As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

I should have had [chat] prepared!

16566687071101

Posts

  • Dark Raven XDark Raven X Laugh hard, run fast, be kindRegistered User regular
    Tamin wrote: »
    I wonder if they originally planned Season 2 to be called "Clash of Kings" and then decided not to specifically because the seasons and books were gonna get hella muddied.

    very much doubt it

    I can't think of any examples of a series changing name mid-run

    closest I can come is something like Babylon 5 having season names ... but I don't know how much those were used in the promotional material, even.

    it's something I'd like to see, don't get me wrong.

    Then they should've called Season 1 "A Song Of Ice And Fire" goddammit!

    Oh brilliant
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    I wonder if they originally planned Season 2 to be called "Clash of Kings" and then decided not to specifically because the seasons and books were gonna get hella muddied.

    GRRM needs to stop picking titles that sound like free-to-play social media games

    All the good, original titles are already used up. All that's left are nonsense phrases plucked from the bottom of the barrel.

    A Dance of Dragon Swords
    Flight of the Sorcerer Journey
    The Tale of Mage Destiny Orc War

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    I think people give Martin way too much shit for repeating phrases/words in his books

    WHERE DO WHORES GO etc

    he's a fuckin great writer and his ridiculous attention to detail with houses and sigils and family histories and grievances is really top notch, and I just love the fact that his biggest complaint about the TV series is that nobody wears their helmets in battle

    Bobble
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    beetle-box we're all colorblind and we can never know it

    which is the inescapable conclusion that colorblind mary (and common sense, really) brings us to

    we're all platonic cave-dwellers looking at magritte paintings on the wall

    What Mary doesn't know has fuck all to do with language. It isn't about knowing things expressible in language.

    Have you read Jackson's paper?

    I think that Philosophy of mind gets a bad rap because people know just enough about it that they know a lot of things that aren't really on the table any more.

    I mean, I took a grad class in philosophy of mind last year and I still haven't caught up to where the literature is in the present day. I'm caught up to the late 90s, but not to the last ten years. With the exception of Jaegwon Kim's supervenience argument against higher level properties.

    EDIT: But Kim's probably wrong, so that's not terribly helpful, though it was interesting.

    its also a pretty big field to be fair

    Philosophy in general kind of annoys me because it seems like not only is it this absurdly huge field, you're not allowed to know any of it until you've studied all the history.

    The impression I get is like,
    Yeah we're discussing current philosophy ideas. You can't touch 'em yet though, first you have to read all these other books. Also those books are dumb and wrong.

    I dunno man, there's plenty of science stuff written for laymen, but I've never seen any current philosophy for laymen.

    i think there's less of that than there used to be but there is a fair element of the importance of knowing some old concepts

    for example you have to understand a cartesian view of the mind because its rejection is a fundamental part of most modern theories, etc

    plus a lot of early philosophers had really big ideas that kind of end up surfacing everywhere

    early science was NOT like that!

    depends on what you mean by "early"

    i mean galilean reduction is still the central mode of thought in the sciences

    we still use the liebniz notation in calculus

    newton continues to cast a long shadow

    etc etc

    there are a few examples, yes

    but the vast majority of scientific fields will cover that stuff very quickly and partially - (calculus being the exception because maths works like philosophy on this front)

    newton is really the huge one. almost all the core scientific ideas we have atm are 19th century onwards,

    biology is entirely late 19th and onwards

    etc

    the other key point is that the context of these ideas is much less important in science because most of them are ideas that make fairly simple statements about the world so they do not need to be attached to history in the same way

    i see your point that we present science as a set of facts and therefore their pedigree is not necessarily important.

    but really if you are studying science, then understanding the process and pedigree is considered at least as - if not more - important than the scientific facts, since they are ultimately trying to train you to think like a scientist, and not just training you to solve certain types of problems.

    engineers probably get a lot less of the historical context of physics since they're principally being asked just to solve problems given the most applicable formulae, methods and facts.

    i should probably specify that this is my experience with studying physics. bio and chem and geology might be handled generally differently.

    There is a necessary balance between conceptual, critical-thinking-oriented education

    vs rote memorization of facts and procedural steps

    I don't know how many educational programs get the balance right, but I do know that going all-in on one approach or the other leaves the subject incomplete

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
    Irond Will
  • TehSlothTehSloth Hit Or Miss I Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered User regular
    Stopped in to talk to my boss about my time off requests -- it looks like it's all good but he just never actually got them -- took a look at our time off requesting system

    w8o63gszgio9.jpg


    you're goddamn right ADP

    FC: 1993-7778-8872 PSN: TehSloth Xbox: SlothTeh
    twitch.tv/tehsloth
    Dark Raven XskippydumptruckkedinikDemonStaceyoverride367GooeyDiannaoChongPantsBDynagrip
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I wonder if they originally planned Season 2 to be called "Clash of Kings" and then decided not to specifically because the seasons and books were gonna get hella muddied.

    GRRM needs to stop picking titles that sound like free-to-play social media games

    All the good, original titles are already used up. All that's left are nonsense phrases plucked from the bottom of the barrel.

    A Dance of Dragon Swords
    Flight of the Sorcerer Journey
    The Tale of Mage Destiny Orc War

    Epic Legends of the Heirarchs: The Elemenstor Saga

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Yeah it's like.

    I don't want to be a particle particle physicist. But I can go read an article about quarks and color charge and be all NEAT!. I don't get any of the math, but I don't need to if all I want is a general understanding of what people are on about these days.

    I don't think you can do that with philosophy and it makes me sad.

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • surrealitychecksurrealitycheck lonely, but not unloved dreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered User regular
    Irond Will wrote: »

    i see your point that we present science as a set of facts and therefore their pedigree is not necessarily important.

    but really if you are studying science, then understanding the process and pedigree is considered at least as - if not more - important than the scientific facts, since they are ultimately trying to train you to think like a scientist, and not just training you to solve certain types of problems.

    engineers probably get a lot less of the historical context of physics since they're principally being asked just to solve problems given the most applicable formulae, methods and facts.

    i should probably specify that this is my experience with studying physics. bio and chem and geology might be handled generally differently.

    most of the time you are just learning all the shit you gotta know in most of these areas. biology is a huge ass field

    sure you will have lessons where they go more philosophy of science but when you're doing like 1321321 lectures on protein structure nobody really gives a shit unless the old stuff is relevant. the imaginary hypothetico-deductive model of inquiry tends to come up during practicals or in the occasional more discursive course element, whereas philosophy is literally just the discursive element!

    obF2Wuw.png
  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    The problem is that without any study of the history, you would just getting people giving arguments that someone else had already given. You have to learn the history because you have to learn what's been covered, and what's wrong before you can move into the stuff that's on the edge.

    Meh.

    You can teach old arguments and say, "This is historically important but nobody in the field thinks it's compelling anymore."

    I didn't get that in undergrad philo. We discussed bullshit like the ontological argument at length. The professors were loathe to tell us that a historical argument was wrong or right, because that might prevent us from thinking critically or something.

    All it did was leave me with the impression that philosophers sit around going "Well we don't really know anything, maaaaaaaaaaan."

    That is not reflective of what it seems anyone is doing.

    I once told my dissertation adviser that I didn't think that anyone could actually picture a contradiction.

    It only took him like 10 minutes to show me why I was wrong.

    Some historical arguments will get the "it's not right or wrong" treatment. A lot of ethical and political stuff gets that treatment. Because a lot of those are still open questions, or they aren't entirely wrong, but you could spend a whole graduate seminar detailing what is right and what is wrong in them.

    That's another thing to. Some of this stuff is so dense that you can spend an entire 6 months talking about nothing but one work from a given writer. I spent one semester taking a political philosophy class where we did Hegel's Philosophy of Right and Kant's Metaphysics of Morals (which is where a lot of his political theory is, strangely). We could have easily cut one of those works out and just done one of them. You can't get that complexity at the undergraduate level.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Feral wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Irond Will wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    beetle-box we're all colorblind and we can never know it

    which is the inescapable conclusion that colorblind mary (and common sense, really) brings us to

    we're all platonic cave-dwellers looking at magritte paintings on the wall

    What Mary doesn't know has fuck all to do with language. It isn't about knowing things expressible in language.

    Have you read Jackson's paper?

    I think that Philosophy of mind gets a bad rap because people know just enough about it that they know a lot of things that aren't really on the table any more.

    I mean, I took a grad class in philosophy of mind last year and I still haven't caught up to where the literature is in the present day. I'm caught up to the late 90s, but not to the last ten years. With the exception of Jaegwon Kim's supervenience argument against higher level properties.

    EDIT: But Kim's probably wrong, so that's not terribly helpful, though it was interesting.

    its also a pretty big field to be fair

    Philosophy in general kind of annoys me because it seems like not only is it this absurdly huge field, you're not allowed to know any of it until you've studied all the history.

    The impression I get is like,
    Yeah we're discussing current philosophy ideas. You can't touch 'em yet though, first you have to read all these other books. Also those books are dumb and wrong.

    I dunno man, there's plenty of science stuff written for laymen, but I've never seen any current philosophy for laymen.

    i think there's less of that than there used to be but there is a fair element of the importance of knowing some old concepts

    for example you have to understand a cartesian view of the mind because its rejection is a fundamental part of most modern theories, etc

    plus a lot of early philosophers had really big ideas that kind of end up surfacing everywhere

    early science was NOT like that!

    depends on what you mean by "early"

    i mean galilean reduction is still the central mode of thought in the sciences

    we still use the liebniz notation in calculus

    newton continues to cast a long shadow

    etc etc

    there are a few examples, yes

    but the vast majority of scientific fields will cover that stuff very quickly and partially - (calculus being the exception because maths works like philosophy on this front)

    newton is really the huge one. almost all the core scientific ideas we have atm are 19th century onwards,

    biology is entirely late 19th and onwards

    etc

    the other key point is that the context of these ideas is much less important in science because most of them are ideas that make fairly simple statements about the world so they do not need to be attached to history in the same way

    i see your point that we present science as a set of facts and therefore their pedigree is not necessarily important.

    but really if you are studying science, then understanding the process and pedigree is considered at least as - if not more - important than the scientific facts, since they are ultimately trying to train you to think like a scientist, and not just training you to solve certain types of problems.

    engineers probably get a lot less of the historical context of physics since they're principally being asked just to solve problems given the most applicable formulae, methods and facts.

    i should probably specify that this is my experience with studying physics. bio and chem and geology might be handled generally differently.

    There is a necessary balance between conceptual, critical-thinking-oriented education

    vs rote memorization of facts and procedural steps

    I don't know how many educational programs get the balance right, but I do know that going all-in on one approach or the other leaves the subject incomplete

    i ultimately decided against pursuing a career in physics because i realized that i really liked understanding how things worked but couldn't care less about performing experiments.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Tamin wrote: »
    I wonder if they originally planned Season 2 to be called "Clash of Kings" and then decided not to specifically because the seasons and books were gonna get hella muddied.

    very much doubt it

    I can't think of any examples of a series changing name mid-run

    closest I can come is something like Babylon 5 having season names ... but I don't know how much those were used in the promotional material, even.

    it's something I'd like to see, don't get me wrong.

    Then they should've called Season 1 "A Song Of Ice And Fire" goddammit!

    Martin Should have named the first book Game Of Thrones Part 1: A Game of Thrones.

    A Song of Ice and Fire is a dumb name.

    Deebaser on
    Mojo_JojoLoserForHireXAtomika
  • TehSlothTehSloth Hit Or Miss I Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Tamin wrote: »
    I wonder if they originally planned Season 2 to be called "Clash of Kings" and then decided not to specifically because the seasons and books were gonna get hella muddied.

    very much doubt it

    I can't think of any examples of a series changing name mid-run

    closest I can come is something like Babylon 5 having season names ... but I don't know how much those were used in the promotional material, even.

    it's something I'd like to see, don't get me wrong.

    Then they should've called Season 1 "A Song Of Ice And Fire" goddammit!

    Martin Should have named the first book Game Of Thrones Part 1: A Game of Thrones.

    A Song of Ice and Fire is a dumb name.

    but bro, it's like a metaphor or something

    FC: 1993-7778-8872 PSN: TehSloth Xbox: SlothTeh
    twitch.tv/tehsloth
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    I wonder if they originally planned Season 2 to be called "Clash of Kings" and then decided not to specifically because the seasons and books were gonna get hella muddied.

    GRRM needs to stop picking titles that sound like free-to-play social media games

    All the good, original titles are already used up. All that's left are nonsense phrases plucked from the bottom of the barrel.

    A Dance of Dragon Swords
    Flight of the Sorcerer Journey
    The Tale of Mage Destiny Orc War

    Epic Legends of the Heirarchs: The Elemenstor Saga

    http://www.amazon.com/Penny-Arcade-Legends-Magic-Sword/dp/1593075413

    Feral
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    hay java people

    do any of you have any knowledge about jfreechart?

    is it the best for easy-peasy java plotting?

    if no then what is the best?

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • DemonStaceyDemonStacey TTODewback's Daughter In love with the TaySwayRegistered User regular
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Mojo_Jojo wrote: »
    Atomika wrote: »
    George R.R. Martin admits that he is concerned about D.B. Weiss' plans to wrap GoT up by Season 8.
    I’m hopeful that I can not let them catch up with me. The season that’s about to debut covers the second half of the third book. The third book [A Storm of Swords] was so long that it had to be split into two. But there are two more books beyond that, and A Dance With Dragons. A Dance With Dragons is itself a book that’s as big as A Storm of Swords. So there’s potentially three more seasons there, between Feast and Dance, if they split into two the way the did [with Swords]. Now, Feast and Dance take place simultaneously. So you can’t do Feast and then Dance the way I did. You can combine them and do it chronologically. And it’s my hope that they’ll do it that way and then, long before they catch up with me, I’ll have published The Winds of Winter, which’ll give me another couple years. It might be tight on the last book, A Dream of Spring, as they juggernaut forward.

    Spartacus went back and told a prequel season. That’s also an option. We have prequel. We have the Dunk and Egg novellas, which take place a hundred years before. And I’ve just published The Princess and the Queen, which takes place two hundred years before. So there’s lots of Westeros material out there, if we want to keep doing Westeros projects, but not necessarily that. But, you know, I realize—I don’t want to sound too glib about this. This is a serious concern.

    I'll be interested to see what they do, whether they let the series just fade out or if they change things to conclude it a sensible number of seasons.

    Or if they just sack off the books and write about Small-y and Dwarf-y who become private investigators for some reason.

    Why would they let it fade out?

    They will just end it before he does.

    They know the intended endings for the character arcs.

    Most things just don't get renewed one day, or are cancelled abruptly. It's very hard to work to that uncertainty. I think it's fair to say that most TV series just fade away.

    But I mean they plan to have 8 seasons. And they have an ending already.

    So I was saying in this situation why would they not finish when there is already a complete story they are following?

  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Yeah it's like.

    I don't want to be a particle particle physicist. But I can go read an article about quarks and color charge and be all NEAT!. I don't get any of the math, but I don't need to if all I want is a general understanding of what people are on about these days.

    I don't think you can do that with philosophy and it makes me sad.

    I don't think that's true. I think that if you approached any philosopher about a particular area, they could give you a book to read that would give a cross section about what people are going on about. Except philosophy of language. I wouldn't know where to start there. Because it's highly technical, and you have to learn a bunch of terms and almost a new way of thinking before any of it makes sense. Like, when I look at just blocks of code, I imagine it's the sensation that people have when looking at serious philosophy of language. My jaw just goes slack a bit and I don't understand what's in front of me.

    "The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
    "We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    That is not reflective of what it seems anyone is doing.

    I recognize that my experience is not indicative of the field.

    I'm just describing how my undergrad was taught.

    It was entirely my exposure to philo people after undergrad (partly through here, partly through friends) that I discovered that philo was actually doing interesting things.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    I don't feel well : (

    fuck gendered marketing
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    TehSloth wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Tamin wrote: »
    I wonder if they originally planned Season 2 to be called "Clash of Kings" and then decided not to specifically because the seasons and books were gonna get hella muddied.

    very much doubt it

    I can't think of any examples of a series changing name mid-run

    closest I can come is something like Babylon 5 having season names ... but I don't know how much those were used in the promotional material, even.

    it's something I'd like to see, don't get me wrong.

    Then they should've called Season 1 "A Song Of Ice And Fire" goddammit!

    Martin Should have named the first book Game Of Thrones Part 1: A Game of Thrones.

    A Song of Ice and Fire is a dumb name.

    but bro, it's like a metaphor or something

    Is it a metaphor for how much harder it would have been to market on HBO with that silly name?

  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    Got two episodes left on Looking.

    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    I remember the advertising
    Holy Shit. Sean Bean is sitting in a chair made of motherfucking swords
    GAME OF THRONES

    If anything the should have named it
    Sean Bean's SWORD CHAIR

    VariablekedinikdescAtomika
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    I am starting season 3 of Game of Thrones tonight. No one say anything spoilery for the rest of the week.

  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Feral wrote: »
    That is not reflective of what it seems anyone is doing.

    I recognize that my experience is not indicative of the field.

    I'm just describing how my undergrad was taught.

    It was entirely my exposure to philo people after undergrad (partly through here, partly through friends) that I discovered that philo was actually doing interesting things.

    i only ever took one philosophy course

    it was jurisprudence/ philosophy of law

    i was super jazzed

    but the professor really just wanted to teach philosophy of feminism

    so after an quick touch on st augustine we proceeded directly to a semester of catherine mackinnon and andrea dworkin

    worst class ever

    what a dick

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • TehSlothTehSloth Hit Or Miss I Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    TehSloth wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Tamin wrote: »
    I wonder if they originally planned Season 2 to be called "Clash of Kings" and then decided not to specifically because the seasons and books were gonna get hella muddied.

    very much doubt it

    I can't think of any examples of a series changing name mid-run

    closest I can come is something like Babylon 5 having season names ... but I don't know how much those were used in the promotional material, even.

    it's something I'd like to see, don't get me wrong.

    Then they should've called Season 1 "A Song Of Ice And Fire" goddammit!

    Martin Should have named the first book Game Of Thrones Part 1: A Game of Thrones.

    A Song of Ice and Fire is a dumb name.

    but bro, it's like a metaphor or something

    Is it a metaphor for how much harder it would have been to market on HBO with that silly name?

    I dunno man, i ain't no gat dang nerd

    FC: 1993-7778-8872 PSN: TehSloth Xbox: SlothTeh
    twitch.tv/tehsloth
  • GooeyGooey (\/)┌¶─¶┐(\/) pinch pinchRegistered User regular
    TehSloth wrote: »
    Stopped in to talk to my boss about my time off requests -- it looks like it's all good but he just never actually got them -- took a look at our time off requesting system

    w8o63gszgio9.jpg


    you're goddamn right ADP

    SLOTHS KNEEL TO NO MAN

    919UOwT.png
    TehSlothDiannaoChong
  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Yeah it's like.

    I don't want to be a particle particle physicist. But I can go read an article about quarks and color charge and be all NEAT!. I don't get any of the math, but I don't need to if all I want is a general understanding of what people are on about these days.

    I don't think you can do that with philosophy and it makes me sad.

    I don't think that's true. I think that if you approached any philosopher about a particular area, they could give you a book to read that would give a cross section about what people are going on about. Except philosophy of language. I wouldn't know where to start there. Because it's highly technical, and you have to learn a bunch of terms and almost a new way of thinking before any of it makes sense. Like, when I look at just blocks of code, I imagine it's the sensation that people have when looking at serious philosophy of language. My jaw just goes slack a bit and I don't understand what's in front of me.

    Hmm, okay then.

    Do you have one for why physicalism is wrong? ^_^

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I am starting season 3 of Game of Thrones tonight. No one say anything spoilery for the rest of the week.

    Joffrey kills Maester Dumbledore
    Get dunked on

  • VariableVariable Mouth Congress Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    GoT s3
    I love rewatching shows, especially - obviously - ones I like that much.

    but I cannot bring myself to look at any got with Rob Stark in it. that shit was heartbreaking. I now feel silly for not expecting something but I didn't at all.

    BNet-Vari#1998 | Switch-SW 6960 6688 8388 | Steam | Twitch
    InfamyDeferred
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    When I look at serious philosophy my response is nothing like slack-jawed wonder.

    I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    Irond Will wrote: »

    i see your point that we present science as a set of facts and therefore their pedigree is not necessarily important.

    but really if you are studying science, then understanding the process and pedigree is considered at least as - if not more - important than the scientific facts, since they are ultimately trying to train you to think like a scientist, and not just training you to solve certain types of problems.

    engineers probably get a lot less of the historical context of physics since they're principally being asked just to solve problems given the most applicable formulae, methods and facts.

    i should probably specify that this is my experience with studying physics. bio and chem and geology might be handled generally differently.

    most of the time you are just learning all the shit you gotta know in most of these areas. biology is a huge ass field

    sure you will have lessons where they go more philosophy of science but when you're doing like 1321321 lectures on protein structure nobody really gives a shit unless the old stuff is relevant. the imaginary hypothetico-deductive model of inquiry tends to come up during practicals or in the occasional more discursive course element, whereas philosophy is literally just the discursive element!

    yeah i guess that makes sense. if you are studying physics in a university you're not really studying any live fields until your doctoral dissertation generally. all of the discoveries in physics are in high-energy subatomics and occasional bits of astro, and those aren't really of general interest and of zero practical application.

    most physicists end up in engineering-oriented fields by grad school. things like semiconductor doping or that kind of thing probably.

    Wqdwp8l.png
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I am starting season 3 of Game of Thrones tonight. No one say anything spoilery for the rest of the week.

    Joffrey kills Maester Dumbledore
    Get dunked on

    Yeah but that made Sansa Stark going into a rage and beheading Joffrey all the sweeter.

    sig.gif
    Atomika
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    Aioua wrote: »
    Yeah it's like.

    I don't want to be a particle particle physicist. But I can go read an article about quarks and color charge and be all NEAT!. I don't get any of the math, but I don't need to if all I want is a general understanding of what people are on about these days.

    I don't think you can do that with philosophy and it makes me sad.

    Well you aren't really walking away with a general understanding so much as you're being introduced to a novel concept.

  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    i have felt kind of lightheaded and dizzy for a couple hours now. dang.

  • AiouaAioua Ora Occidens Ora OptimaRegistered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Aioua wrote: »
    Yeah it's like.

    I don't want to be a particle particle physicist. But I can go read an article about quarks and color charge and be all NEAT!. I don't get any of the math, but I don't need to if all I want is a general understanding of what people are on about these days.

    I don't think you can do that with philosophy and it makes me sad.

    Well you aren't really walking away with a general understanding so much as you're being introduced to a novel concept.

    sssssssssssh let me have this :P

    life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
    fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
    that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
    bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
  • skippydumptruckskippydumptruck begin again Registered User regular
    Organichu wrote: »
    i have felt kind of lightheaded and dizzy for a couple hours now. dang.

    eat!

    So It Goes
  • DeebaserDeebaser on my way to work in a suit and a tie Ahhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered User regular
    edited March 2014
    Richy wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I am starting season 3 of Game of Thrones tonight. No one say anything spoilery for the rest of the week.

    Joffrey kills Maester Dumbledore
    Get dunked on

    Yeah but that made Sansa Stark going into a rage and beheading Joffrey all the sweeter.

    I didn't see that. I stopped watching after Drago came back as a dragon. Such lazy writing. So Spoiler.

    Deebaser on
  • MuddBuddMuddBudd Registered User regular
    So I dunno which thread to put this in but...

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-fox-knows/
    The breadth of our coverage will be much clearer at this new version of FiveThirtyEight, which is launching Monday under the auspices of ESPN. We’ve expanded our staff from two full-time journalists to 20 and counting. Few of them will focus on politics exclusively; instead, our coverage will span five major subject areas — politics, economics, science, life and sports.

    There's no plan, there's no race to be run
    The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
  • TehSlothTehSloth Hit Or Miss I Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered User regular
    Deebaser wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I am starting season 3 of Game of Thrones tonight. No one say anything spoilery for the rest of the week.

    Joffrey kills Maester Dumbledore
    Get dunked on

    Yeah but that made Sansa Stark going into a rage and beheading Joffrey all the sweeter.

    I didn't see that. I stopped watching after Drago came back as a dragon. Such lazy writing. So Spoiler.

    I thought they really jumped the shark with the time travel

    FC: 1993-7778-8872 PSN: TehSloth Xbox: SlothTeh
    twitch.tv/tehsloth
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Deebaser wrote: »
    emnmnme wrote: »
    I am starting season 3 of Game of Thrones tonight. No one say anything spoilery for the rest of the week.

    Joffrey kills Maester Dumbledore
    Get dunked on

    Yeah but that made Sansa Stark going into a rage and beheading Joffrey all the sweeter.

    I guess it's true what they say - once you start liking a character on this show, they're destined to be killed off. And Joffrey is universally loved.

  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Podly wrote: »
    i can't tell if i'm actually naturally intelligent or just really good with language or if they are the same thing

    with few exceptions, everything we know is contained within the language

    I strongly disagree, unless we use a particularly expansive definition of 'language' that I would then take issue with.

    care to elaborate?

    Well, I'm projecting a little bit from conversations I've had before.

    But let's start with an easy example. Imagine the Mona Lisa. You know what the Mona Lisa looks like. Is the knowledge of what the Mona Lisa looks like "contained within the language?"

    Or, for a trollish philosophy of mind example (<3 podly), colorblind Mary. Colorblind Mary knows everything that can be conveyed linguistically about the color blue. However, I would argue that she doesn't know everything any human could possibly know about the color blue because she cannot know what it is like to see the color blue.

    in what other way could i prove that i have seen the mona lisa than through language?

This discussion has been closed.