of course, there is value in discussing back and forth - sometimes if I set up the analogy right, she'll come up with an "out-of-the-box" solution that I can look at and adjust to fit the real solution. Of course, at least as often, that "out-of-the-box" solution is just an inadequacy in my analogy, and then I need to explain the problem in more detail. Usually at that point we switch to a topic that we both only know a little about (like economics, history, or politics) and we can discuss endlessly without having to worry about the actual physical applications.
24. Re:Communication by DMUTPeregrine · 2009-06-02 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  Fine, explain what the Riemann Zeta function is, why it's important, & how to compute its zeroes. Do this without using more fundamental mathematical concepts, just layman's terms (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division allowed, nothing beyond elementary school math (they've forgotten it.)) If your argument is correct, then any failure would simply be poor communication, not a lack of understanding of more fundamental concepts on the part of the lay-audience.
  
  --
  Not a sentence!
25. Re:Communication by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 09:04 · Score: 0
  
  Is she hawt?
26. Re:Communication by Hognoxious · 2009-06-02 09:45 · Score: 1
  
  if you can't communicate complex ideas to interested parties outside your field then you don't properly understand your field [...] why use three syllables when one will do!
  
  I've got three syllables for you: bollocks.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
27. Re:Communication by daymitch · 2009-06-02 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. I think that is what the parent is saying, IMHO. One major purpose of science is to make and test models of the universe. It's probably the most important purpose when it comes to justifying public investment in basic research.
  The best models are as simple as possible without misrepresenting the system they were built to imitate. The process of defining the system and the domain (conditions under which the model is useful) is hard, but the proof of success comes when the model passes the tests *and* can be explained to a broad audience.
  This is an ideal, of course. Truly revolutionary new models only come once a generation or so. It's hard work and specialists do need specialized modes of communication. It's like laws and sausage, it's often better to not see how they are made unless you have a compelling reason.
It's not that you're wrong... by Talisman · 2009-06-01 22:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place."

The problem I've found, even since my first debate class in 10th grade, is that the vast majority of people have no interest in what the 'right' answer is. They only care that their perspective is correct, and if an inconvenient counterpoint is presented, they discount, rail against, or outright ignore it.

In addition to this, the people presenting the counterpoints often do it in such a condescending manner, any slim hope there was of the other person considering an alternate viewpoint is evaporated in a blast of indignation.

The most productive problem solving I've ever done, and still do, is when I'm surrounded by smart people who don't believe their personal ego should factor into any decision made. We sit down at a table, drink lots of coffee, joke around, and at the end of the day, have solved most of our problems in elegant, efficient ways. We even laugh at our own dumb ideas when we've overlooked something that should have been obvious. I've also been in groups where you are crucified for uttering something that isn't completely accurate. This environment simply leads to a large amount of CYA, because once a person commits to the decision, he then MUST follow through, even if later he realizes it wasn't the best choice, because the environment he's working in is completely unforgiving. Basically if he admits there was a better option, it costs him his job. It's best to not have that type of fear, because no matter how hard you are on people, they will still make mistakes, even the brilliant ones.

The same holds true for personal philosophies; solving the problems that being alive presents. When you are listening to other people, you should actually listen to them. Try to see things their way. Don't bash them, even if you disagree. It doesn't hurt. It can often help. And when you're presenting a counterpoint, be genteel about it. Tact goes a very long way.

The Dude said it best, "You're not wrong, Walter. You're just an ASSHOLE!"

--

"Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
1. Re:It's not that you're wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 22:53 · Score: 0
  
  "...when I'm surrounded by smart people who don't believe their personal ego should factor into any decision made. "
  What are you doing on slashdot you insensitive clod!
2. Re:It's not that you're wrong... by Steauengeglase · 2009-06-02 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  "We sit down at a table, drink lots of coffee, joke around, and at the end of the day, have solved most of our problems in elegant, efficient ways. We even laugh at our own dumb ideas when we've overlooked something that should have been obvious."
  I knew it Talisman, you are a damned Canadian!
3. Re:It's not that you're wrong... by Killgore9998 · 2009-06-02 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are absolutely right, but to reply to one thing:
  
  I've also been in groups where you are crucified for uttering something that isn't completely accurate. This environment simply leads to a large amount of CYA, because once a person commits to the decision, he then MUST follow through, even if later he realizes it wasn't the best choice, because the environment he's working in is completely unforgiving. Basically if he admits there was a better option, it costs him his job. It's best to not have that type of fear, because no matter how hard you are on people, they will still make mistakes, even the brilliant ones.
  
  I might suggest that this intolerant unforgiving attitude you speak of doesn't necessarily come from the ego.. it comes from our brutish, fearful nature as mortals. By way of example, if you are a doctor who has been entrusted the life of a patient, you often do not have the luxury of time or opportunity to change your mind. To admit later that you made the wrong decision is so tragic as to be considered by most to be unacceptable. If this were a perfect world, we would all recognize that the generally very capable doctor did his best, despite his failure, and we would all move on. We are emotional beings, however, which is why the idea of the environment you describe is ultimately just the result wishful thinking.
4. Re:It's not that you're wrong... by c0d3g33k · 2009-06-02 04:30 · Score: 1
  
  I've also been in groups where you are crucified for uttering something that isn't completely accurate. This environment simply leads to a large amount of CYA, because once a person commits to the decision, he then MUST follow through, even if later he realizes it wasn't the best choice, because the environment he's working in is completely unforgiving. Basically if he admits there was a better option, it costs him his job. It's best to not have that type of fear, because no matter how hard you are on people, they will still make mistakes, even the brilliant ones.
  Word.
  One the big ephiphanies they pushed people to have in graduate school was exactly this. The incoming students invariably thought they had to know everything, or at least to appear so. The first big milestone in their development was to get them (us, actually) to realize that it was entirely ok to say "I don't know" or "I don't understand". In fact it was expected and considered much more acceptable than to be caught trying to bluff (or worse, B.S.) one's way through a topic. This approach was very effective because rather than having people afraid to admit they didn't know something, it gave them the opportunity to actually learn things with greater efficiency and to greater depth. A wonderful lesson to learn.
5. Re:It's not that you're wrong... by nine-times · 2009-06-02 06:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The same holds true for personal philosophies; solving the problems that being alive presents. When you are listening to other people, you should actually listen to them. Try to see things their way. Don't bash them, even if you disagree. It doesn't hurt. It can often help. And when you're presenting a counterpoint, be genteel about it. Tact goes a very long way.
  
  I agree strongly. One of the things I've learned over the years is that, when someone is disagreeing with you, it's almost always the case that they're thinking about something that's worth considering. They might be misunderstanding a lot of things, mixing up causes and effects, or all making all sorts of mistakes, but if you can figure out what's really at stake in the argument, it's almost always something fairly understandable if not valid.
  Like you look at something really contentious like Intelligent Design. I've talked to proponents of Intelligent Design enough to have realized that many of them aren't even interested in it as a scientific theory. The real essential point of contention is that they don't like people trying to use science to tell them that their beliefs, and even their way of life is wrong. Intelligent Design is often just seen as a way of fighting back, of "beating atheists at their own game." And fair enough, because it's true that some atheists want to use evolution as a wedge issue to claim that all religious people are stupid; I can't blame people for wanting to respond. If you can somehow bring the argument around to an admission that "evolution has happened" is not equivalent to "God doesn't exist," then suddenly you'll find that a lot of religious people are more open to evolution as a concept.
  Of course, other things get involved, too. For example, sometimes a person is just feeling backed into a corner and that person feels like his ego is at stake in the argument. Now that's not entirely valid, but it's fairly understandable. And if you discover that it's the case, then sometimes you can bring that person around to your side by giving him an opportunity to agree with you without sacrificing his ego-- assuming you can invent that opportunity. Or sometimes you just have to disabuse them of the notion that they can hang their ego on this argument, just so they'll give up.
  Anyway, I'm going off on tangents, but my real point here is this: whenever someone is arguing against you, it's good to assume that there's something that person believes is at risk, and that person wants to protect that at-risk thing. If you can't figure out what that at-risk thing is, then you're not very well-prepared to argue.
6. Re:It's not that you're wrong... by Pushnell · 2009-06-02 11:44 · Score: 1
  
  My excellent philosophy professor summed it up rather succinctly: there are two types of arguments, arguments with a goal of synthesis, and arguments with a goal of victory.
7. Re:It's not that you're wrong... by Alex+Belits · 2009-06-04 10:07 · Score: 1
  
  If you can somehow bring the argument around to an admission that "evolution has happened" is not equivalent to "God doesn't exist," then suddenly you'll find that a lot of religious people are more open to evolution as a concept.
  That does not make their arguments valid, it merely explains why they are clinging to invalid arguments.
  And, of course, that does not make their belief in God any less of a dangerous superstition.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
8. Re:It's not that you're wrong... by nine-times · 2009-06-04 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  Well really you're just taking the argument through another layer. You're saying their belief in God is dangerous, and those people would say it's something valuable that you're trying to rob them of. What I'm saying is, in that argument, you would each be arguing from a position of trying to protect something. It's possible that you're trying to protect your ego as much as the religious opposition might be trying to protect theirs. Or possibly you're trying to protect your sense of "rational thought" and they're trying to protect their ideas of "stable morality".
  Of course, the argument is a little different each time, and what's being protected depends on who's arguing (and not the argument itself). But if all you can do is snipe from the sidelines and you fail to make a logical argument yourself in favor of the things you're trying to protect, then don't expect anyone on the opposing side to be convinced.
9. Re:It's not that you're wrong... by Alex+Belits · 2009-06-04 16:29 · Score: 1
  
  What I'm saying is, in that argument, you would each be arguing from a position of trying to protect something. It's possible that you're trying to protect your ego as much as the religious opposition might be trying to protect theirs.
  And if I don't, where does it place your strawman argument?
  
  Or possibly you're trying to protect your sense of "rational thought"
  I merely demand them to apply scientific method to discussions about science. It's not my idea, and if they can't do that much, they should not pretend that their position has any kind of merit.
  
  and they're trying to protect their ideas of "stable morality".
  At which point I have no problem dismissing their words as worthless bible-thumping, and switching to a more important goal -- demonstrating their stupidity, so they won't be able to spread it to other people.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
10. Re:It's not that you're wrong... by nine-times · 2009-06-05 04:49 · Score: 1
  
  At which point I have no problem dismissing their words as worthless bible-thumping, and switching to a more important goal -- demonstrating their stupidity, so they won't be able to spread it to other people.
  Since when has demonstrable stupidity kept an idea from being spread?
  But, now, do you at least see my point that "dismissing" other people's ideas as "worthless" and "stupid" isn't going to convince them? In fact, it's not really going to do anything except rally people who already agree with you, and anger those who don't.
  And besides that, dismissing other people's ideas as worthless and stupid without addressing them with a sensible argument is just as irrational as "bible thumping".
11. Re:It's not that you're wrong... by Alex+Belits · 2009-06-05 18:21 · Score: 1
  
  Since when has demonstrable stupidity kept an idea from being spread?
  Since forever?
  
  But, now, do you at least see my point that "dismissing" other people's ideas as "worthless" and "stupid" isn't going to convince them? In fact, it's not really going to do anything except rally people who already agree with you, and anger those who don't.
  Why would I want to convince stupid people? I would rather make sure that they won't convince others who are ignorant but not as stupid as they are.
  
  And besides that, dismissing other people's ideas as worthless and stupid without addressing them with a sensible argument is just as irrational as "bible thumping".
  Some politically correct Americans forgot that it's perfectly OK to have enemies. You don't even need government to assign them to you.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I Like the Sentiment, But ... by dplentini · 2009-06-01 22:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

I like the quote on Slashdot, but reading his blog I get the sense that he actively practices what he preaches against. Reducing people and complex issues to simplistic (and usually undefined) categories is the heart of the oversimplification that Sanchez laments. We don't need more fights over how to name our problems; we need to understand them, which means we need to understand our selves.
1. Re:I Like the Sentiment, But ... by TubeSteak · 2009-06-02 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  We don't need more fights over how to name our problems; we need to understand them...
  Don't think of it as a "fight over how to name our problems"
  Think of it as a "fight over how to frame our problems"
  Because, as a general principle, he who frames the issue can load it so the debate is weighted one way or another.
  For example, calling a doctor "Tiller the baby killer" effectively spikes a legitimate debate from the beginning.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
2. Re:I Like the Sentiment, But ... by dplentini · 2009-06-02 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  We don't need more fights over how to name our problems; we need to understand them...
  Don't think of it as a "fight over how to name our problems" Think of it as a "fight over how to frame our problems"
  Because, as a general principle, he who frames the issue can load it so the debate is weighted one way or another. For example, calling a doctor "Tiller the baby killer" effectively spikes a legitimate debate from the beginning.
  I'm not sure if you're serious; but if you are, then you're confusing sophistry with real debate and understanding. Winning an argument, i.e., getting someone to agree with your view, is not the same as reaching understanding. Supposedly that was Sanchez's point too, but I think he doesn't really understand the difference.
3. Re:I Like the Sentiment, But ... by jvkjvk · 2009-06-02 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  There are many different understandings that can be reached on a single topic.
  It all depends on which questions you ask, and how you ask them.
  Reaching an understanding is first reaching an understanding about this important point.
  It's not sophistry, either.
  Everyone comes to a discusssion with at least one ontological basis. This is the framework of their viewpoint. In general, most questions they ask will be generated inside this framework.
  However, this framework is invisible, both to self and other. It is only through a discourse on the framing questions themselves in the discussion that these can be talked about.
  And that is the true beginning of understanding.
  Regards.
4. Re:I Like the Sentiment, But ... by dplentini · 2009-06-02 05:11 · Score: 1
  
  There are many different understandings that can be reached on a single topic.
  It all depends on which questions you ask, and how you ask them.
  Reaching an understanding is first reaching an understanding about this important point.
  It's not sophistry, either.
  Everyone comes to a discusssion with at least one ontological basis. This is the framework of their viewpoint. In general, most questions they ask will be generated inside this framework.
  However, this framework is invisible, both to self and other. It is only through a discourse on the framing questions themselves in the discussion that these can be talked about.
  And that is the true beginning of understanding.
  Regards.
  I agree that reaching an understanding is not sophistry. But "framing" with the intention of winning an argument is sophistry, which was my point. Yes, we all come to any discussion or argument with our views, or "frameworks", or whatever other word you want to use to characterize the fact that we cannot share our minds with each other. But don't confuse theories about how our minds work with the actual work of discourse. Too often theoretical categories of knowledge only interfere with the real work needed to approach a "meeting of the minds" that is necessary to achieve effective discourse and understanding.
Philosophy like this *is* an OWHA by Dystopian+Rebel · 2009-06-01 22:22 · Score: 1

The One Way Hash Argument notion applies to Philosophy itself.
Sure, a communicator may exploit the audience's lack of expertise so that the audience, overwhelmed, agrees without understanding whether any of it is right or wrong. Boo hoo.
The chance of a long, self-absorbed philosophical tract boiling down to a rather bland-looking lump of food is very high. OWHA may well trigger a reflex that people have evolved to deal with those thinkers among them who can cook all day but end up serving a spoonful of gruel late in the evening. "By the gods, I could have been hunting all this time instead of listening to Conan The Orator."
OWHA is a useful onomatopoeia for my reaction. (o;

--
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by MikeRT · 2009-06-01 22:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

than does knowledge.
Speaking of science, I've noticed for a while now that it's certainly true that many, probably most, religious non-scientists get their facts wrong about scientific theories, but it's equally true that most atheists have at best a shallow understanding of theology. In fact, I'm being charitable on that point, as most atheists I've met are either laughably ignorant of even the most basic theology or will refuse to discuss theology on a level more complex than one dumbed down for a small child or a person with Down's Syndrome.
At the same time, however, we need to be careful of high falutin arguments in a lot of fields. Occam's razor often becomes "Occam's chainsaw" in Philosophy, Political Science and Sociology. The real sciences are necessarily complex because they are dealing with an inherently complex subject that is only specialized because that is convenient for humans. In most fields, when you get into equal levels of complexity, you often find that that complexity is man-made, not inherent to the issue(s).
1. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by Fizzl · 2009-06-01 22:37 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Theology is useless. There is nothing to discus about religious matters. There's no magical zombie jesus, allah or whatever. It would be better to stop talking about religion all together.
  No one should educate themselves about any religion. There is nothing of value to learn. You can learn about ethics without the mindfuck that religion is.
  
  --
  Bot Assisted Blogging
2. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by TheVelvetFlamebait · 2009-06-01 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  Ignorance more freely begets confidence ... than does knowledge.
  I think you're on the right track. I think that knowledge begets wisdom, which begets caution. In the process of gaining rigorous knowledge, most people's horizons are inevitably challenged, and their intuition is inevitably proved fallible. This is a facet of wisdom, if ancient pop philosopher Aristotle is to be believed.
  And Fizzl's comment is pretty damn funny after hearing about ignorance from atheists. :)
  
  --
  You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
3. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by stjobe · 2009-06-01 23:29 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  You can learn about ethics without the mindfuck that religion is.
  Quoted For Truth.
  
  --
  "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
4. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 23:46 · Score: 0
  
  How can you say something is false without knowing anything about it?
5. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by maxume · 2009-06-01 23:46 · Score: 1
  
  If you throw out divinity as a premise, what theological concepts demand subtlety?
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
6. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by mario_grgic · 2009-06-01 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  Theology is not religion and is certainly not about any specific deity like Zombie Jesus(TM) or Allah.
  Whether you like it or not, we humans are spiritual beings, and people like you who deny that aspect of themselves are not really living their lives to the fullest. Spirituality is not about worshiping Gods in some ritualistic way prescribed by religious form, although it can be that too. It is more about you being awestruck by "simple" questions like why are we here, what is my purpose here if I have any at all, where did we come from, where are we going, etc.
  By the way all world religions offer answers to these questions, but are by no means the only answers one can give. One could be scientific about it, and try to answer these question from that perspective, but that kind of analysis usually leaves us cold, feeling small, and somewhat unfulfilled.
  
  --
  As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
7. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by domatic · 2009-06-02 00:05 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Theology is not religion and is certainly not about any specific deity like Zombie Jesus(TM) or Allah.
  .
  .
  .
  By the way all world religions offer answers to these questions, but are by no means the only answers one can give. One could be scientific about it, and try to answer these question from that perspective, but that kind of analysis usually leaves us cold, feeling small, and somewhat unfulfilled.
  Yeah. Yeah. Tell me more about this version of Jesus who casts about the landscape on a quest for succulent brains whilst preaching the love of his father.
8. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by NeoSkandranon · 2009-06-02 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  Well, they just believe they're right, see.
  
  --
  If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
9. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by dkleinsc · 2009-06-02 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  Here's a few that I've discussed with atheist friends:
  - Why be charitable towards the less fortunate?
  - What sorts of causes beyond yourself are worth serving?
  - What is a morally good or just action? Why?
  - What would you sacrifice for? (An answer of "nothing" here is probably too easy: most parents would give up quite a bit for their kids, for instance)
  - When are laws wrong, and what do you do about it?
  These questions don't go away just because there's no divinity involved, and many of them are key questions in theology as well as philosophy.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
10. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by maxume · 2009-06-02 00:46 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Without divinity, I don't see how any of those things are theological (or rather, absent divinity, I don't see what theology brings to them).
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
11. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by 0xdeadbeef · 2009-06-02 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  How does one be laughably ignorant of a pursuit which is itself laughable?
  And you are confusing complexity with rigor. It isn't that the "soft" sciences aren't complex, it is that the subject matter is so complex it leaves the practitioners grasping at straws. That leaves a lot of room for the incompetently confident, so the fields are dominated by people who divorce their theories from physical reality and reduce everything to an ideology.
12. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by 0xdeadbeef · 2009-06-02 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  It is more about you being awestruck by "simple" questions like why are we here, what is my purpose here if I have any at all, where did we come from, where are we going, etc.
  Awe is an emotion, it is not knowledge.
  And if awe doesn't lead you to seek knowledge, but instead leads you to constantly reproduce the experience in church or meditation, then you're no different than a crack addict, masturbating your brain with endorphins.
13. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by 0xdeadbeef · 2009-06-02 01:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  These questions don't go away just because there's no divinity involved
  Meditate upon this statement and perhaps you will be enlightened as to why no one need bother themselves with theology.
14. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 02:09 · Score: 0
  
  "Speaking of science, I've noticed for a while now that it's certainly true that many, probably most, religious non-scientists get their facts wrong about scientific theories, but it's equally true that most atheists have at best a shallow understanding of theology."
  That's a complicated way of saying that most laymen have a shallow understanding of science.
  Also, most atheists don't care very much for religion or anything related to it, and certainly theology is a bit of a niche science - even many religious people have a shallow understanding of theology.
  On the other hand, at least superficially it seems that a certain type of religious people do have a very strong interest in certain fields of science...
15. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  I tend to see the opposite. All of the atheists that I personally know were formerly religious, many of them studied theology and religion. Ironically, it was often this study that brought them to the realizations that fundamentally changed their beliefs. This is, at this point, one anecdote against another but I still get the feeling that you're presenting a false equivocation.
16. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by Hatta · 2009-06-02 02:16 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It is more about you being awestruck by "simple" questions like why are we here, what is my purpose here if I have any at all, where did we come from, where are we going, etc.
  Why do you think people go into science? There's nothing spiritual (i.e. superstitious) about those questions. If you truly want to know the answers to these great questions, you're not going to be satisfied with some fairy tale.
  By the way all world religions offer answers to these questions, but are by no means the only answers one can give
  Nor are they correct.
  One could be scientific about it, and try to answer these question from that perspective, but that kind of analysis usually leaves us cold, feeling small, and somewhat unfulfilled.
  Exactly, people cling to religion like a blankie because they don't like the cold hard facts of reality.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
17. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by foniksonik · 2009-06-02 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  Theology brings in an invisible third hand. This can be either useful or abuseful. When you have a complex social issue with many groups vying for authority of purpose but also with internal agendas... it gets really messy. Sometimes it's nice to provide a third (as in external) authority which can rise above the agendas and look at the issue from a neutral point of view ie: what is in the best interest of humanity as a whole.
  Scientists and atheists generally like to think that they are capable of discounting their own agendas or just accept the fact that it's a messy problem and for most people accepting that it is a messy problem is just an admission - not a solution.
  So a lot of people would prefer to believe in a Deity since they actually do realize that they are incapable of getting past their own selfish needs and don't have the time to work through the mess and can't just leave it as a mess... it's like that saying "why wait around for Mr. Right when Mr. Right Now is already here".
  Science wants people to wait around while they figure out the answers... Theology has an answer already - and has had it for 2000+ years.
  
  --
  A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
18. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by maxume · 2009-06-02 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  None of that has much to do with atheists making shallow arguments. If someone rejects divinity (this seems to be rather essential for an atheist), "divinity makes other people comfortable" is not going to have a great deal of relevance to them.
  I would also tend to reject the notion that theologists have managed to set aside their own interests and consider the needs of humanity as a whole.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
19. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by JerkBoB · 2009-06-02 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Awe is an emotion, it is not knowledge.
  And if awe doesn't lead you to seek knowledge, but instead leads you to constantly reproduce the experience in church or meditation, then you're no different than a crack addict, masturbating your brain with endorphins.
  I am in awe of the succinctness with which you have described the futility of religious experience. I'm going to be chuckling about this one all day.
  
  --
  A host is a host from coast to coast...
  Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
20. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by Chemisor · 2009-06-02 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  > Here's a few that I've discussed with atheist friends:
  Fruitlessly, no doubt, since your position is based on faith rather than evidence. The difference between religion and science is that the former states "believe this because I (or God) tell you so", while the latter states "here is what we see in reality, and here are our logical conclusions about what is, based on what we see"
  > - What is a morally good or just action? Why?
  A morally good action is one that creates more of what you value. Religions like Christianity usually specify the virtues directly, leaving the values unsaid. For example, consider the Christian virtues of Prudence, Justice, Temperance, Fortitude, Faith, Hope, and Charity. Prudence is a virtue because it increases your chances of coming up with correct decisions, an outcome you consider valuable. Justice, or rendering to each and all what is due to them, exists because you value the kind of world where you get what you deserve. Practicing temperance increases the time you spend on contemplating God (which you value) and decreases the time you spend on physical pleasures (which you don't). Fortitude is the expression of the valuable (to you) mindset of acceptance, that what happens to you is God's will and it's not your place to question it. Faith makes sure you don't think too much (which is bad for God, placing it in danger of extinction). Hope increases your desire for the afterlife. And Charity cultivates the valuable trait of dependence in other people.
  My moral code contains different virtues because I value different things. I do not decide what to value based on what some nonexistent entity tells me (or, rather, what the Church says the nonexistent entity would tell me if it felt like doing so); my values are an expression of what I personally want the world to be like. Actions making the world more like what I want it are virtues, and actions contrary to that are vices. You went directly to the virtues, because the Church dictates it so, but the process of coming up with those virtues could be the same for both of us, and if you accept the Christian values that the virtues imply, you would generate the same moral code as the Church did. Both of us use the same methods, but achieve different results. If you wish to argue that your moral code is superior to mine, you need to demonstrate that your values are superior to mine; i.e. that the kind of world you want is "better" than the kind of world I want.
  > - Why be charitable towards the less fortunate?
  Why indeed? Christianity encourages charity so that people would become accustomed to dependence on each other. Going your own way has many dangers to a system of beliefs based mostly on "because I say so", and so should be discouraged as much as possible. Charity also encourages humility, which is makes for easier subjects to rule, and more pliable minds for indoctrination. And Charity emphasizes the Christian disdain for material possessions; the poor are easier to manipulate due to humility, lack of education, dependence on the community, and general intellectual apathy. Christianity considers charity a virtue. In my moral code, it is one of the most vicious things you can do to a person.
  That is not to say that I would never help other people. I just wouldn't do it solely because they are "less fortunate". I might help someone if I like him (by which I mean that he has traits I value). I might help him if he can do something for me later, although I might not have any specific reciprocal action in mind, or imply it as a condition for my assistance (that would be an implicit contract, a serious vice). Or I just might do it for personal entertainment if I am bored.
  > - What sorts of causes beyond yourself are worth serving?
  The ones that create something you value greatly. You serve God's purpose, whatever you imagine it may be. I decide what I value for myself and then find the causes that achieve those values. A
21. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-06-02 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  Why do you think people go into science? There's nothing spiritual (i.e. superstitious) about those questions. If you truly want to know the answers to these great questions, you're not going to be satisfied with some fairy tale.
  Science doesn't really answer any of those questions.
22. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by Fizzl · 2009-06-02 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Don't argue illogical matters with logic.
  
  --
  Bot Assisted Blogging
23. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by c0d3g33k · 2009-06-02 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  By the way all world religions offer unsubstantiated and unverifiable answers to these questions, but are by no means the only answers one can give.
  There. Fixed that for you.
24. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by maxume · 2009-06-02 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Nor does religion.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
25. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by Hatta · 2009-06-02 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  No it doesn't, but it's the best we can do. Making shit up and running with it really doesn't give those questions the consideration they deserve. Remember Einsteins stance on religion:
  
  A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)
  Everyone has these feelings. You can either use them to motivate you to discover what you can (however little it is) about the universe, or you can ignore the fact that no one really knows what's at the core of reality and make shit up. That's the difference between science and religion.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
26. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by Rycross · 2009-06-02 06:11 · Score: 1
  
  I wouldn't say that most atheists have a shallow understanding of theology. A lot of the evangelical atheists (the ones who go on about how "terrible" religion is) have a shallow understanding of basic human psychology. If you ever come across an atheist who parrots the old "Religion has caused more death and destruction in the world than all other causes," line, or the "Theists are inherently irrational while atheists are inherently rational" line, ask him to try to quantify those statement. Usually, they can't without going through mental gymnastics or redefining their terms (i.e., "But nationalism and racism are kind-of religions!", "Emotional outbursts aren't signs of irrationality!").
  Of course, the point is that we're all human. We're all irrational and biased. We all have a shallow understanding of things we don't think to often about. We all try to turn opposing arguments into one-dimensional simplifications that are easy to counter. Hell, you can see all of this in my post above. Its hard to have a real, honest debate because its hard to fight our instincts. It essentially requires us to be inhuman.
27. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by MindlessAutomata · 2009-06-02 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  Because questions of meaning and purpose (which is philosophical; to say they are theological is to just give those questions a religious flavor and to appeal to god on occasion) are non-questions. There is no meaning, purpose, no objective right or wrong. These are human concepts, human creations.
  Asking what one's purpose is is about as objectively discussable as asking whether one should eat broccoli for dinner or not. That's the philosophical route. Theologically, the question would discuss whether God wants you to eat broccoli, and other nonsense like that.
  Whenever someone says atheists don't understand theology they never go into depth about what it is they don't understand. They just handwave. If you are able to poke and prod deep enough you find out it's all about seeking non-answers to non-questions, revealing the reason they had to resort to handwaving to begin with.
  Theology is useless. It is the least productive form of philosophy in a religious dress. Not only is it bad that they are looking for questions only oneself can give an answer to (if that), they are claiming that these questions are soley or at least more suited to analysis through religious dogma. Pure nonsense.
28. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by MindlessAutomata · 2009-06-02 09:11 · Score: 1
  
  None of these questions has an objective, factual answer like "Why do planets orbit the sun?" These questions are all human creations, and the only answer you get will be the one you make up for yourself or one that was shaped by your nature and/or behavioral input.
  Theology is mental masturbation--nobody can be wrong, and everyone can feel like they're right and engaging in productive dialogue when they're not. Theology is -useless-.
29. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by Hognoxious · 2009-06-02 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  It says "because [insert diety here] made it so". What more do you want?
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
30. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by maxume · 2009-06-02 11:31 · Score: 1
  
  More cowbell.
  This is always true.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
31. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by Eli+Gottlieb · 2009-06-02 12:17 · Score: 1
  
  And thus we see that Slashdotters don't ask those questions, because they already think they know the answer: "there is no question, nothing is true, everything is permitted, God doesn't exist, and if you don't shut up about that stuff I won't be able to concentrate on building my new Gentoo kernel properly" ;-).
  I'm not just needling you here, but the two who replied above you on a basic assumption of atheism.
32. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by MindlessAutomata · 2009-06-02 13:40 · Score: 1
  
  What? No, things are true, yadda yadda, it's just that questions of personal meaning have no true objective answer. The questions of "theology" are of no more substance or no more answerable than "What should I eat for lunch?" yet theologians treat them like they're deep, profound, answerable questions--and they say that since science cannot answer them, then they are equipped to do so. But they are not, and certainly not by invoking silly metaphysical concepts like "God".
33. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by Lunzo · 2009-06-02 16:08 · Score: 1
  
  You didn't read the parent post at all did you? He said we need less of your type (and the equivalent religious person who rejects all science).
34. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by maxume · 2009-06-03 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  If I don't have faith, what problems does the assumption of atheism present me? Are you positing that I should consider a world with god (something I doubt I could do justice too) and use that consideration to try to build faith around? I could never reconcile 'life will be better if X' with the not being honest with myself, so it wouldn't work.
  
  --
  Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
35. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by The_Quinn · 2009-06-04 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  I think you can substantially answer "what should I eat for lunch". Just because you have a lot of options doesn't mean that all options have the same outcome.
  You can eat a whole lot of ice cream, or a lean turkey sandwich, or a handful of bumble bees.
  One makes you fat (maybe sick), another fills and keeps you healthy, the last makes you scream in pain.
  If you only have one day to live, ice cream probably makes sense. Otherwise turkey sandwich is probably better. But the question of what you eat for lunch is a universal question that almost everyone has to answer. While the answers will vary for everyone, the principles for formulating the answer are universal - people who want to live, be healthy, and be happy need to use those principles to make decisions.
  That is the real (not frequently mentioned) purpose of philosophy - to inform humans about the universal principles and premises required to know how and why to live life.
  
  --
  Mine is Good
36. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by The_Quinn · 2009-06-04 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  You know, I actually agree with you here.
  The only justification for self-sacrifice, or any form of human sacrifice, is a mystical belief.
  For people who believe they have only a finite time to enjoy life in a knowable universe - the idea of sacrificing your one and only life for others does not make sense.
  Also - I do not consider it a sacrifice to do things for your kids, your family, etc. Sacrifice means giving up a higher value for the sake of a lower, or non-value. A real sacrifice would be to leave the people you love behind in order to serve people you cared nothing for, or better yet, for people you despised.
  
  --
  Mine is Good
37. Re:Ignorance more freely begets confidence... by The_Quinn · 2009-06-04 16:57 · Score: 1
  
  it's equally true that most atheists have at best a shallow understanding of theology.
  
  I would agree with this, if by theology you actually mean philosophy which religion can be considered to be an early form of.
  Also, you talk about "atheists" in general, but of course, atheism only tells what a person does not believe. It could equally well describe an environmentalist terrorist, or Nobel Prize winning physicist Richard Feynman - two completely different types of people with different philosophies of life.
  
  --
  Mine is Good
What has this got to do with IT ? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 22:30 · Score: 0

I was holding off, giving slashdot the benefit of the doubt, but what does this story really have to do with IT ? Because he mentions blogs ? I don't get it. I've been seeing an increasing amount of stories with a political / sociological bent. Nothing wrong with that, but they don't seem to belong on slashdot.
Is it just me ?
1. Re:What has this got to do with IT ? by Ma8thew · 2009-06-01 22:41 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes it is just you. Slashdot is 'News For Nerds'. Not 'News for IT Professionals', or 'News for Computer Science Graduates'. The article's subject has relevance to Slashdot readers, because many of us are well versed in a particular field, and hate it when the media or pundits use a simple argument to convince lay-people of something which is flat out wrong.
2. Re:What has this got to do with IT ? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 23:24 · Score: 0
  
  Sadly, I am not so well versed in the field of "pointlessly verbose verbiage that makes your writing excessively hard to read and your points difficult to identify". The most I can accomplish with regard to bloated wording is adding "fuck" and derived forms thereof everywhere. And even then only when I'm angry. :(
Simplify by Fizzl · 2009-06-01 22:32 · Score: 1

As the summary itself is filled with enough verbal "simulation" for all ages, I hereby simply declare this article total "wank".

--
Bot Assisted Blogging
Click. by Fantastic+Lad · 2009-06-01 22:32 · Score: 4, Interesting

But hot damn it made him feel great when he used all those sophysticated words!
I doubt it. To write with that level of ease and complexity, one needs to occupy the required head-space in earnest. Probably doesn't even notice he's doing it except on those rare occasions when he pulls back from the keyboard to pause for a breather and watch himself. And people, even the smart ones, rarely manage to do that more than a handful of times in any given life.
That, and the fact, (in my opinion anyway), he also happens to be right.
Not that it matters. For some reason everybody who thinks and writes seems to be perpetually concerned about what humanity ought to do about the state of humanity. The longer I live, the more I realize that the quest for societal justice is a fool's errand. Nobody can change anything no matter how hard they try, and the most amazing thing is that nobody realizes this astonishing truth. Change requires awareness, and machines are not aware. Almost all humans are machines. Even as I write this, I can hear the gears clicking in my skull, still on auto-pilot. And I've been working on this stuff.
-FL
1. Re:Click. by inviolet · 2009-06-02 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Not that it matters. For some reason everybody who thinks and writes seems to be perpetually concerned about what humanity ought to do about the state of humanity. The longer I live, the more I realize that the quest for societal justice is a fool's errand. Nobody can change anything no matter how hard they try, and the most amazing thing is that nobody realizes this astonishing truth. Change requires awareness, and machines are not aware. Almost all humans are machines. Even as I write this, I can hear the gears clicking in my skull, still on auto-pilot. And I've been working on this stuff.
  I'm with you on this.
  Society is a fragile pattern, a very very complicated synergy of incentives that are woven together to control our behavior. Laws, religion, taxes, mor'es... and the strength of the pattern does seem overwhelming. But like all synergies, a very small change can redound to have a very large effect.
  (That's why it worries me when a passing recession has everybody talking about "change". When your society's pattern has produced more wealth than the world has ever known, and when one barely even understands the interplay of incentives that produced that outcome, then the word 'change' should not even be considered except in times of terrible protracted crisis.)
  Anyway, there are probably some very small levels that even an individual could pull to set off changes . . .
  
  --
  FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
2. Re:Click. by radtea · 2009-06-02 01:17 · Score: 1
  
  Nobody can change anything no matter how hard they try
  If you studied history rather than philosophy or whatever it is you mean by "this stuff" you'd realize there are only two constants: change and hope.
  Everyone changes stuff all the time. That's why homosexuals can get married now (here, anyway--they may not yet in your benighted part of the world) and black people don't have to ride at the back of the bus. It's why I can say the Prime Minister is an idiot and not have to worry about reprisals. It's why we can have this conversation over the wire when twenty years ago we'd never be aware of each other's existence.
  And for the logically disabled, "Some things have not changed" does not imply "nothing ever changes", so don't be bothering me with counter-examples.
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
3. Re:Click. by foniksonik · 2009-06-02 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  It's called mass delusion - ala The Matrix - and yes we've been fighting the good fight for these thousands of years and for the most part we're still in the same position we were in way back then. Scarcity of resources, the haves versus the have nots, some of the haves feeling bad about it and trying to raise up the have nots without trading places. Everything else is semantics.
  
  --
  A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
4. Re:Click. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  what the hell? what he wrote did not require the "high phalootin language". I could dress up what I'm saying in "flowery language" to make it seem important, or I could just say it.
  There *are* things that can only be expressed carefully, with redundancy, in phrases that aren't easy to parse. This is not one of them. Try reading some basics on semiology which is new enough that it has had to coin words recently. Defining a word is metalinguistic. Defining a word about metalinguistics takes it up a notch.
  Put it another way: nothing in computer science is that difficult. Other posters have brought up engineering as having specialized vocabulary. It is more of a specific context and it is stupidly elitist to conclude that those without the same background can't comprehend it. But, unfortunately, many engineers have a belief that they don't need to communicate with non-engineers. And then complain when it causes them problems in the workplace.
  The concepts are rarely all that difficult, and someone who is accustomed to thinking at higher levels won't have any trouble grasping them if properly explained. That isn't to say someone can become an expert in a disparate field by talking it out over a cup of coffee -- but they *can* understand what you are talking about if you are able to explain it.
  And there isn't something magically better about a field because it requires a higher level of comprehension to follow it. There is just as much goodness in the work of a farm laborer, truck driver and mathematical theoretician. And it is dangerous to assume that just because the farm laborer's work requires little higher level thought that he is incapable of it (odds are good that he has not had the occasion to exercise his mind that way, but it is still a dangerous assumption).
  thoromyr
5. Re:Click. by lennier · 2009-06-02 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  "Defining a word is metalinguistic. Defining a word about metalinguistics takes it up a notch."
  Not really. "Word-defining". There. I just committed an act of meta-meta-linguisticst. Oh wait, "definition" already exists in the language. Isn't that interesting? Plain everyday English is *already* a meta-meta-linguistic language.
  Actually you only need one level of meta. Once you have nouns and verbs for concepts like "word", you're already there.
  Natural language is pretty neat like that. Of the computer languages, only Lisp (or Joy) really starts to approach it for self-referentiality. And it turns out that self-referentiality seems to make a language *simpler*, not more complex - because you need fewer special-case constructs.
  With that caveat, I agree with almost everything else you said. Buckminster Fuller and David Bohm would also agree. Both were in favour of plain language communication, glimpsed the deep simplicity at the heart of apparently complex concepts, and were deeply concerned with the tendency of modern culture to over-specialise and fragment language into elitist ghettos for no good reason.
  Actually, add John Ralson Saul to that list too.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
6. Re:Click. by blahplusplus · 2009-06-02 19:56 · Score: 1
  
  "The longer I live, the more I realize that the quest for societal justice is a fool's errand."
  Blacks were once slaves.
  Businesses use to work people insane numbers of hours as well as child labour.
  Their once was no universal healthcare.
  Their once was no union. See: history of companies abusing workers, killing them outright, many corporations are still doing it
  http://www.corporatecampaign.org/killer-coke/crimes-isidro.htm
  If it was you who was getting killed, would you say chasing social justice is a 'fools errand'? All I have to say is, thank god for fools, else we would still all be slaves.
Cowards by DarkOx · 2009-06-01 22:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

If he wants see some over simplification here it is.
There is good, bar, right, and wrong in this world. While not everything is that simply, perhaps not even most things people like him to see nothing but shades of gray everywhere even when their are none. Usually this is because they are afraid to stand up and do the right thing because it might make someone mad, start a war, or God forbid make them appear intolerant.
I for am sick of people like this guy who bring us all this Politically Correct nonsense, which does nothing other than serve to confuse otherwise good people and prevent us from making the choices, which might be hard ones, but we are ultimately required if we care about living in a just world and possibly even our very survival.
Their language may not be classy and they might want for some temperance and timing but at least the unruly mob of bloggers shows a little courage. I would much much rather many of those be our leaders than the lot of sycophants and manikins we have.

--
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
1. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 00:00 · Score: 0
  
  There is a fine line between courage and stupidity.
  Guess which side you're on.
2. Re:Cowards by tygerstripes · 2009-06-02 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  What?
  Did you even read the article? It was about the problems of publicly debating complex scientifically contentious issues when even well-educated people don't have the knowledge or patience to properly understand clear but complex debunking arguments. If anything, your ill-informed attempt at dragging it down without even trying to understand the points being made have served to reinforce them.
  
  --
  Meta will eat itself
3. Re:Cowards by The_mad_linguist · 2009-06-02 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  And when you're a little confused about what's the good or the right or the wrong, you can always drown your sorrows at the bar, eh?
4. Re:Cowards by ImOnlySleeping · 2009-06-02 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  You're wrong of course and don't worry I'll skip classy words. But for the sake of argument, I will assume that you always know what is right (or in a topic where you are unsure you keep your trap shut until you receive clarification) and do what is right, otherwise you're a huge asshole and why would anyone follow your opinion if that were the case. That being true, please clarify why if right and wrong exist, and you know what the right solution is 100% of the time, why are there so many people that do the wrong thing? How can you be sure that the other opinion is wrong and not your own, in particular when you are in a minority? If my original assumption is false and you don't do the right thing 100% of the time, do all people do the wrong thing consistently? If not, then it would appear that a myriad of solutions (or shades of gray) are prevalent. So to recap, either a) you are all knowing, but not all powerful or b) you're wrong.
  
  --
  Everybody seems to think I'm lazy I don't mind, I think they're crazy
5. Re:Cowards by Deanalator · 2009-06-02 03:46 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What is so terrible about political correctness? It is simply a list of terms that have become derogatory to certain people in certain areas. If you don't give a shit about offending people, then you have no obligation to stay informed, but there is no need to deride those that are making the effort.
  Of course you can't please everyone all the time (I personally have no intention of pleasing the feminists that go into a pseudo uproar when you call them Mrs because the letter "r" implies ownership etc), but it might be a good idea to hold off on the cancer jokes at the next board meeting or cocktail party.
  Funny that even the term "politically correct" has become derogatory. Every time I flip through fox news, they seem to be in an uproar about someone being "politically correct". I believe "politically correct" prefers to call itself "tact" these days.
6. Re:Cowards by Locke2005 · 2009-06-02 04:53 · Score: 1
  
  There is good, bar, right, and wrong in this world.
  
  I don't believe there is any such thing as absolute right or wrong in this world, but if you know of an absolutely good bar, please tell us where it is!
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
7. Re:Cowards by Locke2005 · 2009-06-02 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  in a topic where you are unsure you keep your trap shut until you receive clarification...
  
  You're new here, aren't you? ;-)
  
  People will always disagree because diversity is a survival factor; we would not exist as a species if everyone always reached the same conclusions given the same data. Look at it this way: if everybody thought the same way, then everybody would come to the same conclusion, which would normally be the "best" conclusion. But, since nobody has complete information (especially about catastrophic future events) 0.0001% of the time, the "best" choice isn't actually the best, and would kill those people that make that choice! In other words, if we didn't have a lunatic fringe, we would have all died out a long time ago. Having 5% of your population being quite stupidly wrong is tolerable for the species. Having 100% of your population agree all of the time is eventually fatal.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
8. Re:Cowards by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 06:56 · Score: 0
  
  There is good, bar, right, and wrong in this world.
  I know that one. I always choose "bar".
9. Re:Cowards by ImOnlySleeping · 2009-06-02 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  I agree entirely. Just responding to the parent's ridiculous black & white universe assertion. In a world where only right and wrong exist, guessing would be as good as being wrong.
  
  --
  Everybody seems to think I'm lazy I don't mind, I think they're crazy
10. Re:Cowards by value_added · 2009-06-02 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  I personally have no intention of pleasing the feminists that go into a pseudo uproar when you call them Mrs because the letter "r" implies ownership etc)
  Would pointing out the contradiction of a married woman hyphenating her father's surname with her husband's surname as a mark of independence in a male dominated society be going too far? ;-)
  Tact and discretion are always appropriate, but political correctness, like all things political in nature, often seeks to redefine words so as to make them take on different meanings or render them meaningless. If we can't agree on the meanings of the words we're using, then what basis is there for an honest exchange of ideas?
  If tact demands that we limit ourselves to sharing platitudes, then I'd suggest our only hope for salvation is the comic performing on stage. And if it's a woman, God help those who refer to her as a comedienne.
As a side note by Aceticon · 2009-06-01 22:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

Here's something interesting:
Following a link from the first article we get:
The Dunning-Kruger Effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
which in turn leads us to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)#The_psychology_of_cranks
which pretty much explains the logic behind at least 10% of the posts here in Slashdot.
1. Re:As a side note by inviolet · 2009-06-02 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  They set out to test these hypotheses on human subjects consisting of Cornell undergraduates who were registered in various psychology courses. In a series of studies, Kruger and Dunning examined self-assessment of logical reasoning skills, grammatical skills, and humor. After being shown their test scores, the subjects were again asked to estimate their own rank, whereupon the competent group accurately estimated their rank, while the incompetent group still overestimated their own rank.
  Emphasis mine. There is a small chance that the Dunning-Kruger effect is not generalizable to the overall population. It may be limited to influencers (e.g. psychologists, teachers, politicians, counsellors, etc.). Nobody tested whether producers demonstrate the same behavior.
  
  --
  FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
2. Re:As a side note by Aceticon · 2009-06-02 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  My personal experience until now is that pretty much everybody (including myself) which has opinions and tries to convince others of their opinions is full of shit at some point or other.
  Certainly in my line of work (IT) I've been confronted will plenty of end-users who have convinced themselves that in some technological things they know better than the experts: just go around any non-technology centric company where users spend most of their time in front of computers (doing things like e-mail and text editing) and you will find that a surprisingly high number of them believes that are knowledgeable enough to have firm opinions on things like system and network administration.
  Even amongst IT professionals (which I suspect fall within your definition of producers) you will find people that don't know enough about a specific area (for example, cryptography) having firm opinions about how it works and how things should be done (which goes a long way to explain why every day somebody out there implements yet another weak encryption algorithm).
3. Re:As a side note by Locke2005 · 2009-06-02 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Only 10%?!? From my personal experience, I can tell you that EVERYBODY on slashdot is a crank except for me! ;-)
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Re:Anyone remember slashdot when the matrix came o by __aaxwdb6741 · 2009-06-01 22:49 · Score: 1

You should interpret that as people like to be exposed to deep and meaningful philosophies, even when they're just a reinterpretation of an old idea.
Re:I don't see the point in discussing this articl by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 22:51 · Score: 1, Insightful

Right iron fold candle. Drift space walking killer down crane. Thistle cage sign white small. Half seek harbour bed with frame flat family hen. Castle help.
Colour yourself lucky by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 22:54 · Score: 0

Most of the time it's actually the philosophers who try obscure things that are plain as day to normal people in layers of obscurantism, obfuscation and sometimes downright lying. But you have it easy, because at least you can scoff at those people because they are barbarians without degrees whereas they have no such recourse. So I don't see what you are complaining about.
He talks too much. That's what. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 22:57 · Score: 2, Funny

"blah blah without philosophical background blah blah you won't understand any of this blah blah blah takes thousands of words and dozens of paragraphs blah blah" I mean, get to the point already, man!
1. Re:He talks too much. That's what. by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 03:43 · Score: 0
  
  Cleary, he should have used an executive summary as the whole article.
2. Re:He talks too much. That's what. by fractoid · 2009-06-02 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  Basically he's saying "appeal to authority is valid in an informal discussion between an eminent scientist and a layperson". Which I agree with - when talking to another professional, I'd never debate the merits of various algorithms (for example) based on who proposed them rather than on their performance, but when I'm telling a non-technical highschool friend why he'd be better off spending his money on a bigger screen and more RAM rather than the very top-shelf processor, it's much quicker to just say "trust me, I'm right".
  
  --
  Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
I've heard this before... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-01 23:19 · Score: 0

As we know, There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know There are known unknowns. That is to say We know there are some things We do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, The ones we don't know We don't know.
You don't have to be a generalist... by mario_grgic · 2009-06-01 23:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

or specialize in every field. Studying math and specializing in it is a safe bet to gain most general knowledge that is still applicable to wide array of scientific fields, and that would allow you to follow quite a bit of science.
These days majority of science is based on mathematical models, including physics, chemistry (esp. the physical chemistry part of it), biochemistry, computer science, certainly climate and weather prediction, astronomy, engineering of almost any kind, but esp. electrical and mechanical, and lately more esoteric things like psychology and theories of the mind, and less esoteric things like sociology and crowd behaviors.
True, mathematician is no expert on any of these fields, but is armed with enough mathematical knowledge that coupled with a bit of curiosity and motivation to read and research is enough to give them insight into any of these fields, and sometimes better insight than people who traditionally are bad at formulating theories like biologists, or psychiatrists for example.

--
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
1. Re:You don't have to be a generalist... by Virak · 2009-06-01 23:31 · Score: 1
  
  Computer science shouldn't be on that list; despite the terribly misleading name, it's not science, it's math.
2. Re:You don't have to be a generalist... by mario_grgic · 2009-06-01 23:54 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, some aspects of computer science can be more like science (you know, hypothesize, create experiment and test your hypothesis) than pure math.
  This is particularly true in applications (i.e. programming) where this cycle of write code to implement some functionality, compile, run to test if it works, modify code again etc. is how we really work.
  
  --
  As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
3. Re:You don't have to be a generalist... by plover · 2009-06-02 00:19 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Actually, some aspects of computer science can be more like science (you know, hypothesize, create experiment and test your hypothesis) than pure math.
  This is particularly true in applications (i.e. programming) where this cycle of write code to implement some functionality, compile, run to test if it works, modify code again etc. is how we really work.
  That's Software Engineering, not Computer Science.
  
  --
  John
4. Re:You don't have to be a generalist... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 00:44 · Score: 0
  
  This would be a legit distinction if most schools offered separate degrees and curricula for Computer Science and Software Engineering. They don't though and so Software Engineering is considered part of computer science and in fact what distinguishes Computer Science curriculums from those of math. When people refer to Computer Science degrees as simply degrees in applied math, what application do you think they are referring to if not the engineering of computer software?
5. Re:You don't have to be a generalist... by marcosdumay · 2009-06-02 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  So, it is based on mathematical models :)
  But anyway, I must support the previous post that said that some aspects of computer science use empirism. He just got the wrong aspects, if you look at artificial inteligence, you'll see lots of it.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
6. Re:You don't have to be a generalist... by Abcd1234 · 2009-06-02 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  This is particularly true in applications (i.e. programming) where this cycle of write code to implement some functionality, compile, run to test if it works, modify code again etc. is how we really work.
  Wow... if that's how you code, I fear for your employer. I mean, I don't know about you, but when I write a piece of code it's not an *hypothesis*.
7. Re:You don't have to be a generalist... by Idiomatick · 2009-06-02 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  When having complex physics explained to you if the mechanism is based on a mathematical model how will that help? It doesn't help you understand the phenomenon at all. Maybe you can explain frequencies or exponential things but I think most people understand exponential growth anyways. You have a point about starting at a lower base though logic->math->physics->chem->biology ... but the ability to form good theories and sound arguments comes from logic or philosophy not math.
  
  I can't think of a time when I was reading up on something outside of my field (to get a basic grasp of understanding) where I needed to look at the math behind it. (Though I think stats and probabilities would be useful for most people).
8. Re:You don't have to be a generalist... by Abcd1234 · 2009-06-02 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Studying math and specializing in it is a safe bet to gain most general knowledge that is still applicable to wide array of scientific fields, and that would allow you to follow quite a bit of science.
  And it would also put you head and shoulders above your average layman, which is who this article is discussing.
  Nice strawman, though. :)
9. Re:You don't have to be a generalist... by plover · 2009-06-02 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  The schools and degree programs I'm familiar with offer Software Engineering only at the graduate level. I'm sure there must be schools somewhere that offer Bachelor's degrees in S.E., but I'm not familiar with any of them. None that my son was applying at offered it. At the undergrad level, they seem to only offer Computer Engineering or Computer Science. Specializations such as Software Engineering or Computer Security are left as graduate course work.
  A CSci degree is indeed about math, relationships, logic, and program structure. You need to know big O notation, and why it's important to know how your lists are searched. You should learn that cohesive modules are good, and tightly coupled modules are bad. Those are the fundamental building blocks of writing code.
  A Software Engineering degree is not about the fundamentals. It assumes you already know those. Software Engineering is about taking a systematic approach to producing functional software that quantifiably meets the customer's expectations: estimating, requirements gathering, architecture, design, construction, testing, validating, deploying, maintaining, configuration management, development methodologies, quality, and project tracking and management. (All that fun stuff that gets in the way of actually writing code.)
  Frankly, I think the basics of software engineering should be formally taught at the undergrad level instead of being acquired via osmosis as they so often seem to be. At least a course or two on it to help align the students to what life outside academia will be like would be useful.
  
  --
  John
10. Re:You don't have to be a generalist... by metacell · 2009-06-02 20:37 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Then I envy you. I strive for writing correct code the first time, but never succeed if the program is more than 20 lines or so. At the very least, I make some syntactical errors.
Nope, you don't by Colin+Smith · 2009-06-01 23:32 · Score: 1, Offtopic

You missed out "The Fuck?"

--
Deleted
And this is all that is required anyway by Colin+Smith · 2009-06-01 23:35 · Score: 1

Have you ever seen anyone persuaded they are wrong? Bollocks. People only ever listen to reinforcing arguments.

--
Deleted
1. Re:And this is all that is required anyway by bgray54 · 2009-06-02 01:16 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  You really shouldn't generalize like this. All generalizations are bad.
2. Re:And this is all that is required anyway by tnk1 · 2009-06-02 01:58 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Certainly people can be persuaded. It happens all the time.
  I used to be a death penalty supporter. Now, I'm not. Of course, I can't put my finger on any one thing that changed my mind, but the arguments were certainly there.
  I also used to be significantly more inclined to see offensive war as a legitimate tool of policy, now I don't. Believe it or not, the Iraq war had nothing to do with that, as I honestly expected that a Mideast war was inevitable anyway. I just wish we had been a lot more justified and a lot better at managing the aftermath.
  So, yes, people can change their mind. It just doesn't happen suddenly, so you might get the idea that no one is listening. They certainly are.
3. Re:And this is all that is required anyway by phlinn · 2009-06-02 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  Best joke on this thread so far
  
  --
  "Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny! Free men pull in all sorts of directions" -- Havelock Vetinari
Slippery slopes by Requiem18th · 2009-06-01 23:51 · Score: 1

This is a good moment to mention. Doesn't the slippery slope deserves more respect?
I mean, I understand that logically it does not follow that taking some steps towards an undesirable result necessarily mean we will go all the way to that undesirable result. But wouldn't you say that, under some conditions, it can be useful as an heuristic criteria?

--
But... the future refused to change.
1. Re:Slippery slopes by ThosLives · 2009-06-02 00:06 · Score: 1
  
  You have hit on the true problem here: "logically it does not follow..." The problem (at least in US society) is that people do not have a fundamental understanding of basic logic, so anything scientific or philosophical has no foundation on which to stand.
  The first thing to address in order to help "society at large" deal with "tough issues" is to first get them to understand simple logic, which I think this audience appreciates. The thing which disturbs me most about modern thought is that, at least in popular culture, there is no such thing as 'true' and 'false'. If there is no such thing, then there is no sense even discussing science or philosophy, because those things are dedicated to understanding truth.
  My assertion comes from the observation that most people (you have to go outside /. for "most"; this audience is sadly in the minority) disagree with the statement that there are such things as mutually exclusive ideas. Consider the politically popular idea of tolerance. This means at its core accepting multiple possibly conflicting ideas as valid (actually it's worse than that, it says that any idea which claims exclusivity is inherently invalid - which amuses me because it is a statement of exclusivity itself).
  Anyway, I ramble: suffice it to say, all discussions of science and philosophy without a first discussion on "what happened to logic?" are all doomed to failure.
  
  --
  "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
2. Re:Slippery slopes by slim · 2009-06-02 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't the slippery slope deserves more respect?
  Ooh, that would set a terrible precedent. Where would it all end?
Hey, man... by Ignatius+D'Lusional · 2009-06-01 23:51 · Score: 3, Funny

Y'know, like... I didn't read the whole article or nothin' but, like... I gotta say that my best philosophical arguments happen while smoking hash, man. So, like... I don't know what this guy's got against hash, be it "one-way" or another but like... oh wait. I forgot what I was saying. Oh well... now where the hell did I put the Doritos?
1. Re:Hey, man... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  To clarify, "one-way" in this context means strict adherence to "Pass the Dutchie on the left hand side".
Climate Change is a classic appeal to authority by msevior · 2009-06-02 00:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm a Physicist but essentially I have to demure to the Climate Modelling experts too.
At first glance it appears that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere will make very little difference to the global temperature.
Why? Well the best models predict an effective increase of 1-2 watts per/m^2 of energy directed back to Eath from the addition CO2.
On the other hand the amount of power radiated into space from the Earth is to first approximation, given by the Steffan-Boltzmann equation.
Power = sigma*T^4
Where T is the Earth's temperature in Kelvin ~ 283 C.
The T^4 means you get a lot of extra radiated power for a very little increase in temperature. Roughly a 0.3 degree increase in temperature for a doubling of the CO2 levels.
To get the 3 - 7 degree increases predicted, you need a really big positive feedback effect from additional water vapour. But additional water vapour also provides clouds which either increase the amount of power reflected back into space or increase the greenhouse effect, depending on where they form.
It's a really complicated problem.
So one can only hope that the authorities have got it right.
1. Re:Climate Change is a classic appeal to authority by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 02:25 · Score: 0
  
  Every scientific field deals with complexity on this scale. The most successful scientists are those who manage to pull general principles out of the chaos. You can call them "the authorities" if you want, but there's nothing stopping you from following their reasoning from start to finish.
2. Re:Climate Change is a classic appeal to authority by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 03:14 · Score: 0
  
  arrhenius knew
3. Re:Climate Change is a classic appeal to authority by phantomfive · 2009-06-02 06:04 · Score: 1
  
  You should post this in every article about global warming. It is what everyone should understand about the topic!
  
  --
  Qxe4
I am stupid... by bartwol · 2009-06-02 01:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

...and uninformed.
And I vote.
That is all.
Wrong Perspective by Bob9113 · 2009-06-02 01:31 · Score: 1

the exclusive province of cloistered academics ... the online public sphere
You're thinking of it wrong. You're stuck on your belief that there is some dramatic difference between one human mind and a collection of human minds. Not so -- they are just different scales of the thinking machine we call "Earth", "Humanity", or "The Hive Mind." To ask whether academics or commoners should discourse about advanced topics is to suggest a belief that they are not part of the same network.
I could just as easily say, "This cluster of neurons is the smart cluster, and does a better job of processing information than this other cluster."
The networking of human minds through blogs, podcasts, and tweets is like increasing the connectivity of neurons or moving a computer network closer to being fully connected. Enabling more nodes of the hive mind to participate through more connections is like connecting more neurons to the math section of your brain. They may not be "math" neurons, but they get better and better at contributing through reinforcement. Same thing with commoners talking about advanced subjects, they may contribute little at first but they get better and better at it over time, and the hive mind is stronger for having their signal available. This is true even if it rejects that signal most of the time, particularly at first.
The hive mind is the thing. The more of us we have connected, and the greater the connection density, the smarter Earth gets. Some of the neurons may seem to always get the wrong answer, but the increased connection density that they imply is a very good thing.

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
1. Re:Wrong Perspective by Enigma2175 · 2009-06-02 06:06 · Score: 1
  
  I could just as easily say, "This cluster of neurons is the smart cluster, and does a better job of processing information than this other cluster."
  Isn't that the case? Some areas of the brain do much more processing than other areas. Areas that process vision and speech do much more processing than areas that control autonomic functions. To extend your analogy, perhaps some of the members of society aren't neurons at all - they are Glial cells and they exist to support the neurons.
  
  --
  Enigma
Not much better by wigle · 2009-06-02 01:31 · Score: 0

Until metaphysics and prescriptive ethics are generally rejected, I think there are more than enough perils in academic philosophy already.

--
::wigle::
When your doctor proscribes penecillin by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 01:33 · Score: 1, Interesting

do you say "no! I DEMAND another opinion!"?
When your builder says that your desire for a 12' wide opening means that you can't build it without risk to the house collapsing, you say "No! I DEMAND another opinon!"?
Or do you listen to the experts?
1. Re:When your doctor proscribes penecillin by Attila+Dimedici · 2009-06-02 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  When my doctor prescribes penicillin after I had a severe allergic reaction the last time he prescribed it, I find a new doctor. Your example is perfect because doctors are people that many take on authority and don't question their judgment. My sister suffered severe trauma as a toddler that has resulted in life long health issues. My parents took the doctors at their word after it happened. The doctors were wrong and failed to fully inform my parents about potential complications. While chances are good that no treatment was available to diminish the complications, if my parents had been aware of the possibility of these complications they would have sought treatment for them when they first arose, rather than treat them as behavioral issues. My sister suffered with the symptoms of these complications for several years before anyone (including her) realized they were physiological and not behavioral.
  
  --
  The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
2. Re:When your doctor proscribes penecillin by Hognoxious · 2009-06-02 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  I blame the mantra that "the customer is always right".
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Socioeconomic Darwinism Fallacious? by MarkPNeyer · 2009-06-02 01:42 · Score: 1

What exactly is the 'dire fallacy' involved in socioeconomic Darwinism?

--

My blog
1. Re:Socioeconomic Darwinism Fallacious? by Omestes · 2009-06-02 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Poverty, and other "undesirable" traits are not genetic, and thus not subject to the same rules of selection as genes (ala natural selection).
  
  --
  A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
there's a quote by circletimessquare · 2009-06-02 02:06 · Score: 2, Insightful

i don't know who:
"ideas are like assholes, everyone has one, but most of them stink"
99% of the people in your life are full of shit ideas. 99% of what you yourself say is incomplete and ill thought out
the whole point is, only through communication do we develop better ideas. in this sense, the internet is not a step backwards, but a step forwards. that it exposes exactly how awful people's ideas are, this is nothing new or different, its always been this way, probably worse, the quality of people's ideas. what's new and different is that so many people can now work through their philosophical shortcomings on the internet and, if they have an open mind and are not a brain dead partisan hack, they can grow ideologically into a better person
don't lament that so much of humanity, including yourself, is so unenlightened. rejoice that so many strive to be better. how do i know they strive to be better?
because they go online, and communicate. this is the first step towards becoming a better person
if i were 100% certain of my beliefs, i would sit in smug condescension and talk to no one. what would be the point? i already supposedly know everything. only by venturing forth and exposing my beliefs to others are they challenged, and made stronger
as long as people are talking and arguing and being challenged by others, they are becoming better people
so, to paraphrase someone else: welcome to the intarwebs. let a thousand assholes bloom

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:there's a quote by rossifer · 2009-06-02 10:10 · Score: 1
  
  99% of the people in your life are full of shit ideas. 99% of what you yourself say is incomplete and ill thought out
  the whole point is, only through communication do we develop better ideas. [...snip...]
  don't lament that so much of humanity, including yourself, is so unenlightened. rejoice that so many strive to be better. how do i know they strive to be better?
  because they go online, and communicate. this is the first step towards becoming a better person
  Physician, heal thyself.
  
  if i were 100% certain of my beliefs, i would sit in smug condescension and talk to no one. what would be the point?
  That's not your only choice as you've so eloquently demonstrated elsewhere.
natural philosophy? by rlseaman · 2009-06-02 02:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

"'Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place.' This is, needless to say, not a problem limited to philosophy."
Or perhaps this is a problem limited to philosophy? Perhaps this non-linear and recursive characteristic defines philosophy? The difference between science and philosophy is that science is ineluctably rooted in physical reality, in the natural world. Indeed the original name for science was natural philosophy.
On the other hand philosophy - or its varied analogues of religion, politics and economics - is rooted in extremely shallow real world soil. Every word that has ever been spoken on these topics has been thrashed and pounded, mashed and strained through some pedagogue's fevered ontological imagination.
Ohm's law is demonstrable to a freshman in the first week of school (high school or college) with 19th century instruments. The basis of the argument here is that absolutely no concepts of philosophy can be conveyed so directly. Doesn't this say more about philosophy than it does about communication?
Much of science is immediately graspable and usable with a brief explanation from a good teacher. It is the aggregate that is a challenge to fathom - the aggregate and the startling quantum and relativistic foundations underneath it all. These are true mysteries.
Even kindergarten philosophy presents challenges, however, because the systems being modeled - us and a putative deity - are inherently complex. Rather than suggesting that we need to spend more time wrestling with these ponderous issues, how about simply spending our time more productively by engaging with more tractable material?
1. Re:natural philosophy? by Abcd1234 · 2009-06-02 06:13 · Score: 1
  
  Ohm's law is demonstrable to a freshman in the first week of school (high school or college) with 19th century instruments.
  I think you've just disproved your own point. First off, if I need any instruments to explain Ohm's law, then I certainly can't explain it in the course of an average blog post.
  Second, your average freshman is *not* the same as your average joe public. The latter probably doesn't understand even the most basic concepts regarding electricity, let alone something like Ohm's law. Problem is, you can't see that because, to you, it seems like extremely basic knowledge... which is why arguments by experts on the details of a field are doomed to failure - you inevitably make assumptions regarding basic knowledge level of the listener, assumptions that are, in all probability, wrong.
  Much of science is immediately graspable and usable with a brief explanation from a good teacher. It is the aggregate that is a challenge to fathom - the aggregate and the startling quantum and relativistic foundations underneath it all. These are true mysteries.
  Exactly. Which is why explaining, say, Evolution, or AGW to someone, particularly someone with an already built-in bias, is doomed to failure (on average). These concepts, like so many others, require a basic grasp of mathematics and statistics, and fundamental concepts in science that, for many people, are beyond conception. Hell, just trying to get people to understand the vastness of time, when considering evolution, is virtually impossible, let alone its mathematical and statistical underpinnings.
  So, no, this isn't just a problem in philosophy. It's a problem with any complex concept that, to truly understand it, requires understanding on a large number of first principles that, themselves, may be difficult to grasp. And that characterizes modern science, mathematics, and, as you point out, philosophy as well.
2. Re:natural philosophy? by rlseaman · 2009-06-02 06:54 · Score: 1
  
  "So, no, this isn't just a problem in philosophy. It's a problem with any complex concept that, to truly understand it, requires understanding on a large number of first principles that, themselves, may be difficult to grasp. And that characterizes modern science, mathematics, and, as you point out, philosophy as well."
  Except that science is intrinsically incremental. Your objections to experimentation - to empirical fact - as being unacceptable in modern communication channels is outdated. A blog entry can include audio, video, applets, all sorts of content beyond "mere" text. And an expert explainer like, say, Isaac Asimov can certainly convey vast amounts of facts - incrementally - in proportional numbers of words (and a few pictures).
  You are implicitly asserting an inappropriate application of the principle of math induction - that no fact can be communicated in one word, therefore that no fact can be communicated in two or ten or hundred words - and that therefore nothing whatsoever can be communicated in a one thousand word blog entry. It isn't a question of complexity, because even a simple assertion like "torture is bad" requires enough context to parse that people can disagree about this overtly obvious statement. Whatever Hirsch says, not all discourse is an exercise in Cultural Literacy. Rather, there most certainly is an actual real world underlying what we like to regard as the "real world" of human concepts and civilization. Descartes said that - and I think most people comprehend it.
3. Re:natural philosophy? by Abcd1234 · 2009-06-02 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  Except that science is intrinsically incremental.
  Sure. But if you need to explain a dozen concepts before you get to the topic at hand, you've just lost 99% of average readers, because they just don't care enough to truly understand the issue. That's why echo chambers exist in the first place.
  You are implicitly asserting an inappropriate application of the principle of math induction - that no fact can be communicated in one word, therefore that no fact can be communicated in two or ten or hundred words
  Not at all. In fact, precisely the contrary. Of course, given enough words, you can explain any concept. But, as Sanchez points out, most readers aren't interested in hearing the full explanation. They're fine with a glossed over version that, in all probability, is distorted, possibly to the point of being a flat out lie... and they won't be able to tell, because they don't have sufficient knowledge in the subject to realize it's a lie. Worse, they may believe themselves sufficiently knowledgeable to detect a false explanation when, in fact, they aren't.
4. Re:natural philosophy? by rlseaman · 2009-06-02 09:49 · Score: 1
  you've just lost 99% of average readers
  This is just Sturgeon's law. It is also the definition of "average". The average person doesn't give a rat's ass about any topic you want to name. It has nothing to do with highbrow notions of philosophy.
  Of course, given enough words, you can explain any concept.
  I doubt that. Given enough words (and a few pictures) you can explain arbitrarily complex expressions of concepts that our brains have evolved to handle. You will run aground past some point with underlying concepts of physics and mathematics, precisely because our brains aren't formatted to visualize a tesseract or grasp the collapse of the wave function.
  On the other hand, one might assert that after some point words become a hindrance when trying to express ideas that (for good or bad) are disconnected from the underlying reality. You can read all the philosophy books you want, but the arguments will never gel into a single coherent picture of reality - because each author has a different notion of what that is. Truth is to be found in the synthesis of disparate ideas, but a lot of synthesis involves discarding dreck.
  And then you are asserting a grabbag of disconnected notions:
  
  most readers aren't interested in hearing the full explanation
  and you can fool most of the people most of the time...
  
  They're fine with a glossed over version
  As are we all for various purposes under various conditions at various times.
  
  to the point of being a flat out lie... and they won't be able to tell
  The big lie! But then, they would accept the big truth, too. The issue is perhaps that our public communication channels require no referees, no peer review.
  
  Worse, they may believe themselves sufficiently knowledgeable to detect a false explanation when, in fact, they aren't.
  And this was the link back to the other blog entry. Perhaps we should require all students to have a subscription to the Skeptical Inquirer.
  
  The modern world at least supports the notion of subverting the dominant paradigm. The real issue here isn't the ability to discern truth - it is the ability to discern the opposite
5. Re:natural philosophy? by Abcd1234 · 2009-06-02 11:21 · Score: 1
  
  To be quite frank, I have no idea what you're arguing. You've broken down my post into a series of disconnected fragments, thereby discarding their context, then proceeded to... I don't know... apparently attempt to "disprove" each of them individually, while doing an excellent job of demonstrating that old saw of "missing the forest for the trees". Meanwhile, your post seems to lack even the most basic coherence, and frankly appears to simply be a series of straw men that you felt like knocking down for kicks.
  I mean, let's go over this:
  
  This is just Sturgeon's law. It is also the definition of "average". The average person doesn't give a rat's ass about any topic you want to name. It has nothing to do with highbrow notions of philosophy.
  And here you've clearly missed the point. My point isn't that "99% of people don't care about a given topic". It's that, given a topic people *are* interested in, like, say, evolution, 99% of people's eyes will glaze over if you attempt to actually explain to them in sufficient detail the mechanisms behind the theory. But without that detail, they can be easily duped by a slanted "summary" explanation (eg: "humans came from goo").
  
  I doubt that. Given enough words (and a few pictures) you can explain arbitrarily complex expressions of concepts that our brains have evolved to handle.
  Yes... way to take me far too literally while attempting to defeat a point I never tried to make.
  
  most readers aren't interested in hearing the full explanation
  and you can fool most of the people most of the time...
  So what was your point, other than to take the opportunity to parrot a worn-out cliche?
  
  They're fine with a glossed over version
  As are we all for various purposes under various conditions at various times.
  And your point here was... what? Yes, sometimes a summary is useful. For example, if you're interested in getting a broad overview of a topic. But if your goal is to formulate an actual opinion, then it's important to get the details. Again, the problem is, most people aren't prepared to formulate an educated opinion, and so they can fall victim to the very pop science the article was maligning.
  
  to the point of being a flat out lie... and they won't be able to tell
  The big lie! But then, they would accept the big truth, too. The issue is perhaps that our public communication channels require no referees, no peer review.
  Again, your point? Yes, referees would be nice, but that ain't gonna happen, so...
  
  Worse, they may believe themselves sufficiently knowledgeable to detect a false explanation when, in fact, they aren't.
  And this was the link back to the other blog entry. Perhaps we should require all students to have a subscription to the Skeptical Inquirer.
  Sounds like a fine idea. But I'm once again missing the thrust of your argument... assuming you're making one.
6. Re:natural philosophy? by rlseaman · 2009-06-02 11:48 · Score: 1
  
  1) Humans did come from goo, and
  2) most people aren't prepared to formulate an educated opinion
  This is a tautology. If they aren't educated, they aren't prepared. It is also an unsubstantiated assertion. Most people are prepared to formulate a number of educated opinions. Whether these include philosophizing about mind-body dualism is a different question. The original article was called "The Perils of Pop Philosophy", after all.
  Among my points was to say (as you elided from your response): "you are asserting a grabbag of disconnected notions". I posted to a mailing list, you replied to my post presumably to seek a conversation. I conversed.
7. Re:natural philosophy? by Abcd1234 · 2009-06-02 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  This is a tautology. If they aren't educated, they aren't prepared.
  You need to work on your reading comprehension. The word "prepared" can mean "equipped", but it can also mean "ready". ie, "I'm not prepared, at this point, to listen to your confused ramblings."
  Most people are prepared to formulate a number of educated opinions.
  No, they aren't, otherwise your average pop sci article wouldn't exist. Most people are prepared, as in ready, to formulate opinions. But educated ones? I think not. Educated opinions require an open mind and significant cognitive effort to cultivate, and your average person is most certainly *not* prepared for that.
  you are asserting a grabbag of disconnected notions
  Disconnected only based on your, apparently confused, reading.
  I posted to a mailing list, you replied to my post presumably to seek a conversation. I conversed.
  Yeah, I realize that. I'm simply unable to grasp what you were trying to say. To be quite honest, in retrospect, I'm not sure you were actually saying anything at all...
8. Re:natural philosophy? by lennier · 2009-06-02 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  "Ohm's law is demonstrable to a freshman in the first week of school (high school or college) with 19th century instruments. The basis of the argument here is that absolutely no concepts of philosophy can be conveyed so directly. Doesn't this say more about philosophy than it does about communication?"
  Yes, that assertion worries me too. If the material is so complex (or self-contradictory) that it can't even be expressed as a succinct thought by someone skilled in the art... then how does the philosopher know that it's true? I don't buy it.
  And that's coming from a Reason Magazine blogger too, therefore presumably an admirer of Ayn Rand, who famously did summarise her whole philosophy in four sentences.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
I disagree in principle. by gurps_npc · 2009-06-02 02:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

I simplify, but basically he is saying that anything worth arguing about gets too complex for the layman to argue about.
No. Wrong.
The things we argue about tend to be very very simple. It is the application to the real world that gets very very complex.
Take abortion for example. The real question is "When do we get a soul?"
The standard arguments make it more complex. You only need to get that complex if you are trying to deal with the real world and counter examples. But the heart of the matter is a simple question, that anyone can hold an opinion on, and can try to prove or dis-prove.
Another great example is say the rule of the law vs a case by case situation. Do we care about the minutia of legal proceedings more than the right/wrongness of the actual actions. Yes, you can get very very specific about whether or not the fact that a man was convicted on an illegal wire tap, should he go free, or variably, a man convicted but later another man proven to have done the crime. But we really are arguing about a basic concept, not the evidence that people cook up to support their viewpoints.

--
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
1. Re:I disagree in principle. by Effexor · 2009-06-02 03:47 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The things we argue about tend to be very very simple. It is the application to the real world that gets very very complex.
  Take abortion for example. The real question is "When do we get a soul?"
  We get souls? I missed the part where that was proven. Actually first you have to define what a soul is before you try arguing if and when we get issued one. And how does the moment of soul gifting alone define the issue? I think what you mean is if you want to oversimplify to make your own argument you can. Which means you don't disagree with TFA at all.
  
  --
  As the air to a bird or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible -W.B.
2. Re:I disagree in principle. by Killgore9998 · 2009-06-02 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  You seem to have missed the point completely. His post wasn't about souls. You should probably look past your own agenda for a moment to try to see that you are the exact type of person he was just describing. The exact sort of debate that you just tried to start is wholly useless and unhelpful to solving the problem of whether or not people should be able to get abortions. If you think the answer to "When do we get a soul?" is "never," then you've done all you need to do to state that you're in favor of abortion. You don't need to try to argue your opinion by introducing a slew of irrelevant posturing which only serves to confuse the issue, because at it's heart, it is a simple one. Namely, that some people don't like abortion, so maybe it shouldn't always be done. Your sarcasm is unattractive. If your post was just a troll or a joke, then all the worse.
3. Re:I disagree in principle. by Abcd1234 · 2009-06-02 07:40 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Take abortion for example. The real question is "When do we get a soul?"
  Sure, let's pretend that's the question. So, good for you, you just stated it.
  Now what?
  The article isn't about how hard it is to state the question. Hell, that's relatively easy, presuming you can get everyone to agree. The article is about how hard it is to debate the question and come to a conclusion. Because debating the question is precisely the act of applying it "to the real world", as you put it.
  Let's take another example: the origin of species on earth. The question itself is dead simple to state: "Was life on earth created, or did it evolve?" But debating that question requires understanding basic biology, including natural selection and genetics, as well as a grasp of fundamental mathematics and statistics. And that's Sanchez's whole point. If you really want to hold an *informed* opinion about a topic, you need to understand it in depth. And that depth can be so extensive that your average reader will simply be overwhelmed by the detail. Meanwhile, if someone comes along and gives them a nice, glossed over version that *sounds* right, then they'll happily internalize it, even if it's wrong.
  And this brings us back to your original statement: that you disagree that "anything worth arguing about gets too complex for the layman to argue about." And my answer to you is that, no, you're wrong. You believe that holding an *opinion* is something a layman can do. Great. You're absolutely right, anyone can hold an opinion. Hell, they may even know how to phrase the question properly. But actually *arguing* their position while actually understanding the issues at hand? Sorry, that's something else entirely.
4. Re:I disagree in principle. by gurps_npc · 2009-06-03 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  I am using a rather standard definition of a soul. You wish to argue that defintion. Fine. Then I restate my question as "What qualifies as a human being." Any idiot can object to a definition and try to get into the details. Doing so is only appropriate if the definition is key to the argument. I could object to your use of the word "proven", but doing so does not actually affect the argument.
  I return to my original point. YOUR attempt to bring irrelevant details into the discussion made the issue complex, but it does not need to be so. As long as one is NOT attempting to confuse people, then the details only matter to the people that understand the details. The big question continues to be SIMPLE.
  
  --
  excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
5. Re:I disagree in principle. by gurps_npc · 2009-06-03 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  No, debating the question does not require massive amounts of knowledge. The only people that require that amount of knoweldge is those that wish to argue about it that level of knowledge. One can easily hold an informed opinion about something without understanding it in depth. It just changes the level of detail that we discuss.
  Here, lets suppose we are arguing about about something very specific, so that I can illustrate what I mean. We are arguing about whether or not a painting is an original Piccaso. You are a chemsit and do a compelx chemical analysis of it, proving beyond a doubt that it is real. I know nothing about chemistry. But I do know that three days ago I paid a chemist to do a superb job creating fake paints and that I painted it myself
  So my question to you is which one of us can't hold an opinion or argue about it?
  The truth is that your detailed chemical analysis is just EVIDENCE. It is NOT WHAT WE ARE ARGUING ABOUT. I don't need to know anything at all about it, beyond the simple statement that "It can be faked, for about $153,375" I can TRUST my own expert to refute your statement, even without understanding it.
  Now, the EXPERTS do need to be capable of both understanding what each other say, and also to proove/simplify stuff down for the layman. But when one guy can say "You are wrong, and here's the proof, I myself did X", then that is sufficient.
  Similarly, You don't need to be a scientist to prove that we did not fake the footage of men walking on the moon. All you need is Mr. Armstrong to stand up and say "I DID IT.".
  Same for your rather complex arguments. You don't need to have an in depth knowledge of all the minutae, if you have trustworthy experts to back you up.
  A real, GOOD debater can make an argument appropriate for a scientist, one appropriate for an intelligent lawyer that is not a scientist, one appropriate for a college graduate, one appropriate for a High School graduate, one appropriate for a 15 year old kid.
  When crafting the argument for a scientist, you are going to have to consult a scientist (unless you are already one.)
  But I don't need to understand astronomy to argue about whether or not we need to watch out for comets/meteors/astroids that could hit the Planet Earth. All I need to know is that one of them hit Jupiter and made a big mess.
  
  --
  excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
6. Re:I disagree in principle. by moosesocks · 2009-06-05 15:16 · Score: 1
  
  A lot in this post. I'm going to go through it point-by-point
  
  I simplify, but basically he is saying that anything worth arguing about gets too complex for the layman to argue about.
  No. Wrong.
  You're correct. It's vital for all people to take part in philisophical debates, and to form and express their own opinions. A society has no way of improving itself without this sort of discourse.
  However, we seem to have a growing tendency (largely thanks to the internet) to extend our arguements into areas in which we might not be so knowledgable. Slashdot can at times be an excellent example of this problem. Lately, this sort of thought has begun to penetrate politics, science, and medicine -- the fact that the vaccine/autism hypothesis is a contentious issue, much less discussed at all is an outright embarrasment to all forms rational thought. Quite simply put, there is absolutely no supporting evidence supporting the hypothesis, and mountains of data against it.
  
  The things we argue about tend to be very very simple. It is the application to the real world that gets very very complex.
  Take abortion for example. The real question is "When do we get a soul?"
  I'll pose another question: Does that matter? Is it better to live in squalor than it is to have never lived at all?
  (There is a conveniently simple answer to this one, though: Use protection, and make sure to follow the directions, lest we end up breeding a society of individuals who are genetically predisposed to incorrectly use contraceptives)
  
  Another great example is say the rule of the law vs a case by case situation. Do we care about the minutia of legal proceedings more than the right/wrongness of the actual actions. Yes, you can get very very specific about whether or not the fact that a man was convicted on an illegal wire tap, should he go free, or variably, a man convicted but later another man proven to have done the crime. But we really are arguing about a basic concept, not the evidence that people cook up to support their viewpoints.
  Another interesting argument, although I wouldn't argue that it's an either/or situation. Without rule of law, I would argue that society is left with no reliable means of determining the right/wrongness of actions. For every "benevolent dictatorship," there are twenty others that are rotten to the core.
  
  --
  -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Salesmanship by pavon · 2009-06-02 03:31 · Score: 1

It goes further than that. I like to think I'm pretty decent at explaining concepts to people who are interested in hearing them, at least if I have some time prepare, rather than going off the cuff.
But public debates have nothing to do with honestly communicating or explaining and everything to do with persuading people honestly or not. I just don't know how to compete with people who say what everyone wants to hear even though it is wrong, people that can stand up and sound legitimate even though every word that comes out of their mouth is fabricated crap.
You can explain that they are wrong, and how we know they are wrong. But in the end all the general public sees are two "experts" who disagree. They don't know who to believe and more often than not lean towards the person that confirms their existing preconceptions. This muddying of the water has implications greater than just my failure to convince people on a single issue. It creates the impression that scientists don't know what they are doing, that our understanding of things isn't improving with time, that a wild-ass guess is as valid as a well tested and supported scientific theory.
Generic greeting by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 04:00 · Score: 1, Informative

Arsenal. Nose army! Throbbing dust generation. Drum tissue outburst. Smell sign...
Awwwe I thought it said "Pope Philosophy" by Christmas · 2009-06-02 04:23 · Score: 0

Now I'm heart broken. :( Are there ever any articles about Our Holy Father ?

--
Carrie -The Christmas Angel
From the one-way hash argument by Locke2005 · 2009-06-02 04:25 · Score: 1

Thanks to the perverse phenomenon psychologists have dubbed the Dunning-Kruger effect, those who are least competent tend to have the most wildly inflated estimates of their own knowledge and competence. They don't know enough to know that they don't know, as it were.

This is the best short summary of the level of discourse on slashdot I've ever seen. ;-)

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
kdawson is a troll by superwiz · 2009-06-02 05:24 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The conclusion of the article is that every argument must inevitably come down to ad hominems:

The message is not (to coin a phrase) "we report, you decide" but "we report on why you're not actually competent to decide, unless you're prepared to devote a hell of a lot more time, energy, and thought to it.
This type of inflammatory nonsense pervades through all kdawson posts. I suspect slashdot keeps him around for the very reason that he is able to rose people up (more commenting=more ad revenue).

--
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
There is a way to be unbiased by phantomfive · 2009-06-02 05:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

The only way to be unbiased in your writing is if you are sincerely trying to discover the truth. If you are saying, "at this moment, these are what I know the facts to be, and these facts indicate X to be true. Of course, things may change as time passes." This type of writing is more common among businessmen like Warren Buffet, who has strong motivation to be unbiased (because being biased towards anything but the truth will blind you and make you lose money: you will feel the pain of your bias), or great chess players like Reuben Fine, who realizes that the facts on the chess board are more important than any personal desire they have to prove themselves right.

The greatest musicians must develop a certain level of objectivity: they must be able to understand what the notes they play are sounding like, and make adjustments in real time if they are not right. They must understand what their music sounds like to the audience. Of course not all musicians do this, but the closer they get the better they are. This is sometimes called 'developing your ear.'

If you are willing to change your opinion immediately upon finding you are wrong, then you are on the road to unbiasedness. The only way to be unbiased is to have a bias to the truth.

--
Qxe4
1. Re:There is a way to be unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 13:24 · Score: 0
  The only way to be unbiased is to have a bias to the truth.
  Could you please tell me what "truth" is, so I can search for it? How can I identify it? What distinguishes the true from the untrue? When can we say we know that something is true?
  Your assertion that we can eliminate bias by searching for truth rests upon the tacit assumptions that:
  Truth is well-defined.
  Truth is well-understood notion.
  Some notion of truth is univocal.
  Humans can differentiate true things from other stuff.
  We can communicate things in a manner that constantly preserves truth.
  This is just a short list of problems that have been controversial for the past few thousand years. Defending the possibility of unbiased language by naively resting upon truth is like trading your problematic housecat for a pack of wild lions.
2. Re:There is a way to be unbiased by phantomfive · 2009-06-02 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  You are anonymous coward, so I have no idea if you will read this or not, so I will give you the short answer:
  
  Truth is the knowledge of the way things really are and have been.
  
  --
  Qxe4
3. Re:There is a way to be unbiased by Anonymous Coward · 2009-06-02 19:05 · Score: 0
  
  Seeing as how science relies on all of those tacit assumptions and science is also the only method humans have devised of reliably divining and predicting the nature of the universe, I would say that those assumptions are fair to make.
4. Re:There is a way to be unbiased by metacell · 2009-06-02 19:21 · Score: 1
  
  The only way to be unbiased in your writing is if you are sincerely trying to discover the truth.
  No... the important thing to realise is that we're always biased, even if we're completely honest to ourselves and others. Limitations in our knowledge give us a particular perspective. For example, we may know several of the good arguments for one viewpoint, but have heard few of the good arguments for the other.
  We are also biased by things we take for granted because we have never even thought to question them, despite our sincerity.
5. Re:There is a way to be unbiased by phantomfive · 2009-06-02 20:00 · Score: 1
  
  The closer one gets to the truth, the less bias one will have. If you can see a subject from several different viewpoints, it will be easier to understand which parts of those viewpoints are true.
  
  It's not always easy to get close to the truth in every subject, but it is important to develop the ability to see how far away you are from the truth as well. Which is an ability that can be developed.
  
  --
  Qxe4
6. Re:There is a way to be unbiased by metacell · 2009-06-04 23:01 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, the lack of knowledge seems to prevent people from seeing their own lack of knowledge (the Dunning-Kruger effect).
7. Re:There is a way to be unbiased by phantomfive · 2009-06-05 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yeap. Fortunately since the 1600s or so we've had things like the scientific method to help a person know when his or her perception of the truth is accurate.
  
  --
  Qxe4
Wot? by ab_iron · 2009-06-02 06:00 · Score: 1

There is a (are) whole religion(s) based on this.
personal responsibility in censorship by thtrgremlin · 2009-06-02 06:04 · Score: 1

I think the availability of information has been good. It is the ability to filter through it today that has become the challenge. Not that you need to read everything and draw an opinion, but just that there is every type of information out there to sort through AS YOU DESIRE makes for a great intellectual experience. Sometimes it is useful to see a wide range of bad articles on a subject to gather an idea of where a large number of people get confused.

Poor organization of information is a great defeat, not an over abundance of information. The opinions always existed, now you simply have the opportunity to experience them as you desire. The rest takes personal responsibility. If you are going to let someone else filter the information, why not just let them draw the conclusions and make decisions in your life for you? Of course that isn't as bad as it sounds, that is all what business and politics is about anyway; how much responsibility do you want to have over your own life? I just have an issue with other people asking whether or not I own and take responsibility for MY life.

Personally, while I often get overwhelmed by the volumes of information online (particularly so much not worth reading) I am grateful for the ability to do so. I may be able to grow my own food, but I choose to not take responsibility for that. I instead take responsibility for picking foods that others have produced. Of course I typically just trust that the store provides quality food... or not. I don't read about a lot of things, but I do read. What I don't get is how I could possibly benefit from less availability of information. I am grateful for Google greatly assisting in the ability to sort through the info, even if they don't make it too easy :)

--
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
How Long, O Lord? by DynaSoar · 2009-06-02 07:04 · Score: 1

" 'Discourse at this level can't possibly accomplish anything beyond giving people some simulation of justification for what they wanted to believe in the first place.' "
Stated 100 years ago as "Most people think they are thinking when what they really are doing is rearranging their prejudices." (William James)
The observation, thus the problem, persists without solution or probably in hope thereof. The addition of modern technology 'doesn't mean shit to a tree' (Saint Gracie of Slick, "Eskimo Blue Day").

--
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
Irony avoided. by Fantastic+Lad · 2009-06-02 07:12 · Score: 1

Sure, one can always reduce the complexity of a written piece so that it feels more homey and accessible for the uninitiated audience, but I'm not sure that was called for in this case. It wasn't really THAT difficult to understand. I found his style quite enjoyable, actually. It's refreshing, sometimes, to not be treated like the lowest common denominator FOX viewer.
And given that his whole argument was based around the problems with sound-bite journalism and dogmatic arguments designed to be quickly digested and not deeply considered, I think that it would have been painfully ironic if he HAD dumbed his article down to the point where it could be instantly absorbed without any effort needed on the part of the reader for real comprehension.
-FL
The truth is too complicated to win an argument? by nv5 · 2009-06-02 07:18 · Score: 1

whoa - I think the parent poster took quite a leap there. At least I read TFA (apologies for actually reading it) as saying:

a) it's impractical/unrealistic that a good argument can be separated from the motivation and credibility of who puts it forth.
b) debunking a falsehood is inherently more complicated than expressing it, especially in the case of arguments being made for and amongst people and groups with limited domain expertise. Or to simplify it: TFA posits, that the truth is too complicated to win an argument.

Quite depressing actually.

And I did not read a conclusion into TFA. But I might come to my own, and it would be quite different than the one suggested by the parent poster: The standard bearers for the truth need to simplify (and thus falsify) their arguments to carry the day in public debate. i.e. in the best case the "right" things end up being done for the "wrong" reasons. And I would further argue that scholars and scientists are actually not the best people to craft and lead that kind of debate. Maybe that would be ... marketers and ... (gasp!) politicians?
Bigger Lunchbox? by h3llfish · 2009-06-02 08:41 · Score: 1

I noticed that this story got tagged "biggerlunchbox". I've scoured the internets, but I can't find anything but people complaining about actual lunchboxes. I'd be much obliged if someone could clue me in.
Starting a sentence in the header and continuing i by Hognoxious · 2009-06-02 10:27 · Score: 1

t in the body is extremely irritating.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
that's cute by circletimessquare · 2009-06-02 12:23 · Score: 1

my very own stalker
i feel all warm and fuzzy inside
someone cares
xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxox

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:that's cute by rossifer · 2009-06-02 13:02 · Score: 1
  
  This qualifies me as a slashdot stalker? Well, there's always a first time for everything. Pretty low threshold, IMHO.
  I was looking through your posting history to see what kind of a poster you were and your comment in this article was just too ironic to let slip. You look completely reasonable and rational here, if a little opinionated, but as we both know, there's no learning to be done by you, it's all about informing the rest of us poor sods how we're wrong...
  You remind me of one of my favorite quotes: "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who do."
  Don't get apprehensive about any more "stalking". I've found out what I wanted to learn and based on your (lack of) response in the other thread, it looks like you've conceded the argument and we're done.
The Obligatory Car Analogy by metacell · 2009-06-02 19:57 · Score: 1

A good debate is like driving your car on a paved road with roadsigns, traffic lights and well-defined traffic rules that people follow most of the time.
A bad debate is like driving your car in the middle of a huge, chaotic intersection where people are desperately trying to get somewhere but are stopped by everyone else trying to get somewhere, honking at each other and calling each other names.
Fallacy Alert!! Fallacy Alert!! by Buddy+the+WIld+Geek · 2009-06-03 01:15 · Score: 1

I teach philosophy at a state college. My favorite section is a hefty compilation of material fallacies, which are different from logical fallacies. Material fallacies are misuses of content and logical fallacies redirect the flow of argument like a bug in a logic tree chewing on the limbs, to mix metaphors. The book I use which treats this well is Peter Kreeft's Socratic Logic. Unlike most academic books, this one is only about $40, last I heard. Worth getting and reading just for fun. I actually thought about doing some presidential campaign work using every single material fallacy Kreeft lists. I stopped when it was clear that no one would be able to tell the difference between the ironic exercise and an actual campaign.