2010-10-13

who's expert in what?

2010-10-13

On Oct 13, 4:04 pm, Mark Tarver wrote:
> On 11 Oct, 22:13, Don Geddis wrote:
>
> > Mark Tarver wrote on Mon, 11 Oct 2010:
>
> > > a.  Graham repeats he does not understand philosophy.
>
> > That's not what your quotes show.
>
> Sorry; that is exactly what he says.  He tried Berkeley, 26 years
> later he does not understand Berkeley, he just has the books. Oh wow.
> "Esse et percipi aut percipere" passed him by. He took logic but did
> not get much from it - so that's most of Russell, Quine, Davidson,
> Tarski out of his reach.  Without really getting that background, how
> can you make a judgement?  That's a good chunk of C20 philosophical
> logic. Realism, constructivism, semantic paradoxes - philosophy of
> maths.  Semantic theory of truth.  Verificationist theories of
> meaning.  Possible world semantics, Kripke models, counterfactual
> conditionals? Forget it.
>
> The guy doesn't know the subject.  And you cannot pass a worthwhile
> judgement on anything unless until you have taken it to a certain
> depth.   It is not worth reading PG's amateur extemporisation on
> philosophy and almost not worth commenting on it except that somebody
> *might* be influenced and lose out on the chance to read something
> really worthwhile from any of the people I just mentioned.  That's the
> only reason why it is worth making any comment at all.
>
> And that's it from me.  I'm not taking this further because the
> internet will always generate more junk than any one person can deal
> with.  Replying to junk seems to generate more.  This is not the place
> to discuss philosophy. Signing out.

great post Mark.

just by your few paragraphs, the names and terms you mentions (and of
course the way you said it), makes me believe that you know more about
philosophy than me, and, if you write a blog on philosophy, i
certainly would pay much more interest.

On the other hand, Paul Graham's blog on philosophy, just lol. But you
know, it goes with fame. Lots of tech geekers read him, just 'cause he
is a expert programer and is successful. Same with perhaps Bill Gates
who wrote books about the future. And in general, lots of celebrities,
or experts of something (say Nobel winner), once they became well
known, they start to fart on everything, from politics to human nature
to science, and the masses follows it.

--------------------------------------------------
Some general advice for my readers:

Most comp.lang.* readers, are
idiots at everything. (actually, this can be said for anyone anywhere)
The comp.lang dwellers are expert in one very specific thing. For
example, if i ask what are the tech details of lisp's package system,
then some regulars at comp.lang.lisp indeed can provide basically the
best answer possible. If i wonder about some particular history of
lisp, there's Kent Pitman, Richard Stallman, and few others, who's
opinion on this can be taken seriously, because, they invented it,
lived thru it. Same for, if i have a perl speed question,
comp.lang.perl guys knows it, such as Randal Schwartz. However, their
opinions, on lang design, which lang is good or best, on lang
evolution, on economics, on licensing, on writing, on AI, on user
interface, on IT corporations, which are perennially 50% of the posts,
are worse than shit. And the worst problem is that they dunno
that. One example to tighten it: Larry Wall perl, Guido python, lisp
McCarthy, these people, their opinion on language design, on
functional programing, would be shit-like. Same, vast majority of
authors who have written books, their opinion on writing, grammar,
linguistics, would be shit-like, even they are best sellers. Computer
scientists (such as often in comp.lang.scheme group), their opinion on
programing would be idiotic shit. Professional mathematicians,
their opinions on math notation, are fuck-ur-ass idiotic.

if you want really good opinion on lang design, ask those specialists,
who spent several years surveyed tens of langs as a _social research_,
and as a _background_, they might also have the ability to code
non-trivial programs in tens of langs, and possibly also with
associated background of basics of linguistics, computer science
proper, math, logic, psychology, cognition. Typically, we don't even
know who are such people, and vast majority of them are not known to
the general programing public.

if you want good opinion on math notations, or comp syntax design, you
get it from specialists on just this very issue, who's math knowledge
or comp programing knowledge might even be below u n me.

such narrow specialists exist in every of the ten million fields, and
their publications, exist, but u have to spend time and money to dig
them out. What iditos i deal daily in comp.lang is like: “Xah is a
troll, because he thinks Larry Wall is wrong to claim perl supports
functional programing.”. “Xah is troll, because he thinks McCarthy is
wrong on some functional programing issue.” LOL. Yes, i think they
know shit, except they are inventors of their langs. I know more about
lang design, functional programing, than them, anytime.

Xah ∑ http://xahlee.org/ ☄

No comments:

Post a Comment