It is interesting that this currently rates as '4, informative', given that it does not explain a single fatality. I am curious as to how anyone could think this is an explanation, as that might explain a lot about the current state of rational thought.
Heard it from a teacher who had heard it from Minsky, but it's probably not literal anymore, after all those years: consciousness is just a feedback loop.
He was truly one of the greats.
Calling consciousness 'just' a feedback loop is just a way of avoiding saying 'I don't understand what it is.'
That is a very good point in your second paragraph - the history of science and its methods (and also of philosophy) was not perceived by its participants in the way the story is now told, and the claims being made in this thread about the invention of the scientific method are a simplistic and self-serving reading of that history. I also take your point that one can argue that most of the 'fathers' of the scientific method were also practitioners, but making a big deal over what you call them is part of PopeRatzo et. als' fallacious argument. The interesting part of the history is what the players thought and did, not what labels we give them (some people might think I am joining in the same fallacy, but I am only participating in this thread to offer some counter-arguments.)
Previous schemes like this have run into problems getting the requirements straight, and with estimating. Don't tell me that in the agile world, these things don't matter: they matter in the real world, where your customers live.
Then you jump on the coattails in your next sentence! You have also been straining mightily to imply it in the rest of your posts here, falling back on an undisputed but narrow factual claim when pressed - a near-perfect example of the Motte and Bailey fallacy. Your frequent invocation of the origins of the scientific method only underscores by contrast how little a role contemporary academic philosophy played through the scientific revolution - as I said in my reply to your 'architects' post, scientists were not waiting around for Popper et. al. to show them the way; the philosophers merely described what science was doing. And if you keep on insinuating that science is forever in the thrall of philosophy because of the origins of the scientific method, I will have to look up the name of that fallacy.
Don't attribute your misunderstanding of the issue to me (I am guessing that you have misunderstood it because your examples are not relevant to the relationship between the scientific method and philosophy, but instead look like an attempt to claim an extra couple of mm for philosophy.)
As for ignorance, humanity had no idea of how much it did not know until science got going.
Philosophers did indeed get science going, but there is a great deal of coattail-riding in suggesting that current science is dependent on, or a consequence of, current academic philosophy.
But science has moved ahead of academic philosophy. Popper et. al. were, at best, describing how the science of their time and before was practiced, and if they had not been there, science would still have been the most amazingly productive human activity in history. It's not as if scientists were sitting around waiting for philosophers to figure out how to proceed.
While the philosophers have a point, it is highly unlikely any breakthroughs in fundamental science will be made by someone educated purely in academic philosophy.
Is it not a matter of conjecture that these galaxies are forming in regions where dark matter is concentrated? - a reasonably well-founded conjecture perhaps, but not corroborated by any evidence beyond that which is the basis of the conjecture?
Reductionism has its limits - for example. while I have no doubt that the history of life on earth can in principle be described purely as a sequence of physical processes, a theory of evolution works at an appropriate level of abstraction and provides much more insight.
Well, there is also the code of their paying customers, but you make a good point - the only one I have seen so far that doesn't seem to depend on wishful thinking.
The fact that bugs are found and fixed in open-source code does not allow you to conclude that open-sourcing will improve bug discovery to any significant extent. That is the issue where wishful thinking is being substituted for evidence.
And you point is? If you desire to be recognized as a smart-ass, congratulations, you have established that you are. Only a smart-ass talks absolutes in a discussion like this.
You were eager to participate in just such a discussion until I called your bluff.
Slashdot Mirror
It is interesting that this currently rates as '4, informative', given that it does not explain a single fatality. I am curious as to how anyone could think this is an explanation, as that might explain a lot about the current state of rational thought.
Heard it from a teacher who had heard it from Minsky, but it's probably not literal anymore, after all those years: consciousness is just a feedback loop.
He was truly one of the greats.
Calling consciousness 'just' a feedback loop is just a way of avoiding saying 'I don't understand what it is.'
Information on what Wesson is calculating seems hard to come by, but this may be it:
https://www.google.ch/patents/...
That is a very good point in your second paragraph - the history of science and its methods (and also of philosophy) was not perceived by its participants in the way the story is now told, and the claims being made in this thread about the invention of the scientific method are a simplistic and self-serving reading of that history. I also take your point that one can argue that most of the 'fathers' of the scientific method were also practitioners, but making a big deal over what you call them is part of PopeRatzo et. als' fallacious argument. The interesting part of the history is what the players thought and did, not what labels we give them (some people might think I am joining in the same fallacy, but I am only participating in this thread to offer some counter-arguments.)
Previous schemes like this have run into problems getting the requirements straight, and with estimating. Don't tell me that in the agile world, these things don't matter: they matter in the real world, where your customers live.
No-one is disagreeing about the origins of the scientific method. Did you think that it somehow refutes the point of mine that you quoted?
Then you jump on the coattails in your next sentence! You have also been straining mightily to imply it in the rest of your posts here, falling back on an undisputed but narrow factual claim when pressed - a near-perfect example of the Motte and Bailey fallacy. Your frequent invocation of the origins of the scientific method only underscores by contrast how little a role contemporary academic philosophy played through the scientific revolution - as I said in my reply to your 'architects' post, scientists were not waiting around for Popper et. al. to show them the way; the philosophers merely described what science was doing. And if you keep on insinuating that science is forever in the thrall of philosophy because of the origins of the scientific method, I will have to look up the name of that fallacy.
I have bad news for you: you will not find *the* Truth in philosophy either, though you may find a number of different definitions of the word.
It turns out that knowledge is a pretty good alternative.
Do you think it's a dick-measuring contest?
Don't attribute your misunderstanding of the issue to me (I am guessing that you have misunderstood it because your examples are not relevant to the relationship between the scientific method and philosophy, but instead look like an attempt to claim an extra couple of mm for philosophy.)
As for ignorance, humanity had no idea of how much it did not know until science got going.
I have addressed your architects claim elsewhere: http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
Philosophers did indeed get science going, but there is a great deal of coattail-riding in suggesting that current science is dependent on, or a consequence of, current academic philosophy.
But science has moved ahead of academic philosophy. Popper et. al. were, at best, describing how the science of their time and before was practiced, and if they had not been there, science would still have been the most amazingly productive human activity in history. It's not as if scientists were sitting around waiting for philosophers to figure out how to proceed.
While the philosophers have a point, it is highly unlikely any breakthroughs in fundamental science will be made by someone educated purely in academic philosophy.
Is it not a matter of conjecture that these galaxies are forming in regions where dark matter is concentrated? - a reasonably well-founded conjecture perhaps, but not corroborated by any evidence beyond that which is the basis of the conjecture?
Agreed - self-reported results have little credibility (see homeopathy), and those of psychoactive substance use are particularly suspect.
And neither productivity nor creativity gains, even if real, are worth much unless accompanied by good judgement.
Reductionism has its limits - for example. while I have no doubt that the history of life on earth can in principle be described purely as a sequence of physical processes, a theory of evolution works at an appropriate level of abstraction and provides much more insight.
I don't think you can have much of a theory of the origin of life until you have a plausible chemical story.
Not so, unfortunately - truthiness bubbles are inherently fact-resistant.
So far the only claimed "threat" has been cigarette and drug delivery.
I think there are some fairly obvious extensions to that threat.
why didn't they post this in the summary? seems like a material fact.
I get the distinct impression that you are one of those people for whom it is always someone else's fault.
Well, there is also the code of their paying customers, but you make a good point - the only one I have seen so far that doesn't seem to depend on wishful thinking.
Ironically, Coverity's own code is closed.
You missed out the bit about significance. Without that, your observation is irrelevant.
The fact that bugs are found and fixed in open-source code does not allow you to conclude that open-sourcing will improve bug discovery to any significant extent. That is the issue where wishful thinking is being substituted for evidence.
And an inflated ego in addition to being a moron. Fascinating.
Your descent into schoolyard taunts gives me the satisfaction of knowing that I have hit the nail squarely on the head.
And you point is? If you desire to be recognized as a smart-ass, congratulations, you have established that you are. Only a smart-ass talks absolutes in a discussion like this.
You were eager to participate in just such a discussion until I called your bluff.
There seem to be a great many people here who are confident that someone else is going to do this for them.