Genady Posted May 8 Posted May 8 31 minutes ago, joigus said: I see. I don't think much that is essential has changed since the time it was written though. Ok. In that case the Amazon description could be misleading. It's only concenced with the postulates, and their logical consequences. IOW, whether or not the postulational basis of QM can be seen to describe the picture of a mathematical reality. Whether the logical implications correspond to empirical truths is taken for granted --it does-- and not a main point --or even a relevant point, AFAICR-- of the book. I see. Thank you again. If I took that class with Agassi now, I'd have a lot of questions to talk to him about. Unfortunately, at that time I was too focused on my own wrong ideas related to philosophy of technology. While writing my previous post I learned that he died a year ago. He was very kind and very sharp.
CharonY Posted May 8 Posted May 8 14 hours ago, joigus said: Maybe it's just an impression on my part, but I think many scientists are unaware of changes in philosophy having taken place in past decades, plus the relatively recent coming of age of a new breed of philosopher scientists. I think it is fair to say that not many scientists are very aware of changes outside their specific fields. 10 hours ago, TheVat said: The point that people are responding to more than just "spectacle." There is more to mass shooting data than just numeric data on fatality - creating public terror of public spaces has real measurable effects on civic life, and quality of life assessment, even if the risk assessments that people make are wobbly. Tyson is correct, but I felt he was ignoring the psychological effects of mass shootings over time. There's also a copycat effect, with mass shootings, that one doesn't see with other morbidity causes he lists, which further ratchets up public fear and distress. I think the point still stands that folks are bad at overall risk assessment (for good reasons, but still). We are more willing to invest and change our behaviour to address rare but scary events rather than address other risks which we feel safe about, without good reason.
MigL Posted May 8 Posted May 8 I firmly believe people should stick closely to what they do best, and not venture too far outside their area of expertise. I am sick and tired of actors, musicians and other entertainers pushing their opinions on social/political/climate/etc. matters, that they have no clue about, but whose opinion carries a lot of weight simply because they have a large audience for their views. I'm also tired of failed entertainers, whose only claim to fame as an entertainer is as a caricature of themselves ( with orange hair, no less ), running for public office ( or the Presidency even ), and half of the population of the most advanced country in the world actually thinking he'd be good at it. I wonder what N Degrasse-Tyson would say about that ? He is a scientist, excellent science communicator, and his comments about mass shootings are scientifically accurate facts, albeit, not very sensitive. Then again, he's not a sociologist, so why expect a socially sensitive comment from him ? He's had other problems ( with women ) in past years also. Why does America expect people with even the slightest bit of 'fame' to have an answer for any problem or be great human beings ? N D-T is good at what he does; other aspects of his life, or opinions, are just as valid/invalid as Joe Blow's at the local bar.
CharonY Posted May 8 Posted May 8 Just now, MigL said: Why does America expect people with even the slightest bit of 'fame' to have an answer for any problem or be great human beings ? This great man phenomenon is unfortunately ubiquitous and is probably amplified with the celebrity thingy. Folks for some reason feel that they know a person if they seem the often enough and trust what is being said. Interestingly the exact opposite but also somehow convergent effect is happening within online communities. Despite not being seen, the mere repetition of factoids, can make them true and trusted facts. Both are part of the demise of expertise.
joigus Posted May 8 Posted May 8 1 hour ago, CharonY said: I think it is fair to say that any scientists are very aware of changes outside their specific fields. I think you missed an "m"...
CharonY Posted May 9 Posted May 9 3 hours ago, joigus said: I think you missed an "m"... Worse than that. Somehow managed to delete the negation, too. Fixed now.
Otto Kretschmer Posted May 9 Author Posted May 9 15 hours ago, MigL said: I firmly believe people should stick closely to what they do best, and not venture too far outside their area of expertise. I am sick and tired of actors, musicians and other entertainers pushing their opinions on social/political/climate/etc. matters, that they have no clue about, but whose opinion carries a lot of weight simply because they have a large audience for their views. I'm also tired of failed entertainers, whose only claim to fame as an entertainer is as a caricature of themselves ( with orange hair, no less ), running for public office ( or the Presidency even ), and half of the population of the most advanced country in the world actually thinking he'd be good at it. I wonder what N Degrasse-Tyson would say about that ? He is a scientist, excellent science communicator, and his comments about mass shootings are scientifically accurate facts, albeit, not very sensitive. Then again, he's not a sociologist, so why expect a socially sensitive comment from him ? He's had other problems ( with women ) in past years also. Why does America expect people with even the slightest bit of 'fame' to have an answer for any problem or be great human beings ? N D-T is good at what he does; other aspects of his life, or opinions, are just as valid/invalid as Joe Blow's at the local bar. NdGT is simply somewhat socially awkward, he doesn't realize that he's being insensitive. Hence his mass shooting comment.
joigus Posted May 9 Posted May 9 11 hours ago, CharonY said: Worse than that. Somehow managed to delete the negation, too. Fixed now. Ok. Thank you. I couldn't believe your statement. 😅
MSC Posted May 10 Posted May 10 On 5/8/2024 at 9:39 AM, Otto Kretschmer said: What do you guys think of this comment of his? It sounds like Walter white downplaying the plane that crashed over Albuquerque because there had been bigger plane crashes in the past that killed more people.... Dear Neil; often people respond to what is in front of them. Not what is behind them. If you're pissed that different data was put in front of people then get into news publishing instead of selling overpriced planetary society gold plated pens or pins or whatever it was. Oh and one more thing; the insensitivity displayed could have been avoided by ending on a call to help reduce those deaths or a moment of silence but instead, snarky comments about emotions to death.
Otto Kretschmer Posted May 10 Author Posted May 10 Guys, how do you think does Neil deGrasse Tyson compare to Carl Sagan?
dimreepr Posted May 10 Posted May 10 24 minutes ago, Otto Kretschmer said: Guys, how do you think does Neil deGrasse Tyson compare to Carl Sagan? Does it matter? Someone like Neil inspired someone like Carl... Enough said, move on... 🖖 9 hours ago, MSC said: It sounds like Walter white downplaying the plane that crashed over Albuquerque because there had been bigger plane crashes in the past that killed more people.... Dear Neil; often people respond to what is in front of them. Not what is behind them. If you're pissed that different data was put in front of people then get into news publishing instead of selling overpriced planetary society gold plated pens or pins or whatever it was. Oh and one more thing; the insensitivity displayed could have been avoided by ending on a call to help reduce those deaths or a moment of silence but instead, snarky comments about emotions to death. Dear MSC, Neil is more educated on the subject than you, unless that subject is puberty... 😉
MSC Posted May 10 Posted May 10 41 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Does it matter? Someone like Neil inspired someone like Carl... Enough said, move on... 🖖 Dear MSC, Neil is more educated on the subject than you, unless that subject is puberty... 😉 There it is. Descending into personal attacks. Classy. Leave me alone Dim. 1 hour ago, dimreepr said: Neil is more educated on the subject than you In what? Ethics or death statistics? I highly doubt the former and I don't tend to keep track of death statistics for the purposes of downplaying mass shootings. Fallacious appeals to authority aside, I'm not an astrophysicist but we aren't discussing astrophysics are we Dim?
dimreepr Posted May 10 Posted May 10 31 minutes ago, MSC said: Fallacious appeals to authority aside, I'm not an astrophysicist but we aren't discussing astrophysics are we Dim? Neil is...
MigL Posted May 10 Posted May 10 Oh my ... I do believe we have a childish feud going, which now threatens to derail a second thread. Please take it to PM, or one of you travels to the other's location and you both put on boxing gloves, and step in a ring. 2
swansont Posted May 10 Posted May 10 Quote Please take it to PM ! Moderator Note Do not, under any circumstances, take it to PM. Just cease and desist with the pot-stirring and stick to the topic under discussion 2
MSC Posted May 10 Posted May 10 2 hours ago, MigL said: Might beat some sense into both of them For anyone to beat sense into me it would help if they've actually been to a boxing Gym for more than a few years because that is what it would take. Thank you genuinely to the mod that deleted my last comment. Lost my cool. Won't happen again.
joigus Posted May 10 Posted May 10 10 hours ago, Otto Kretschmer said: Guys, how do you think does Neil deGrasse Tyson compare to Carl Sagan? He doesn't. They don't. I'm very partial to Sagan though, on account of the child in me, who got fascinated by science thanks to Sagan among others. If children today get to love science because of Tyson, he would prove to be a worthy disciple of his mentor. Do we need more? Neither one of them managed to shatter the earth in scientific terms. So I agree with @dimreepr: Does it matter? Do you have an opinion on it? 10 hours ago, dimreepr said: Someone like Neil inspired someone like Carl... I think you mean someone like Carl inspired someone like Neil. Don't you?
Eise Posted May 12 Posted May 12 (edited) It is difficult for me to give some hints about what is done today under the header of 'philosophy'. In the first place, I am not actively studying philosophy anymore: just reading what interests me, most of them: philosophy of science, especially physics mind body problem free will So @Genady I can give you titles, if one of this topics interests you. But of course there is much more: political philosophy metaphysics (completely different from what it once was) ethics logic - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Except Tyson's denigrating remarks about philosophy, I like him as a science communicator, warning tirelessly against the growing 'science analphabetization'. He speaks and writes with humor, enthusiasm and also empathy. On 5/8/2024 at 3:39 PM, Otto Kretschmer said: What do you guys think of this comment of his? This is very dependent on the context. When it is about how people react to events, without knowing the statistics, then it is OK. And I think this is what he meant. But of course a lot of people see it in another context, think just about people who lost friends or family in mass shootings. So, yes, this was a miss of Tyson, and he excused for it. Edited May 12 by Eise 1
Genady Posted May 12 Posted May 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, Eise said: It is difficult for me to give some hints about what is done today under the header of 'philosophy'. In the first place, I am not actively studying philosophy anymore: just reading what interests me, most of them: philosophy of science, especially physics mind body problem free will So @Genady I can give you titles, if one of this topics interests you. But of course there is much more: political philosophy metaphysics (completely different from what it once was) ethics logic Thank you, @Eise. I'd try a different approach: are you familiar with, and if so, what is your opinion on PhilPapers: Online Research in Philosophy? Edited May 12 by Genady
dimreepr Posted May 12 Posted May 12 On 5/11/2024 at 12:14 AM, joigus said: I think you mean someone like Carl inspired someone like Neil. Don't you? I was going for irony, "someone like"...😉 2 hours ago, Genady said: I'd try a different approach: are you familiar with, and if so, what is your opinion on PhilPapers: Online Research in Philosophy? It strikes me as the start of a future dogma, which is why Socrates refused to write what he thought, I think Listen to the first 5 mins, he explains it much better than I ever could, and the rest is well worth anyone's time...
Eise Posted May 13 Posted May 13 19 hours ago, Genady said: Thank you, @Eise. I'd try a different approach: are you familiar with, and if so, what is your opinion on PhilPapers: Online Research in Philosophy? No, not familiar with it. But on a first glance it may be a good entry point. However you take the risk of taking a too deep dive in academic philosophy. Philosophy also has its technical concepts, sometime using words borrowed from daily language (e.g. 'intentionality'). What I like is that in nearly every main topic a few references to introductory sources are given. That could be a good start. Just take care not to declare an article as nonsensical before you really understand what an author is trying to say, and in what discourse she is presenting his text. 1
MSC Posted May 13 Posted May 13 1 hour ago, Eise said: No, not familiar with it. But on a first glance it may be a good entry point. However you take the risk of taking a too deep dive in academic philosophy. Philosophy also has its technical concepts, sometime using words borrowed from daily language (e.g. 'intentionality'). What I like is that in nearly every main topic a few references to introductory sources are given. That could be a good start. Just take care not to declare an article as nonsensical before you really understand what an author is trying to say, and in what discourse she is presenting his text. Seconded. If I may add to this, a good entry point is a YouTube channel called Crash course that has a philosophy course. I also found oxfords philosophical dictionary to be very useful. There is a Cambridge philosophical dictionary too and I've tended to find both in large public libraries@Genady I'd say the crash course is best for really enhancing an understanding of some of the hard to grasp concepts. 2 hours ago, Eise said: Just take care not to declare an article as nonsensical before you really understand what an author is trying to say Case and point; when I was first studying philosophy it took me a few months before I realized that my understanding of supervenience was completely back to front, so I literally thought someone was trying to say that the brain relies upon the mind for change and not the other way around.
dimreepr Posted May 13 Posted May 13 I don't think you can learn how to be a philosopher, by reading text, at best one would be a facsimile; even a post grad philosophy student, doesn't emerge as a fully formed philosopher, and may never achieve the accolade. When we can't think for ourselves, we can always quote - Ludwig Wittgenstein
Genady Posted May 13 Posted May 13 1 hour ago, MSC said: @Genady I'd say the crash course is best for really enhancing an understanding of some of the hard to grasp concepts. Just a friendly reminder: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132167-what-is-the-nature-of-our-existence/?do=findComment&comment=1246935
MSC Posted May 13 Posted May 13 1 minute ago, Genady said: Just a friendly reminder: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/132167-what-is-the-nature-of-our-existence/?do=findComment&comment=1246935 Whoops there goes me repeating myself, my bad. I give those directions to a fair amount of people so you'll have to forgive me for forgetting you were one of them.
Recommended Posts