This verification is valid in the epistemology of science. But if someone's epistemology does not recognize this sort of verification, scientific verification is useless.
The very knowledge representation phase of science keeps in mind the scientific verification step in mind : e.g. verifiability. Some other philosophies don't consider this : so e.g. if you exist, God must exist otherwise who created you ? In this philosophy, God had been verified. It is not a scientific verification, but the initial knowledge representation didn't make scientific verification possible.
Depending on your definition, believing means that you accept something as truth without proof. And science is pretty much the opposite of that
With that definition of belief, science ( the philosophical aspect) is definitely a belief. The very idea that next moment Universal Gravitational Constant would remain (very nearly) the same has been accepted without proof by all in the science world. There can be a skepticism in it - but spending effort in finding the laws of nature has an underlying notion of some semblance of stability in those laws for a while. There is no proof of that stability. Even the idea that Logic can be used to argue about physical reality is purely based on faith.
Science has served mankind well, but it is a belief nevertheless, for which there is no proof. Evidence - yes, but that is also within the framework of science. So first science has to be accepted in order for the "evidence" to qualify as evidence. E.g. if I confirm Newton's law of Gravitation, it is no proof it will apply to you. But in the philosophy of science it amounts to evidence that it might apply to you. In some other philosophy, it might amount to bullshit.
A philosophy is not something to believe in either
I said a philosophy is enough (to be able to believe in it). It is possible to believe in a philosophy. E.g. the epistemology of this particular philosophy is the one you resort to when you need to know anything. The metaphysics of this philosophy might be tightly linked with its epistemology.
Philosophies are studies
Bullshit. In a school / university, philosophy is studied - so at times in that context people call it just a "study" - it is like calling Mathematics is a "homework". Or chemistry is a lab lesson in school. In other words - not for grownups.
Various things are studied, this does not mean they are just "studies". Philosophies can be studied - and not believed in, rejected, or considered to be of special interest, sometimes in specific contexts.
He is a scientist
Did you see a hypothesis that is falsifiable, reproducible and predictive ? Did he get his past findings peer reviewed , or even if he has any peers ? Do you know if he is going to get his findings from his current project peer reviewed ? Is he even using the same brand of Logic that is prevalent in today's scientific circles ?
Especially Occam's Razor seems to have given him the slip as the finding he is setting out to make can be made much more simply in other ways.
I think that my original point should be properly understood by anyone interested in doing so
"Absolute statements" is a term that should be properly understood by anyone interested in doing so. You didn't and typed it when you meant something else. Maybe "nuanced statements". Words have meanings, and all words don't have all meanings.
Given that, I have every expectation that you may not know basic meanings of the word "science". You may not have been able to realize it yet, at least you have not acknowledged it yet.
There is a philosophy of science. While it makes sense to me, one can totally reject various aspects of science as a philosophy and yet have a internally consistent philosophy.
You don't need something to be a religion to believe in it. A philosophy is enough - they at least have epistemology and metaphysics. The religions have an added dimension to them over and above a mere philosophy - ethics. Science is a non-religion philosophy as in it doesn't have an ethics of its own.
Human beings cannot really do anything without having an ethics. One's ethics could be random, or ask oneself to kill as many people as possible, but ethics is required. In the world of science, you need to supply your own ethics. Religions come with their own.
But your "most engineers are pretty damn useless at science", at least as per my understanding, denotes having a limited knowledge/not agreeing with whatever scientific field is applicable and this is certainly not the case. If you only meant doing scientist-kind-of work (dressing white lab coats and playing around with pipettes. LOL) then I guess that you are right and engineers are quite bad at that.
"Science" has at least 2 meanings.
(1) Discovering new (at least to oneself) knowledge using the scientific method
(2) The body of knowledge people acquired and documented that was acquired using the scientific method. Even here, there are some (apparent) contradictions / disagreements in people following the same method so one needs some talent to extract the useful knowledge.
It would be a rare engineer who excelled at (1) above, so one could reasonably say "most engineers are pretty damn useless at science". Though they need the related information from (2) above, so it is bound to be a controversial statement because people would consider this meaning of the word "science" too. The talent required in (2) above also is not necessary in an engineer.
Though an engineer definitely needs the skill to determine what works for him - if the science is not clear or scientists have disagreements. In this he uses almost the same skills as the scientists - though if the scientist performs the same determination he also has the added skill to scientifically document it so that it is published as a scientific proof. This skill for documentation may be lacking in an engineer.
So what ? Don't you have brains to not follow everything a fortune cookie tells you ?
I have seen a fortune cookie "It is now safe to turn off you computer" many times. At those times, I was conducting intercontinental video chats using my computer - it was clearly not "safe" to turn off my computer if I wanted to continue my chats which were important for business. Did I turn off my computer, or even considered it safe to do so? No way.
the only diversity that matters : Diversity of opinion.
Why is it the only diversity that mattes ?
1. Diversity of opinion doesn't matter much in many places, and is instead harmful.
E.g. in LKML, people with an opinion that the Linux kernel should not be developed should not be welcome. I hope people on LKML don't wish such people painful death, but on that mailing list a certain lack of diversity in participants is essential.
2. Opinion can be changed. Sex, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, apparent race (e.g. skin color) are difficult to change and should not be required to be changed for unrelated events. E.g. a gay man might be worse than useless in a porn website dedicated to appreciating the sexual wonders of women. Or a non-Muslim in a mosque could visit, but if he starts participating in events, the Muslims should not need to welcome him.
Real race, age cannot be changed : an 80 year old need not be welcome in a teenagers party - but if he performs well there should be no reason not to keep him in the national football team.
Do you have evidence that every single proponent of UBI assumes exactly the same thing ? This includes strong proponents, demi-teinte proponents, and weak proponents.
OK. Anything about the actual topic surrounding Damore's article ? Opportunity for men vs that for women in the field of software in particular, and/or technology in general ?
1. You say : Simply treating everyone equally has been tried, in fact it has been law for decades in many places, but it hasn't addressed the inequalities.
2. Then you clarify : that by inequality, you mean "inequality of opportunity". Or at least "most people" mean - one has to guess a lot when communicating with you. I guess you put yourself in the category of "most people".
So if you can make a statement that the "addressing the inequalities" hasn't happened, you must have a way to measure the inequalities of opportunities and thus prove that it has not been "addressed" ? Or is it turtles all the way down for you ?
Trump didn't help, as the way he spoke was confusing, but if you were good enough you'd be able to work out what he was really trying to say
Great, I found someone who cares about reality.
Do you think it really matters what Trump is trying to say ? I heard him tell Hillary that she would be in jail (indirect underlying context was the situation where Trump becomes the President). But he made it very clear early on after becoming POTUS that it is not going to be so.
The thing is, with most of these 'gig' jobs like Instacart and Uber and Lyft, these should be obviously perceived as jobs that are purely for EXTRA money on the side, and not a career choice.
Uber knows it, and doesn't like it. In my country - the real payments only start coming once you have spent 8 hours driving. They call it incentives - e.g. complete 12 trips a day and get an "extra" $50.
Nah. If it were just a matter of a part of the purchase price of a product, it mostly wouldn't be a problem. But what do you get for that part of the price of products ? Anti customer laws and corporate law-writers who don't care about helping you.
Wars are great for profits of many companies, BTW.
That's the problem with UBI. It pays people to do nothing.
Yes - but also to do something. The same amount, though the "do something" part might also pay something over and above what is paid on the basis of UBI.
It assumes that anyone who is doing nothing is doing nothing because they can't find a job or have no skills.
No
They need to get a living wage just because they exist.
No.
UBI doesn't assume anything - it is not even a living , sentient thing. Some people who advocate it, though, think that it is a net positive for the society. Some even think that it is the only way to humanely deal with a situation where a vast majority of "work" is done by machines.
What if the someone doesn't ask but directly cuts it off ?
Not that the non-askers would care even if I didn't have a fingerprint security on my phone - they might cut off 21 members from my body - just in case.
Google only did essentially the only thing they could do.
Damore didn't publish his article for the general public, so Google could have denied it exists. I don't see how firing him for no fault of his is the only thing to be done.
Note that being wrong is definitely not a fault in knowledge work - the smartest people I know in the software industry are wrong at least once a day.
my principle objection to the memo is it is completely missing a "so what" component
Aren't you missing the same component ? Even if he was wrong, so what ?
Let's assume the everything Damore says is objectively false (I don't agree with this, obviously). How does that mean he should be fired? Do you know someone who has never been wrong? I bet that person was one who rarely had an opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
This verification is valid in the epistemology of science. But if someone's epistemology does not recognize this sort of verification, scientific verification is useless.
The very knowledge representation phase of science keeps in mind the scientific verification step in mind : e.g. verifiability. Some other philosophies don't consider this : so e.g. if you exist, God must exist otherwise who created you ? In this philosophy, God had been verified. It is not a scientific verification, but the initial knowledge representation didn't make scientific verification possible.
Depending on your definition, believing means that you accept something as truth without proof. And science is pretty much the opposite of that
With that definition of belief, science ( the philosophical aspect) is definitely a belief. The very idea that next moment Universal Gravitational Constant would remain (very nearly) the same has been accepted without proof by all in the science world. There can be a skepticism in it - but spending effort in finding the laws of nature has an underlying notion of some semblance of stability in those laws for a while. There is no proof of that stability. Even the idea that Logic can be used to argue about physical reality is purely based on faith.
Science has served mankind well, but it is a belief nevertheless, for which there is no proof. Evidence - yes, but that is also within the framework of science. So first science has to be accepted in order for the "evidence" to qualify as evidence. E.g. if I confirm Newton's law of Gravitation, it is no proof it will apply to you. But in the philosophy of science it amounts to evidence that it might apply to you. In some other philosophy, it might amount to bullshit.
A philosophy is not something to believe in either
I said a philosophy is enough (to be able to believe in it). It is possible to believe in a philosophy. E.g. the epistemology of this particular philosophy is the one you resort to when you need to know anything. The metaphysics of this philosophy might be tightly linked with its epistemology.
Philosophies are studies
Bullshit. In a school / university, philosophy is studied - so at times in that context people call it just a "study" - it is like calling Mathematics is a "homework". Or chemistry is a lab lesson in school. In other words - not for grownups.
Various things are studied, this does not mean they are just "studies". Philosophies can be studied - and not believed in, rejected, or considered to be of special interest, sometimes in specific contexts.
He is a scientist
Did you see a hypothesis that is falsifiable, reproducible and predictive ? Did he get his past findings peer reviewed , or even if he has any peers ? Do you know if he is going to get his findings from his current project peer reviewed ? Is he even using the same brand of Logic that is prevalent in today's scientific circles ?
Especially Occam's Razor seems to have given him the slip as the finding he is setting out to make can be made much more simply in other ways.
You're being too hard on yourself. There are many weaklings like you I've broken.
I think that my original point should be properly understood by anyone interested in doing so
"Absolute statements" is a term that should be properly understood by anyone interested in doing so. You didn't and typed it when you meant something else. Maybe "nuanced statements". Words have meanings, and all words don't have all meanings.
Given that, I have every expectation that you may not know basic meanings of the word "science". You may not have been able to realize it yet, at least you have not acknowledged it yet.
Ok.
1. So science does not have at least those 2 meanings ?
In general, I don't agree with virtually any absolute statement expected to be applicable to a so wide number of different people (engineers!
It is a great thing I didn't make any absolute statements about engineers then.
2A. It would be a rare engineer who
Not "there is no engineer"
2B. not necessary in an engineer
Not "not possible in an engineer"
2C. may be lacking in an engineer
Not "are lacking in an engineer"
or yours if she is hot enough
There is a philosophy of science. While it makes sense to me, one can totally reject various aspects of science as a philosophy and yet have a internally consistent philosophy.
You don't need something to be a religion to believe in it. A philosophy is enough - they at least have epistemology and metaphysics. The religions have an added dimension to them over and above a mere philosophy - ethics. Science is a non-religion philosophy as in it doesn't have an ethics of its own.
Human beings cannot really do anything without having an ethics. One's ethics could be random, or ask oneself to kill as many people as possible, but ethics is required. In the world of science, you need to supply your own ethics. Religions come with their own.
But your "most engineers are pretty damn useless at science", at least as per my understanding, denotes having a limited knowledge/not agreeing with whatever scientific field is applicable and this is certainly not the case. If you only meant doing scientist-kind-of work (dressing white lab coats and playing around with pipettes. LOL) then I guess that you are right and engineers are quite bad at that.
"Science" has at least 2 meanings.
(1) Discovering new (at least to oneself) knowledge using the scientific method
(2) The body of knowledge people acquired and documented that was acquired using the scientific method. Even here, there are some (apparent) contradictions / disagreements in people following the same method so one needs some talent to extract the useful knowledge.
It would be a rare engineer who excelled at (1) above, so one could reasonably say "most engineers are pretty damn useless at science". Though they need the related information from (2) above, so it is bound to be a controversial statement because people would consider this meaning of the word "science" too. The talent required in (2) above also is not necessary in an engineer.
Though an engineer definitely needs the skill to determine what works for him - if the science is not clear or scientists have disagreements. In this he uses almost the same skills as the scientists - though if the scientist performs the same determination he also has the added skill to scientifically document it so that it is published as a scientific proof. This skill for documentation may be lacking in an engineer.
So what ? Don't you have brains to not follow everything a fortune cookie tells you ?
I have seen a fortune cookie "It is now safe to turn off you computer" many times. At those times, I was conducting intercontinental video chats using my computer - it was clearly not "safe" to turn off my computer if I wanted to continue my chats which were important for business. Did I turn off my computer, or even considered it safe to do so? No way.
the only diversity that matters : Diversity of opinion.
Why is it the only diversity that mattes ?
1. Diversity of opinion doesn't matter much in many places, and is instead harmful.
E.g. in LKML, people with an opinion that the Linux kernel should not be developed should not be welcome. I hope people on LKML don't wish such people painful death, but on that mailing list a certain lack of diversity in participants is essential.
2. Opinion can be changed. Sex, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, apparent race (e.g. skin color) are difficult to change and should not be required to be changed for unrelated events. E.g. a gay man might be worse than useless in a porn website dedicated to appreciating the sexual wonders of women. Or a non-Muslim in a mosque could visit, but if he starts participating in events, the Muslims should not need to welcome him.
Real race, age cannot be changed : an 80 year old need not be welcome in a teenagers party - but if he performs well there should be no reason not to keep him in the national football team.
Do you have evidence that every single proponent of UBI assumes exactly the same thing ? This includes strong proponents, demi-teinte proponents, and weak proponents.
OK. Anything about the actual topic surrounding Damore's article ? Opportunity for men vs that for women in the field of software in particular, and/or technology in general ?
I'm still not sure based on what measurement you call the inequality of opportunity unaddressed , by means of treating everyone equally.
No, it is in the context of your statement.
1. You say : Simply treating everyone equally has been tried, in fact it has been law for decades in many places, but it hasn't addressed the inequalities.
2. Then you clarify : that by inequality, you mean "inequality of opportunity". Or at least "most people" mean - one has to guess a lot when communicating with you. I guess you put yourself in the category of "most people".
So if you can make a statement that the "addressing the inequalities" hasn't happened, you must have a way to measure the inequalities of opportunities and thus prove that it has not been "addressed" ? Or is it turtles all the way down for you ?
What is the extent to which you need to measure this opportunity ?
Which is ?
Trump didn't help, as the way he spoke was confusing, but if you were good enough you'd be able to work out what he was really trying to say
Great, I found someone who cares about reality.
Do you think it really matters what Trump is trying to say ? I heard him tell Hillary that she would be in jail (indirect underlying context was the situation where Trump becomes the President). But he made it very clear early on after becoming POTUS that it is not going to be so.
Did I hear it wrong ?
How do you measure opportunity ?
The thing is, with most of these 'gig' jobs like Instacart and Uber and Lyft, these should be obviously perceived as jobs that are purely for EXTRA money on the side, and not a career choice.
Uber knows it, and doesn't like it. In my country - the real payments only start coming once you have spent 8 hours driving. They call it incentives - e.g. complete 12 trips a day and get an "extra" $50.
Nah. If it were just a matter of a part of the purchase price of a product, it mostly wouldn't be a problem. But what do you get for that part of the price of products ? Anti customer laws and corporate law-writers who don't care about helping you.
Wars are great for profits of many companies, BTW.
That's the problem with UBI. It pays people to do nothing.
Yes - but also to do something. The same amount, though the "do something" part might also pay something over and above what is paid on the basis of UBI.
It assumes that anyone who is doing nothing is doing nothing because they can't find a job or have no skills.
No
They need to get a living wage just because they exist.
No.
UBI doesn't assume anything - it is not even a living , sentient thing. Some people who advocate it, though, think that it is a net positive for the society. Some even think that it is the only way to humanely deal with a situation where a vast majority of "work" is done by machines.
But no, UBI doesn't assume anything.
What if the someone doesn't ask but directly cuts it off ?
Not that the non-askers would care even if I didn't have a fingerprint security on my phone - they might cut off 21 members from my body - just in case.
Google only did essentially the only thing they could do.
Damore didn't publish his article for the general public, so Google could have denied it exists. I don't see how firing him for no fault of his is the only thing to be done.
Note that being wrong is definitely not a fault in knowledge work - the smartest people I know in the software industry are wrong at least once a day.
my principle objection to the memo is it is completely missing a "so what" component
Aren't you missing the same component ? Even if he was wrong, so what ?
Let's assume the everything Damore says is objectively false (I don't agree with this, obviously). How does that mean he should be fired? Do you know someone who has never been wrong? I bet that person was one who rarely had an opinion.
And yet you didn't answer the question?
Is it an assumption that a person willing to work more hours or take on more stressful tasks will get ahead?
If yes, how ?