i think i've said before, and i still think, that there's a difference between how he makes fun of STEM subjects and how he makes fun of liberal arts
one feels like insider humour, the other feels like it's directed at an outgroup
a philosopher would never describe philosophy as 'math sans rigor, sense and practicality' whereas a non-maths-n-physics geek would be very unlikely to describe maths as 'physics unconstrained by precepts of reality' (and suggest that this is a bad thing!), or refer to chemistry as 'stamp-collecting'
It's mostly rooted in HOW DARE people challenge the unquestionable authority and mastery of science, engineering, and mathematics! We are GODS! We understand all non-science INSTANTLY WITHOUT STUDY
It's mostly rooted in HOW DARE people challenge the unquestionable authority and mastery of science, engineering, and mathematics! We are GODS! We understand all non-science INSTANTLY WITHOUT STUDY
A sociology major was mildly smug to them, and they have never gotten over it, for Science is a jealous god, and will have no other gods before it.
But yes, he let the chemist get the upper hand in the panel show one, and he let the biologist get the upper hand in the cuttlefish one. He respects STEM disciplines.
And i don't think he really believes he understands all non-science without study (he even made a comic about how annoying it is when a physicist encounters a new discipline and instantly claims to have understood it, solved it, and furthermore not to understand why it needs its own department).
Edit: i misremembered, it was the bio major who got the upper hand in the degree off as well! Maybe Randall secretly hates chemistry! (he doesn't)
Some say the word Odradek is of Slavonic origin, and try to account for it on that basis. Others again believe it to be of German origin, only influenced by Slavonic. The uncertainty of both interpretations allows one to assume with justice that neither is accurate, especially as neither of them provides an intelligent meaning of the word.
No one, of course, would occupy himself with such studies if there were not a creature called Odradek. At first glance it looks like a flat star-shaped spool for thread, and indeed it does seem to have thread wound upon it; to be sure, they are only old, broken-off bits of thread, knotted and tangled together, of the most varied sorts and colors. But it is not only a spool, for a small wooden crossbar sticks out of the middle of the star, and another small rod is joined to that at a right angle. By means of this latter rod on one side and one of the points of the star on the other, the whole thing can stand upright as if on two legs.
One is tempted to believe that the creature once had some sort of intelligible shape and is now only a broken-down remnant. Yet this does not seem to be the case; at least there is no sign of it; nowhere is there an unfinished or unbroken surface to suggest anything of the kind; the whole thing looks senseless enough, but in its own way perfectly finished. In any case, closer scrutiny is impossible, since Odradek is extraordinarily nimble and can never be laid hold of.
He lurks by turns in the garret, the stairway, the lobbies, the entrance hall. Often for months on end he is not to be seen; then he has presumably moved into other houses; but he always comes faithfully back to our house again. Many a time when you go out of the door and he happens just to be leaning directly beneath you against the banisters you feel inclined to speak to him. Of course, you put no difficult questions to him, you treat him--he is so diminutive that you cannot help it--rather like a child. "Well, what's your name?" you ask him. "Odradek," he says. "And where do you live?" "No fixed abode," he says and laughs; but it is only the kind of laughter that has no lungs behind it. It sounds rather like the rustling of fallen leaves. And that is usually the end of the conversation. Even these anwers are not always forthcoming; often he stays mute for a long time, as wooden as his appearance.I ask myself, to no purpose, what is likely to happen to him? Can he possibly die? Anything that dies has had some kind of aim in life, some kind of activity, which has worn out; but that does not apply to Odradek. Am I to suppose, then, that he will always be rolling down the stairs, with ends of thread trailing after him, right before the feet of my children, and my children's children? He does no harm to anyone that one can see; but the idea that he is likely to survive me I find almost painful.
you get this shit even within the humanities too, like when noam chomsky wwas like "well, i am really clever, and i tried to read some continental philosophy, and i didnt get it. because i, a Very Clever Man, didnt understand it, it must be a load of nonsense."
Anyway, my point is that 'stamp collecting' is clearly coming from a position of sympathy for the aims of chemistry, and belittling it for not necessarily attaining those in practice. It's a lot different from when he jokes about, say, art history, or theology.
Some say the word Odradek is of Slavonic origin, and try to account for it on that basis. Others again believe it to be of German origin, only influenced by Slavonic. The uncertainty of both interpretations allows one to assume with justice that neither is accurate, especially as neither of them provides an intelligent meaning of the word.
No one, of course, would occupy himself with such studies if there were not a creature called Odradek. At first glance it looks like a flat star-shaped spool for thread, and indeed it does seem to have thread wound upon it; to be sure, they are only old, broken-off bits of thread, knotted and tangled together, of the most varied sorts and colors. But it is not only a spool, for a small wooden crossbar sticks out of the middle of the star, and another small rod is joined to that at a right angle. By means of this latter rod on one side and one of the points of the star on the other, the whole thing can stand upright as if on two legs.
One is tempted to believe that the creature once had some sort of intelligible shape and is now only a broken-down remnant. Yet this does not seem to be the case; at least there is no sign of it; nowhere is there an unfinished or unbroken surface to suggest anything of the kind; the whole thing looks senseless enough, but in its own way perfectly finished. In any case, closer scrutiny is impossible, since Odradek is extraordinarily nimble and can never be laid hold of.
He lurks by turns in the garret, the stairway, the lobbies, the entrance hall. Often for months on end he is not to be seen; then he has presumably moved into other houses; but he always comes faithfully back to our house again. Many a time when you go out of the door and he happens just to be leaning directly beneath you against the banisters you feel inclined to speak to him. Of course, you put no difficult questions to him, you treat him--he is so diminutive that you cannot help it--rather like a child. "Well, what's your name?" you ask him. "Odradek," he says. "And where do you live?" "No fixed abode," he says and laughs; but it is only the kind of laughter that has no lungs behind it. It sounds rather like the rustling of fallen leaves. And that is usually the end of the conversation. Even these anwers are not always forthcoming; often he stays mute for a long time, as wooden as his appearance.I ask myself, to no purpose, what is likely to happen to him? Can he possibly die? Anything that dies has had some kind of aim in life, some kind of activity, which has worn out; but that does not apply to Odradek. Am I to suppose, then, that he will always be rolling down the stairs, with ends of thread trailing after him, right before the feet of my children, and my children's children? He does no harm to anyone that one can see; but the idea that he is likely to survive me I find almost painful.
I really don't like how you just post spam when you get frustrated with the current discussion.
you get this shit even within the humanities too, like when noam chomsky wwas like "well, i am really clever, and i tried to read some continental philosophy, and i didnt get it. because i, a Very Clever Man, didnt understand it, it must be a load of nonsense."
you get this shit even within the humanities too, like when noam chomsky wwas like "well, i am really clever, and i tried to read some continental philosophy, and i didnt get it. because i, a Very Clever Man, didnt understand it, it must be a load of nonsense."
i chalk it up to philosophy being "not my thing" and then go on with my life
i find it kind of ironic, actually . . . it's my understanding that structuralism is, in a way, less rigorous than some of the theory that came after it, because it doesn't acknowledge its own limitations
but because it's easier to pin down and supply definite answers about a text within a structuralist framework, it looks more rigorous to people from outside the discipline
math is based on fundamental concepts that follow certain rules and always follow those rules no questions asked (unless certain assumptions are changed, in which case they are explicitly changed), so in theory one could do everything in the world merely starting with first principles
philosophy involves me trying to figure out how other people understand the world around them and trying to infer the assumptions borne in that understanding and it's never really clear what's "fundamental" or "indivisible" or some sort of common standard by which something is the way and the only way to understand, describe, or operate on something in a completely comprehensive and thorough manner
TL;DR math involves fixed definitions that do not change (or are explicitly changed under rare circumstances) while philosophy involves sorting through often-poorly-defined definitions and terminology
well, philosophy isn't necessarily anything to do with the subjective experiences of other people, although it can be
not usually to the extent that it is in psychology, though
when i said philosophy had more sense, i didn't mean in it's easier to understand it, i mean, you can do plenty of mathematics on the assumption that your equations don't actually refer to *anything*, and the math still checks out just fine and can even be applied elsewhere
thing with math is that, if i can describe something in mathematical terms, as long as that description and assumptions are correct, i can be CERTAIN that the conclusions i draw from them using mathematical tools are correct, even if they are unintuitive
this is a luxury that is afforded in few other fields -- even other STEM fields
contrast learning organic chemistry for example: the rules and principles you learn are only as good as your knowledge of all the numerous exceptions of when they don't work, and solving retrosynthesis problems is less like devising a strategy and executing it and more like a large disorganized pile of trial-and-error puzzle-solving
i think to some extent computer science and programming might have this since they're also building things from the ground up
Did you end up with one carbon too few on your main carbon chain?
No, there is no such thing as One Weird Trick To Adding An Extra Carbon Onto The End Of Your Main Chain.
There is only One Somewhat Applicable Trick that adds a carbon Under These Certain Circumstances, and One Somewhat Less Applicable Trick that adds a carbon Under These Other Circumstances But If You Used It Earlier It Might Instead Add Two Carbons, and so on
as well as Yet Another Potential Trick Which Doesn't Work For Your Molecule Because Your Double Bond Is In The Wrong Place and Yet One More Potential Trick Which Also Doesn't Work But This Time It's Because It Only Works In A Basic pH But Your Thing Has To Take Place In An Acidic pH Because That One Step You Did Five Steps Ago Only Works In pH < 7
I'm probably stupid for saying this, but I'm kinda confused right off the bat because I have no idea what "world" he's trying to describe, nor what he means by "facts" or "things".
I could run with standard common-use definitions for these terms, but I'm hesitant to because he's clearly using them in special ways.
as well as Yet Another Potential Trick Which Doesn't Work For Your Molecule Because Your Double Bond Is In The Wrong Place and Yet One More Potential Trick Which Also Doesn't Work But This Time It's Because It Only Works In A Basic pH But Your Thing Has To Take Place In An Acidic pH Because That One Step You Did Five Steps Ago Only Works In pH < 7
oh yeah and then you get your exam back and you scored a fucking zero on that question because your first step was supposed to be a totally different thing where you added like another three carbons and then a totally unintuitive chain of steps where you then remove one of those carbons, add another two carbons, and then remove three carbons while adding some offshoot group, then remove that offshoot group.
or someshit like that.
and then you're like, "I DONT EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START TO ASK THE TA TO EXPLAIN THIS TO ME"
I'm probably stupid for saying this, but I'm kinda confused right off the bat because I have no idea what "world" he's trying to describe, nor what he means by "facts" or "things".
I could run with standard common-use definitions for these terms, but I'm hesitant to because he's clearly using them in special ways.
it felt like dumping me in the middle of nowhere and forcing me to carrying around some large quantity of unknown variables in order to do something with them later.
Comments
but i never got the sense that there was any real malice behind it, i think it's just inter-disciplinary banter
one feels like insider humour, the other feels like it's directed at an outgroup
a philosopher would never describe philosophy as 'math sans rigor, sense and practicality'
whereas a non-maths-n-physics geek would be very unlikely to describe maths as 'physics unconstrained by precepts of reality' (and suggest that this is a bad thing!), or refer to chemistry as 'stamp-collecting'
And i don't think he really believes he understands all non-science without study (he even made a comic about how annoying it is when a physicist encounters a new discipline and instantly claims to have understood it, solved it, and furthermore not to understand why it needs its own department).
Edit: i misremembered, it was the bio major who got the upper hand in the degree off as well! Maybe Randall secretly hates chemistry! (he doesn't)
One is tempted to believe that the creature once had some sort of intelligible shape and is now only a broken-down remnant. Yet this does not seem to be the case; at least there is no sign of it; nowhere is there an unfinished or unbroken surface to suggest anything of the kind; the whole thing looks senseless enough, but in its own way perfectly finished. In any case, closer scrutiny is impossible, since Odradek is extraordinarily nimble and can never be laid hold of.
He lurks by turns in the garret, the stairway, the lobbies, the entrance hall. Often for months on end he is not to be seen; then he has presumably moved into other houses; but he always comes faithfully back to our house again. Many a time when you go out of the door and he happens just to be leaning directly beneath you against the banisters you feel inclined to speak to him. Of course, you put no difficult questions to him, you treat him--he is so diminutive that you cannot help it--rather like a child. "Well, what's your name?" you ask him. "Odradek," he says. "And where do you live?" "No fixed abode," he says and laughs; but it is only the kind of laughter that has no lungs behind it. It sounds rather like the rustling of fallen leaves. And that is usually the end of the conversation. Even these anwers are not always forthcoming; often he stays mute for a long time, as wooden as his appearance.I ask myself, to no purpose, what is likely to happen to him? Can he possibly die? Anything that dies has had some kind of aim in life, some kind of activity, which has worn out; but that does not apply to Odradek. Am I to suppose, then, that he will always be rolling down the stairs, with ends of thread trailing after him, right before the feet of my children, and my children's children? He does no harm to anyone that one can see; but the idea that he is likely to survive me I find almost painful.
the sickest of burnz
but because it's easier to pin down and supply definite answers about a text within a structuralist framework, it looks more rigorous to people from outside the discipline
other people do though
slightly awkward for me at bars
How often does Lil B curse people other than NBA players who offend him
One of them he cursed for stealing his cooking dance
usually less complexity
always more arguing
it may not be actually true
math is based on fundamental concepts that follow certain rules and always follow those rules no questions asked (unless certain assumptions are changed, in which case they are explicitly changed), so in theory one could do everything in the world merely starting with first principles
philosophy involves me trying to figure out how other people understand the world around them and trying to infer the assumptions borne in that understanding and it's never really clear what's "fundamental" or "indivisible" or some sort of common standard by which something is the way and the only way to understand, describe, or operate on something in a completely comprehensive and thorough manner
TL;DR math involves fixed definitions that do not change (or are explicitly changed under rare circumstances) while philosophy involves sorting through often-poorly-defined definitions and terminology
music is a world i have not figured out and even those parts i have figured out still feel wondrous to me
it appears to act on a deeper level than my rational thinking sense, namely it reaches me on an emotional level
not usually to the extent that it is in psychology, though
when i said philosophy had more sense, i didn't mean in it's easier to understand it, i mean, you can do plenty of mathematics on the assumption that your equations don't actually refer to *anything*, and the math still checks out just fine and can even be applied elsewhere
at its most formalized, philosophy starts to look like math
this is a luxury that is afforded in few other fields -- even other STEM fields
contrast learning organic chemistry for example: the rules and principles you learn are only as good as your knowledge of all the numerous exceptions of when they don't work, and solving retrosynthesis problems is less like devising a strategy and executing it and more like a large disorganized pile of trial-and-error puzzle-solving
i think to some extent computer science and programming might have this since they're also building things from the ground up
No, there is no such thing as One Weird Trick To Adding An Extra Carbon Onto The End Of Your Main Chain.
There is only One Somewhat Applicable Trick that adds a carbon Under These Certain Circumstances, and One Somewhat Less Applicable Trick that adds a carbon Under These Other Circumstances But If You Used It Earlier It Might Instead Add Two Carbons, and so on
I could run with standard common-use definitions for these terms, but I'm hesitant to because he's clearly using them in special ways.
or someshit like that.
and then you're like, "I DONT EVEN KNOW WHERE TO START TO ASK THE TA TO EXPLAIN THIS TO ME"
so i could be wildly off-base here, since i never got around to reading the Tractatus, although i recognize it
but i think he's giving definitions here?
so Glenn, treat 'world' as an undefined term and just roll with it, see where he's going with it
Panurge, am i on the right track here?
well, to be fair, some videogames do that too.