tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post4963208037259265636..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Pseudo-profundity - from "Believing Bullshit"Stephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-22619675749089412912016-07-19T04:42:31.364+00:002016-07-19T04:42:31.364+00:00Out of the following three paragraphs, guess which...Out of the following three paragraphs, guess which one is NOT the pseudo profundity!<br /><br />The quantum Hamiltonian of a system is the basis by which we derive its energy. When you transform it to the diagonal basis of its energy, you get a true insight into the high and low energy states of the system, and its transitional behavior. From this you can get a truly deep insight into its behavior.<br /><br />The gravitational potential of your energy is truly harmonic in the basis of the ether. Without properly diagonalising its basis, you get a state that is not Hermitian, and thus not observable. A Lorentzian transformation of this energy system is what brings you towards the ground state of the quantum system, which is degenerate. <br /><br />The D-branes of a quantum string has vibrational states that resonates with the atom. Without it, molecules would not form conformal fields, and thus, would destabilize their respective chiral partners. This phenomenon instills vibrational resonances that allow forms of communication not considered possible in classical notions of information transfer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-76246545870330616332016-01-16T21:08:48.611+00:002016-01-16T21:08:48.611+00:00Nice example - thanks.Nice example - thanks.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-49513411555093022342016-01-16T17:18:03.138+00:002016-01-16T17:18:03.138+00:00I always liked Tom Lehrer's pseudo-p:
"Li...I always liked Tom Lehrer's pseudo-p:<br />"Life is like a sewer, what you get out of it depends on what you put into it."BCWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06905387799270933298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-39655915513038232222016-01-13T15:55:25.939+00:002016-01-13T15:55:25.939+00:00"...the idea that my incomprehension is neces..."...the idea that my incomprehension is necessarily a mark of the meaninglessness of the writing itself, rather than of my lack of context, is absurd."<br /><br />Yes, that's so, but no one is suggesting that the writing is <em>meaningless</em> (except you). What is claimed is that when translated into ordinary language, the meaning reduces to a falsehood, a triviality, a contradiction or an ambiguity. It is possible to comprehend the text without being an expert in the field. Context is important for nuanced interpretation, but there is nothing nuanced about this gobbledegook.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-42806863621113865452015-12-03T23:47:28.136+00:002015-12-03T23:47:28.136+00:00There are few forms of criticism quite as empty* a...There are few forms of criticism quite as empty* as quoting a block of text out of context and then pointing at it saying "See, see, it just doesn't make any sense does it?!" Yes, a summary paragraph plugging a bunch of (hopefully) previously specified terms into a few overloaded sentences to show how they all fit together is, to someone who isn't familiar with the text or the field, incomprehensible. <br /><br />I am not saying that Guattari's claim *does* make sense: I haven't the slightest idea what is going on there. But the idea that my incomprehension is necessarily a mark of the meaninglessness of the writing itself, rather than of my lack of context, is absurd. By that logic, I can confidently conclude that pretty much all statements made in any of the many fields with which I am unacquainted are nothing but pseudo-profundity. This is the logic of Know-Nothing Congressional representatives tearing into the silliest-sounding NSF grants--it does not behoove a skeptical mind to act in such a way.<br /><br />You are looking for a way to tell apart non-sensical and sensical statements that relies solely on superficial structures, without the hard work of actually having to think through what is being said. This is, sadly, impossible. <br /><br />* Though citing someone else doing the same is just as empty, with a bonus appeal to authority fallacy.heresiarchnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-30988382733036980592014-09-02T10:05:37.883+00:002014-09-02T10:05:37.883+00:00Lesson learned: Triteness should be avoided like t...Lesson learned: Triteness should be avoided like the plague.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-59373553115961734372014-09-02T00:57:05.186+00:002014-09-02T00:57:05.186+00:00The dilemma is: Where is the right balance between...The dilemma is: Where is the right balance between pseudo-profundity and real superficiality?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-61439641010507107702013-03-02T15:16:15.055+00:002013-03-02T15:16:15.055+00:00"Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on th..."Well, art is art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know." Groucho Marx Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-83841533821086943642013-03-02T10:45:54.396+00:002013-03-02T10:45:54.396+00:00To be fully alive is to be in the flow of change &...To be fully alive is to be in the flow of change & transformation. (Deepak Chopra)<br /><br />Beetroot never grow on rose bushes<br />Fish never change their underwear<br />Steamrollers never smell of jasmine (my friend Richard)<br />Lucy R. Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08632983296994349550noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-58180950564559264012013-02-01T20:56:06.284+00:002013-02-01T20:56:06.284+00:00"Why does God insist on loading people with s..."Why does God insist on loading people with such horrendous burdens in the first place?"<br /><br />You're kidding, right?<br /><br />Anyone, over the age of 18, who couldn't answer this question needs to enroll in, Logic 101 - Not write books.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-12554757240670148922013-01-11T02:04:41.201+00:002013-01-11T02:04:41.201+00:00Knowledge is never complete. It must always go tog...Knowledge is never complete. It must always go together with ignorance. See the importance... please understand... <br />- Krishnamurti<br /><br />Profund? Or pseudo-profundity?StilleUlvhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00908341390091848868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-55532607086418392412013-01-02T01:11:21.073+00:002013-01-02T01:11:21.073+00:00Knoledge is power and power is knowledge, but what...Knoledge is power and power is knowledge, but what is really knowledge? And what is power? Both are just words,so words are words. But what are really words?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-74384156207968841922012-12-10T09:12:37.128+00:002012-12-10T09:12:37.128+00:00Knowledge is Power!Knowledge is Power!Neilhttp://quodex.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-19716180550718727422012-11-18T02:32:19.842+00:002012-11-18T02:32:19.842+00:00Reminds me of the scene in the movie "Pi"...Reminds me of the scene in the movie "Pi" He asks the girl next door for some iodine to stain a slide and she retorts;"Ah Science, the pursuit of Knowledge"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-60992904086754367932011-12-19T00:20:11.069+00:002011-12-19T00:20:11.069+00:00The assiduous confinement of reality to the interp...The assiduous confinement of reality to the interpolating mechanic of sensory perception is translated into a resultant force which posits the logical conclusion that the quantum chromodynamic interpretation of realia is in fact rife with extra-locutionary factors which, in turn feed a transcendental oneness within our own sentience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-39224181177573745912011-10-26T01:24:45.766+00:002011-10-26T01:24:45.766+00:00Good work, Stephen Law.
I have been a professiona...Good work, Stephen Law.<br /><br />I have been a professional writer, an editor of magazines and books, taught writing, worked as a manuscript physician for author's agents and etc. The crux of my teaching was, "If it can't be written in plain English, it will probably not be worth reading--no matter what the subject." Every student or aspiring author who showed up at my door could not enter until they had read and utterly digested what I think is one of the finest essays of the English speaking 20th Century: George Orwell's "Politics and the English Language." And if they did not have a copy of Strunk and White's "Elements of Style" in their back pocket they got no entry here.Steven Nickesonhttp://derechosalvaje.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-51086753684188154462011-10-17T02:38:03.068+00:002011-10-17T02:38:03.068+00:00Another popular technique is "linguistic"...Another popular technique is "linguistic" arguments, eg, "There's no I in team." (Or the really awful one, "<a href="http://www.cracked.com/article_18821_5-examples-americans-thinking-foreign-people-are-magic_p2.html" rel="nofollow">the Chinese word for crisis…"</a>).<br /><br />Your "clear, plain English" advice applies nicely to these: "So what you're saying is that <i>if</i> a language's word for a group of people working for a common purpose happened to contain that language's first-person subject pronoun, then speakers of that language would be entitled to behave selfishly when part of said groups?"<br /><br />All that said, many statements become pseudo-profound only when intended to be profound in the first place — itself an obvious point, I suppose, but I'll give an example anyway: "It's a small world". There's nothing wrong with saying that after you and a friend mention a mutual acquaintance or whatever. (Although it may be better to avoid the cliche, not to mention that it suggests a suprising coincidence that probably isn't either.) Likewise, I can imagine saying one of the "life is like a" statements for the sake of conversation, or even because it actually produces something relevant to whatever I'm doing or talking about at the time. (However rare that may be.)<br /><br />David B's parable about the vagabond almost "got me" as being a somewhat clever satire of groundless theoretizing until I realized that the vagabond didn't behave like normal humans do at all, and the fault in the situation was his, not the philosophers' (who really could have been repaced with absolutely any group of people without changing the story). Funny how it wasn't obvious to me at first. <i>That's how they get us!</i>Lenoxushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10809085020841868387noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82676657598735057762011-07-04T06:47:27.408+00:002011-07-04T06:47:27.408+00:00Knowledge is power ;-)Knowledge is power ;-)David Minsterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10822658010469230589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-13777188840554517002011-06-17T22:16:02.793+00:002011-06-17T22:16:02.793+00:00"Where do I sign?"
Yes. Yes!
A sign! ..."Where do I sign?"<br /><br />Yes. Yes!<br /><br />A sign! <br /><br />Send us a sign!wombatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-52365790189385443952011-06-16T16:24:51.030+00:002011-06-16T16:24:51.030+00:00David,
I'm convinced. Where do I sign?David,<br /><br />I'm convinced. Where do I sign?Samphirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327984071854007032noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-17102903047614865812011-06-16T11:24:58.011+00:002011-06-16T11:24:58.011+00:00By golly, you've got it! You can now go out an...By golly, you've got it! You can now go out and attract some devotees....Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-39687023195183445972011-06-16T11:21:41.964+00:002011-06-16T11:21:41.964+00:00Hmm, a post is an invitation to comment.
But sile...Hmm, a post is an invitation to comment.<br /><br />But silence is equally a kind of comment, so perhaps I should keep my thoughts to myself. After all, thought is all in the mind. But what purpose is there in such a stream of unconsciousness? A dialogue is like a stamp, if you are frank on one side, you are licked on the other.<br /><br />I feel like the vagabond who stepped into a room of philosophers, at first they just ignored him as he stood in awe with hand raised, over time he became more insistent but still the philosophers talked over his head, finally, timidly, he reached out and tugged on the sleeve of a particularly grand looking speaker. Outraged, the philosopher turned and snapped at the vagabond, “What? What is it <i>you</i> think you can say to <i>us</i>?!”<br /><br />“The building is on fire,” replied the vagabond.<br /><br />This, of course, is a reversal of the modal dynamic, whereby the transfusion of knowledge is expected to proceed from the sapiensis to the amanuensis, highlighting the non-linear distortion that has been applied to the true nature of the underlying mental impetus, which is an obligatorily duplex system.David B.noreply@blogger.com