Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mentioning Phil phD's

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 34
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 7 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 27 34 template Next
  • #241
    Originally posted by The Vagabond
    Sorry to spam your intelligent discussion, guys.

    Asher, just have a look at the titles of the papers here:

    Human Verification
    http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/papers/


    Don't you think that all these subjects are worth pursuing?
    Perhaps, if they reach a point.

    I glanced through this paper

    Human Verification
    http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/belot/papers/gauge.pdf


    and it reads like a textbook overview of standard Hamiltonian mechanics, some E-M stuff and a few tensor operations.

    Does the author reach a point, or does he simply engage in telling the reader what is already known?
    12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
    Stadtluft Macht Frei
    Killing it is the new killing it
    Ultima Ratio Regum

    Comment

    • #242
      Got through the first 30 pages before I gave up, BTW.

      I get enough of that **** every day...
      12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
      Stadtluft Macht Frei
      Killing it is the new killing it
      Ultima Ratio Regum

      Comment

      • #243
        Just wanted to respond to this:

        Well, as I wrote before: I know of no scientist who read philosophy on the side.


        I do too

        -Frooger (currently halfway through The Republic)
        12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
        Stadtluft Macht Frei
        Killing it is the new killing it
        Ultima Ratio Regum

        Comment

        • #244
          Originally posted by Frogger
          Just wanted to respond to this:

          -Frooger (currently halfway through The Republic)
          You must be at the bit about knowledge and opinion then. Good luck with that one.
          Only feebs vote.

          Comment

          • #245
            Originally posted by Asher
            And this is a classic example of uselessness in Philosophy: http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/f...Dialethism.pdf
            Oh man. You have completely misunderstood the point here. Say I'm a mathematician or a formal logician and I'm committed to the notion of sets (which can be sets of anything). So what am I supposed to make of

            "The set of all sets that are not members of themselves".

            Is this a member of itself or not?

            Or sentences like this one (called "sentence 1")

            1) Sentence 1 is false.

            This is the liar paradox (my sig). It seems to show us that logic is "broken" for want of a better word, because if it is true it is false and vice versa.

            Dialethism is supposed to be a way of getting around this (although I don't have much time for it).
            Only feebs vote.

            Comment

            • #246
              Originally posted by The Vagabond
              Asher, you are too fast and impatient. You just have a glance at a paper and make hasty judgements. It should be read slowly and thoughtfully.
              I don't understand the subject material, reading it wouldn't help me. I asked someone whose field is physics for an opinion on it, instead...
              "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
              Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

              Comment

              • #247
                Originally posted by Asher

                Explain, please...

                How does it benefit from philosophical outlook?

                If you REALLY want to help me figure out how useful philosophy is, can someone point me to a Philosophy-CS related connection? Like Agathon was talking about Turing machines and AI...

                I'm willing to admit philosophy is useful once someone shows me. And I think the only way for me to know that is to find a connection to my field of study.

                So please...anyone feel free...
                Go read Copeland's book. It's not my area of specialisation so you would be better off reading an introductory text like that.

                BTW our room mate is a CS graduate who is now doing a PhD in phil.
                Only feebs vote.

                Comment

                • #248
                  Originally posted by Frogger
                  professional philosophers




                  If philosophers are so great at reasoning they should consider switching fields and becoming logicians, who actually end up proving things instead of sputtering back and forth...
                  Logicians for the most part are employed in, you guessed it, philosophy departments.
                  Only feebs vote.

                  Comment

                  • #249
                    Originally posted by Agathon
                    Oh man. You have completely misunderstood the point here. Say I'm a mathematician or a formal logician and I'm committed to the notion of sets (which can be sets of anything). So what am I supposed to make of

                    "The set of all sets that are not members of themselves".

                    Is this a member of itself or not?
                    That seems extraordinarily contrived, and as hard as I can I can't think of a use for that kind of distinction. "The set of all sets that are not members of themselves"...

                    Or sentences like this one (called "sentence 1")

                    1) Sentence 1 is false.

                    This is the liar paradox (my sig). It seems to show us that logic is "broken" for want of a better word, because if it is true it is false and vice versa.
                    I understand the concept of it, I don't understand how it is useful.
                    "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                    Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                    Comment

                    • #250
                      Originally posted by Agathon
                      Go read Copeland's book. It's not my area of specialisation so you would be better off reading an introductory text like that.
                      I was hoping for something online, I don't think it's very likely I'm going to acquire some book on it, I don't find it that interesting.
                      "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                      Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                      Comment

                      • #251
                        Originally posted by Asher

                        That seems extraordinarily contrived, and as hard as I can I can't think of a use for that kind of distinction. "The set of all sets that are not members of themselves"...


                        I understand the concept of it, I don't understand how it is useful.
                        Well some people think it would be nice if mathematics and logic and rationality weren't contradictory at heart.
                        Only feebs vote.

                        Comment

                        • #252
                          Originally posted by Agathon
                          Well some people think it would be nice if mathematics and logic and rationality weren't contradictory at heart.
                          Aren't they both artificial constructs we use, anyway?
                          "The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
                          Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "

                          Comment

                          • #253
                            Frooger (currently halfway through The Republic)
                            The Republic? A rather disturbing vision of society isn't it?

                            Plato was a very odd man. Apparantly nothing exists, and everything's the manifestation of a "perfect object," so studying the physical world is futile.
                            "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
                            -Bokonon

                            Comment

                            • #254
                              Originally posted by Asher

                              I was hoping for something online, I don't think it's very likely I'm going to acquire some book on it, I don't find it that interesting.
                              Have you ever heard of a library? It's a place where they keep books, and if you promise to bring them back, they'll let you take one home for a while. I'm guessing that Copeland's book, which is an introductory text for undergraduates, may be found there.

                              The women that work their are also reputed to be sexual demons.
                              Only feebs vote.

                              Comment

                              • #255
                                Originally posted by Asher

                                Aren't they both artificial constructs we use, anyway?
                                See - now you are doing philosophy. That is a question that is up for debate.

                                If this was so you think we might be able to do better (or at least that's what the proponents of dialethic logic think).
                                Only feebs vote.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 7 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 27 34 template Next
                                Working...
                                X