I guess there are some people who are better at remembering room numbers and some people who are better at remembering "names". I don't know the numbers of any of the rooms on my corridoor (including mine... and no I won't turn around to read it off the door) - but I do know which one is Mondrian, Monet, Magritte etc.
That sounds like a great way to become the boss of a bunch of people that don't respect you (not enough experience, and prejudice against university-education). Then they can get up to this kind of stuff and you can be the exasperated individual who tries to tell them afterwards that they really shouldn't.
They didn't bother testing things because they didn't care that much about whether things were practically applicable in the universe (excepting Aristotle, who did enjoy collecting data).
I still don't see how you could say that they set things back, especially when there were so many competing ideas WITHIN Greek philosophy - some were picked up on straight away and others only resurfaced later on. There was room for advancement, but that is always true.
Before that, was pretty routine for leaders, especially those whose power rested on religious beliefs, to regard much of education, exploration, and discovery as a waste of time, if not outright subversion.
I'm *not* one to defend the Greeks, by any means whatsoever, and I agree that their mistakes steered Western science in a very wrong direction that required ages to correct.
Erm... how?
From my understanding the Greek ideas were excellent but they lacked the organisation and ambition to create great scientific or technological works. The Greeks were happy to think about things that they found personally interesting and potentially "enlightening" but their use of the knowledge was pretty selfish overall. Then Charlemagne comes along with his massive ambitions for Christianity, and when you have a monotheism like that and the will to spread it and enforce it shit gets done. Eventually, this idea of "external" truths and working to build something great gets sublimated into other ambitions when some of the Greek ideas are rediscovered.
I don't really see that as saying the same thing (Plato vs. Socrates for one!). The other thing with Nietzsche is that he's not often so subtle at damning something that he dislikes - and that often things that you might see as being derogatory from other people's pens have to be evaluated in a different way when you consider Nietzsche's ideas about human values. Sure, he isn't saying that he totally agrees with Socrates - that would be very surprising - but what IS written there is simply an analysis of what Socrates constructed and what his impetus would have been to do so.
The Phaedo specifically mentions Plato as being absent. While this might just be a way for Plato to avoid having to write dialogue for himself as well as possibly putting words in Socrates' mouth it does seem (to me at least) like an attempt at historical accuracy. Especially seeing as he mentions himself as PRESENT for the trial in Apology.
The/. summary comes from the summary at the University of Manchester, you know, the link? It's the institution Kennedy works at, so...it's not untoward to expect that the press release from his employer about his work be somewhat accurate.
Mod parent funny. This is a laugh-riot to anybody who's ever dealt with their university's PR department.
Christianity liked it for a while as it provided an intellectual basis for some of the things that Jesus says in the New Testament. Unfortunately there is other baggage that comes with Platonism that caused trouble (the more pantheistic elements in there), so they eventually switched to Aristotelian metaphysics (which allows God to be "above" everything).
I'm not going to believe it without a reference. Nietzsche is famed for his love of the Greeks. I've also heard people describe him as somebody who wanted to emulate Plato's ability to create a myth out of a man.
Well, the vuvuzelas in the stadium are one thing but this has actually had a much more annoying effect back home (UK). They're selling vuvuzelas over here now, which means that there are people staggering around our city centres with low-tech airhorns (yes, they are that loud in-person).
In this castrated western world where two dudes wanna get drunk and fight each other are both reprimanded, and all kinds of contact sport gets softened up and dumbed down, it is natural to seek other means of expressing a competitive/violent yearning.
For this to be a good thing would assume that satisfying a desire diminishes it, rather than making you more likely to seek it out in the future.
Usually I'd have something to complain about here, as there are many people on Slashdot who subscribe to the fallacious idea that if the violence only affects some people then it's not significant - which is a simple logical error. The good thing about this particular study is that they found they could predict which children would be most affected, which gets rid of most of that problem (of course you could keep slicing it thinner and thinner forever looking at individual differences WITHIN that danger group). The ethical question now is what to do with the information - if there is a group of people in the population who will be affected, and may not even be aware of their susceptibility, what are the implications for policy? My intuition is that those students who represent the "perfect storm" maximum-susceptibility group are ALSO the type of people who are most likely to play a lot of video games.
Well, there are some non-pointless reasons to be careful with language. Quite often in the sciences words are used metaphorically that have a particular "everyday" meaning to most people. There is a danger of people (scientists included) forgetting that these words are being used metaphorically. This kind of thing happens a lot in the cognitive neuroscience literature.
The problem is mainly semantic, but I still think it's worth arguing.
You've got a choice whether you want to call something that perceives light to build a model of its environment as being something that "sees". In this case you'd have to point out that our conscious visual perception is some sort of extra thing, if you were describing a bionic eye for example. Or you could say that "seeing" includes this element and that we should refer to the device in the article as allowing people to perceive light through their hearing.
The sensation of "seeing" something is qualititatively different from that of "hearing" something. You get to lose the quote-marks when it's something analogous to a cochlear implant for the eye.
Your very premise is faulty. The word "viewpoint" is just another word for opinion. Science isn't about opinions. It is about evidence, experiments, and a rigorous commitment to setting presumptions aside.
"Viewpoint" could also be another word for interpretation. The "evidence" we get in science (i.e. data) only has any meaning if it is interpreted somehow. Some sort of evidence to back up these competing interpretations (and hopefully allow us to state some confidence in one of them) is what we're looking to get out of science.
I haven't read the parent, but your post stuck out to me as being misleading (maybe because you're understanding is incomplete, but more likely due to a hasty response).
Slashdot Mirror
I guess there are some people who are better at remembering room numbers and some people who are better at remembering "names". I don't know the numbers of any of the rooms on my corridoor (including mine... and no I won't turn around to read it off the door) - but I do know which one is Mondrian, Monet, Magritte etc.
And then when it's moved to another room?
they'll just bugger any halfway knowledgeable person they know
That's a real good way to lose friends (unless they're into that, I guess)! Do you mean "badger", by any chance?
That sounds like a great way to become the boss of a bunch of people that don't respect you (not enough experience, and prejudice against university-education). Then they can get up to this kind of stuff and you can be the exasperated individual who tries to tell them afterwards that they really shouldn't.
They didn't bother testing things because they didn't care that much about whether things were practically applicable in the universe (excepting Aristotle, who did enjoy collecting data).
I still don't see how you could say that they set things back, especially when there were so many competing ideas WITHIN Greek philosophy - some were picked up on straight away and others only resurfaced later on. There was room for advancement, but that is always true.
Before that, was pretty routine for leaders, especially those whose power rested on religious beliefs, to regard much of education, exploration, and discovery as a waste of time, if not outright subversion.
Wow, that's just plain wrong.
I'm *not* one to defend the Greeks, by any means whatsoever, and I agree that their mistakes steered Western science in a very wrong direction that required ages to correct.
Erm... how?
From my understanding the Greek ideas were excellent but they lacked the organisation and ambition to create great scientific or technological works. The Greeks were happy to think about things that they found personally interesting and potentially "enlightening" but their use of the knowledge was pretty selfish overall. Then Charlemagne comes along with his massive ambitions for Christianity, and when you have a monotheism like that and the will to spread it and enforce it shit gets done. Eventually, this idea of "external" truths and working to build something great gets sublimated into other ambitions when some of the Greek ideas are rediscovered.
I don't really see that as saying the same thing (Plato vs. Socrates for one!). The other thing with Nietzsche is that he's not often so subtle at damning something that he dislikes - and that often things that you might see as being derogatory from other people's pens have to be evaluated in a different way when you consider Nietzsche's ideas about human values. Sure, he isn't saying that he totally agrees with Socrates - that would be very surprising - but what IS written there is simply an analysis of what Socrates constructed and what his impetus would have been to do so.
Oh, and read your link again. The "praises only once" thing is mentioned in there as an error of another writer!
Twilight of the Idols is on my "to-read" list - if I ever do find a mention of it in there I'll post it on here.
In all likelihood, you are!
The Phaedo specifically mentions Plato as being absent. While this might just be a way for Plato to avoid having to write dialogue for himself as well as possibly putting words in Socrates' mouth it does seem (to me at least) like an attempt at historical accuracy. Especially seeing as he mentions himself as PRESENT for the trial in Apology.
Women will forgive you for treating them like shit because you're sparkly.
The /. summary comes from the summary at the University of Manchester, you know, the link? It's the institution Kennedy works at, so...it's not untoward to expect that the press release from his employer about his work be somewhat accurate.
Mod parent funny. This is a laugh-riot to anybody who's ever dealt with their university's PR department.
I don't see how you can have heresy before monotheism.
Christianity liked it for a while as it provided an intellectual basis for some of the things that Jesus says in the New Testament. Unfortunately there is other baggage that comes with Platonism that caused trouble (the more pantheistic elements in there), so they eventually switched to Aristotelian metaphysics (which allows God to be "above" everything).
I'm not going to believe it without a reference. Nietzsche is famed for his love of the Greeks. I've also heard people describe him as somebody who wanted to emulate Plato's ability to create a myth out of a man.
Well, the vuvuzelas in the stadium are one thing but this has actually had a much more annoying effect back home (UK). They're selling vuvuzelas over here now, which means that there are people staggering around our city centres with low-tech airhorns (yes, they are that loud in-person).
Wait, what?
Regression to the mean, correlation/causation, etc.
In this castrated western world where two dudes wanna get drunk and fight each other are both reprimanded, and all kinds of contact sport gets softened up and dumbed down, it is natural to seek other means of expressing a competitive/violent yearning.
For this to be a good thing would assume that satisfying a desire diminishes it, rather than making you more likely to seek it out in the future.
Usually I'd have something to complain about here, as there are many people on Slashdot who subscribe to the fallacious idea that if the violence only affects some people then it's not significant - which is a simple logical error. The good thing about this particular study is that they found they could predict which children would be most affected, which gets rid of most of that problem (of course you could keep slicing it thinner and thinner forever looking at individual differences WITHIN that danger group). The ethical question now is what to do with the information - if there is a group of people in the population who will be affected, and may not even be aware of their susceptibility, what are the implications for policy? My intuition is that those students who represent the "perfect storm" maximum-susceptibility group are ALSO the type of people who are most likely to play a lot of video games.
Well, there are some non-pointless reasons to be careful with language. Quite often in the sciences words are used metaphorically that have a particular "everyday" meaning to most people. There is a danger of people (scientists included) forgetting that these words are being used metaphorically. This kind of thing happens a lot in the cognitive neuroscience literature.
The problem is mainly semantic, but I still think it's worth arguing.
You've got a choice whether you want to call something that perceives light to build a model of its environment as being something that "sees". In this case you'd have to point out that our conscious visual perception is some sort of extra thing, if you were describing a bionic eye for example. Or you could say that "seeing" includes this element and that we should refer to the device in the article as allowing people to perceive light through their hearing.
The sensation of "seeing" something is qualititatively different from that of "hearing" something. You get to lose the quote-marks when it's something analogous to a cochlear implant for the eye.
Your very premise is faulty. The word "viewpoint" is just another word for opinion. Science isn't about opinions. It is about evidence, experiments, and a rigorous commitment to setting presumptions aside.
"Viewpoint" could also be another word for interpretation. The "evidence" we get in science (i.e. data) only has any meaning if it is interpreted somehow. Some sort of evidence to back up these competing interpretations (and hopefully allow us to state some confidence in one of them) is what we're looking to get out of science.
I haven't read the parent, but your post stuck out to me as being misleading (maybe because you're understanding is incomplete, but more likely due to a hasty response).
Yeah, if only there were some place where scientists would publish their research saying exactly what they did and what they found.
They did account for that.