tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post3739498775837818880..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Chapter for comments, please....Stephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-34571281246318455472012-12-11T02:52:46.389+00:002012-12-11T02:52:46.389+00:00Is this the same of what Dennett calls a "dee...Is this the same of what Dennett calls a "deepity"? I think so.Tonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04812359591981379904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-75420539549390748952012-02-06T11:29:05.559+00:002012-02-06T11:29:05.559+00:00Check out the Postmodernism Generator -
http://ww...Check out the Postmodernism Generator -<br /><br />http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/<br /><br />It's a hoot. :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-54981777314041077352010-09-23T12:43:08.050+00:002010-09-23T12:43:08.050+00:00Lonestarship:
"I think someone who is c...Lonestarship:<br /><br /> "I think someone who is confident enough in their 'station' and has the respect of the 'people' can withstand the mockery of the con-men. Especially when he/she can show evidence that the con-men have done this sort of thing before. In the story, the con-men had come from another town where they had pulled off another con."<br /> In the story, no one could show such evidence, because they simply didn't know it. Now, if they did know of the outside event, that might indeed work. But in such a case, there is no need to appeal to ridicule. Ridicule is an effective tool where evidence is scarce. That's why cults use it.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82680714765394922432010-09-20T20:19:24.827+00:002010-09-20T20:19:24.827+00:00Pvblivs:
I think someone who is confident enough ...Pvblivs:<br /><br />I think someone who is confident enough in their "station" and has the respect of the "people" can withstand the mockery of the con-men. Especially when he/she can show evidence that the con-men have done this sort of thing before. In the story, the con-men had come from another town where they had pulled off another con.Lonestarslphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10679755032427890665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-66221130475877995092010-09-20T18:37:44.595+00:002010-09-20T18:37:44.595+00:00"References to quantum mechanics are particul...<i>"References to quantum mechanics are particularly popular among peddlers of pseudo-scientific claptrap. Quantum mechanics has the advantage that it is widely known to be mysterious and weird, plus hardly anyone understands it, so if you start spouting references to it in support of your own teaching, people will assume you must be very clever, and almost certainly won’t realize that you are, in fact, just bullshitting." </i><br /><br />Found this part particular interesting - have experienced this myself.<br /><br />But are you not in danger of using the mysterious and weirdness of quantum mechanics to justify your own view that it is weird and mysterious and should not be used!?<br /><br />You are beginning to sound like an expert on when this science 'no-one understands' can and cannot be used! Sounds a little like bullshitting to me!Simonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-28006062300291307882010-09-17T16:23:07.520+00:002010-09-17T16:23:07.520+00:00Lonestarslp:
The emperor's new clothes, ...Lonestarslp:<br /><br /> The emperor's new clothes, an interesting choice. But in the story, it <i>had</i> to be a young child who noticed the emperor was unclothed. Anyone else would be mocked. The con-men used a pre-emptive mockery to ensure that the people didn't dare say they saw no fabric. The young child was immune to the mockery because he had no station and so could not be "unfit for his station."Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-18522163793905983082010-09-17T02:47:55.800+00:002010-09-17T02:47:55.800+00:00Perhaps the best way to use mockery as a tool agai...Perhaps the best way to use mockery as a tool against the pseudo-profound is in the way of the young boy who noticed that the Emperor had no clothes. He simply stated a fact without being concerned if he was profound or not. <br /><br />Demonstrating facts may not convince the converted (they still want to be wise enough to see the gorgeous fabric) but it does expose the pseudo-profound guru for what he is and cause him to be the source of his own mockery. <br /><br />I have seen John Stewart do this on the Daily Show by showing film clips with very little comment needed. <br /><br />When a guru attacks or twists the facts, a continued repetition of the facts ("I don't see any clothes") would make it more obvious that the pseudo-profundity is meaningless. I don't know if this is a philosophy term, but I always called it the "broken record" technique when debating with my children!Lonestarslphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10679755032427890665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33634946074654940152010-09-16T19:46:15.879+00:002010-09-16T19:46:15.879+00:00This is a surprisingly difficult topic. If in a co...This is a surprisingly difficult topic. If in a conversation a person says “Death comes to us all” it may or may not be used in an attempt to be profound. The context of the statement determines this. If it is used to establish some sort of authority it should be greeted with skepticism.<br /><br />In the previous topic you used a hypothetical example to clarify your point. Examples of a given pseudo profundity pinned against the goals of the abuser might add clarity: <br />“D e a t h c o m e s t o u s a l l “ and here is the phone number for your donations.<br /><br />Some historical examples could be very useful:<br />Jim Jones (of Jonestown)<br />“If we can’t live in peace then let’s die in peace.”(Applause)<br /> <br />First Woman: I feel like that as there's life, there's hope.<br /><br /><b><br />Jones: Well, someday everybody dies.<br /><br />Crowd: That's right, that's right! </b><br /><br />Jones: What those people gone and done, and what they get through will make our lives worse than hell... But to me, death is not a fearful thing. Its living that's cursed... Not worth living like this.<br /><br />First Woman: But I'm afraid to die.<br />Jones: I don't think you are. I don't think you are.<br /><br />First Woman: I think there were too few who left for 1,200 people to give them their lives for those people who left... I look at all the babies and I think they deserve to live.<br /><br />Jones: But don't they deserve much more they deserve peace. The best testimony we can give is to leave this god dam world. (Applause)<br />First Man: It’s over, sister... We've made a beautiful day.(Applause)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-9698604081021533582010-09-16T10:59:03.460+00:002010-09-16T10:59:03.460+00:00Why? Take the bullshit out of philosophy, and ther...Why? Take the bullshit out of philosophy, and there's nothing left.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-86066437075952513942010-09-16T07:51:39.211+00:002010-09-16T07:51:39.211+00:00Why?Why?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-12175541288112734722010-09-16T01:20:47.872+00:002010-09-16T01:20:47.872+00:00You're going to talk yourself out of a job.You're going to talk yourself out of a job.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-20360733918309288672010-09-15T21:47:17.237+00:002010-09-15T21:47:17.237+00:00 I have given the Jefferson quote some conside... I have given the Jefferson quote some consideration. And it fails catastrophicly. There is no concept more unintelligible than quantum mechanics. No one has ever had a distinct idea of something being a wave and a particle at the same time. It, too, is a mere abracadabra. It has only one thing going for it. The math works. It makes predictions that can be tested in the world we live in. But if the adage "ideas must be distinct before we can act upon them" had been followed, we wouldn't know that. Perhaps quantum mechanics should have been shut down with laughter rather than supported by experiments. I mean, that's not my belief. But, absent the ability of hindsight, it does seem to be what is advocated here.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-10503038110643131452010-09-15T21:22:51.738+00:002010-09-15T21:22:51.738+00:00Martin:
"When people laugh at your idea...Martin:<br /><br /> "When people laugh at your ideas, very few give way immediately, because people don't like to lose face. However, I think what happens is that you take that laughter away, and you think 'If I say that idea, people will laugh at it.' So at first you self-censor, and you avoid saying the silly thing. Then after a period of time you sort of get over it, and realise that what you had said really was silly. At this point the argument is won, but the person who originally laughed at the silly idea may never know."<br /> And how do you think the result differs when a brilliant idea is subjected to the same ridicule? The self-censorship remains the same. And the defender of the idea questions his own mind and still "realizes" what he said was "silly." The Asch conformity experiment is quite enlightening. And it created conformity to wrong notions without any explicit ridicule. I have no doubt that, if blatent ridicule had been part of the study, higher rates of conformity would be observed. So, people may not like to lose face. But they don't like to be laughed at either. As I stated before, the ridicule is just as effective in suppressing a correct idea as it is in suppressing an incorrect one. And it is just as effective in suppressing wisdom as it is folly. The pseudo-profound use mockery and derision to silence their critics. And I think Mr. Law would be doing his readers a disservice not to note that -- even if he believes using the same tactics against the pseudo-profound is a good idea.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44423941861764662812010-09-15T16:41:31.209+00:002010-09-15T16:41:31.209+00:00Hi Stephen,
Two points: firstly, you might have ...Hi Stephen, <br /><br />Two points: firstly, you might have slightly overdone the use of words like 'claptrap' and 'tosh', or perhaps that's just me. <br /><br />Secondly, you could mention the Sokal Affair or SCIgen programme as examples of how easily some are fooled by (deliberate) pseudo-profundity. Both had nonsensical 'science' articles published in 'serious' academic journals. <br /><br />Finally, I think that mockery works best not on a case-by-case basis, but as a background 'immunisation' to the whole idea of pseudo-complexity. So here's my own personal bit of pseudery courtesy of Douglas Adams (abridged): <br /><br />Vogon: "Now Earthlings ...I present you with a simple choice! Either die in the vacuum of space, or ...tell me how good you thought my poem was!"<br /><br />Arthur Dent: Actually I quite liked it. I thought that some of the metaphysical imagery was really particularly effective. and er ... interesting rhythmic devices too, which seemed to counterpoint the ... er ... er ...<br /><br />Ford Prefect: counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of the ... er ..<br /><br />AD: ... humanity of the ..of the poet's compassionate soul...which contrives through the medium of the verse structure to sublimate this, transcend that, and come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other...and one is left with a profound and vivid insight into ... into ... er ..<br /><br />FP: Into whatever it was the poem was about!<br /><br />GifGifordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-84430906852292440362010-09-15T16:07:53.955+00:002010-09-15T16:07:53.955+00:00I will include a deepties section - thanks for rem...I will include a deepties section - thanks for reminding me.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-9521822736877180392010-09-15T16:01:20.185+00:002010-09-15T16:01:20.185+00:00Thanks for the feedback. I think mockery is approp...Thanks for the feedback. I think mockery is appropriate, though didn't explain why. so i will. Nice Jefferson quote, though not sure I agree with it. But might include it anyway....Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-33516664001690159392010-09-15T15:51:12.375+00:002010-09-15T15:51:12.375+00:00Loved the chapter - really funny!
I especially li...Loved the chapter - really funny!<br /><br />I especially liked the bit about ridicule, which is a very effective counter to pseudo-profundity. The reason for this was best summed up by Thomas Jefferson when he explained, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them". <br /><br />(He went on to say, "and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.")<br /><br />[from letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816]jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17353716090668341520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-18892523598185716402010-09-14T23:28:49.329+00:002010-09-14T23:28:49.329+00:00Can there be a visual pseudo-profundity, for examp...Can there be a visual pseudo-profundity, for example, in the world of art? An ARTIST presents a canvas painted entirely red and calls it Untitled or Red No. 1. Only a previously established artist could get away with it.Lonestarslphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10679755032427890665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-40626631145864751472010-09-14T20:54:25.153+00:002010-09-14T20:54:25.153+00:00"It reveals only why appeal to ridicule is a ..."It reveals only why appeal to ridicule is a fallacy."<br /><br />Not so, but it is a more long-winded process then has be described so far.<br /><br />When people laugh at your ideas, very few give way immediately, because people don't like to lose face. However, I think what happens is that you take that laughter away, and you think "If I say that idea, people will laugh at it". So at first you self-censor, and you avoid saying the silly thing. Then after a period of time you sort of get over it, and realise that what you had said really was silly. At this point the argument is won, but the person who originally laughed at the silly idea may never know.<br /><br />My wife believes the most effective humour is inclusive and said in a gentle way.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08240399669150057121noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-72692029227167412052010-09-14T17:57:20.811+00:002010-09-14T17:57:20.811+00:00Richard Baron:
"Why do the believers no...Richard Baron:<br /><br /> "Why do the believers not side with the unbelievers, once the unbelievers explain why they are laughing at the guru?"<br /> That would be because the explanation is a dressed-up version of "can't you see what he's saying is stupid?" And it is identical to the reason why the believers laugh at the critic. It reveals nothing profound about the human condition. It reveals only why appeal to ridicule is a fallacy. Its effectiveness is undiminished whether the target of ridicule is wise or foolish or whether he is right or wrong.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-31202046075794364892010-09-14T15:42:13.132+00:002010-09-14T15:42:13.132+00:00One of my favorite new quotes is from Alan Greensp...One of my favorite new quotes is from Alan Greenspan, from a speech to Congress in 1987, "If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said."<br /><br />Clear communication of a concept is infinitely more important than being profound. My background is more scientific/mathematical than philosophical, and I have always detested the practice of professors who deliberately make courses more difficult than they need to be. Those of us who want to learn the concepts prefer to understand them them without extraneous jargon. A logical or mathematical concept, understood clearly--that is profound. <br /><br />I'm using your information on pseudo-profundity to share with my Toastmasters club so we can avoid the laziness of this type of speech and force ourselves to describe our thoughts more clearly.Lonestarslphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10679755032427890665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-86179691201624171582010-09-14T12:45:47.907+00:002010-09-14T12:45:47.907+00:00This all sounds like programming to me. The proble...This all sounds like programming to me. The problem with communication is that we distort and delete and generalizie what others are telling us, and we do this subconsciously. They are the gate keeper at the doors of our perceptions.<br />It takes a real conscious effort to listen carefully to what we are being told.<br />We all create our own mental maps of the world, but to quote Korzybski the map is not the territory.<br />People respond to their map of reality and not reality itself.<br />English language is extremely rich and people tend to favour one representational system linked to whatever sense we favour.<br />This reflects the inner life and is a accurate translation of the way we think.<br />The submodalities are our building blocks of the senses, once you identify which representational system is being used it is easier to get to the heart of what someone is saying. So it becomes easier to spot pseudo gurus compared to the real Mcoy.Mr Spinozahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04654231265553897631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-38150243441409132232010-09-14T11:58:04.741+00:002010-09-14T11:58:04.741+00:00Stephen:
I am sorry, this is not going to help bu...Stephen:<br /><br />I am sorry, this is not going to help but reading this chapter led me to the following chain of thought. The "profundity" that is pseudo is an attempt to appear to possess old-fashioned "wisdom". I visualized an elderly grey-beared man, living in the distant past among old books, dispensing good advice. I can see that to be wise in the modern world requires avoiding a long list of errors but I wonder what it is required to be wise in a positive sense? (Avoiding errors is "negative", in the sense of not being wrong rather than being able to pick from valid alternative options, if you see what I mean). <br /><br />I'd love to see a good modern book describing how to be wise.Paul Powernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-85830734629747459182010-09-14T00:54:44.181+00:002010-09-14T00:54:44.181+00:00Actually, what was missing here were a few example...Actually, what was missing here were a few examples of statements you feel ARE profound. It's one thing to show examples of pseudo-profundity, quiet another to produce the real goods -- and open yourself up to challenges that what you have produced is not, in fact, profound either.<br /><br />Then there can ensue a big bloody brawl about defining profundity (that was absent, too.. how can you argue for something you haven't defined?), somebody will take the position that all definitions are, by definition, subjective, relative, and incomplete, and by then it will have dissolved into name-calling and aspersions cast on people's circumstance of birth.<br /><br />Or is that just the Monty Python version? :)<br /><br />Anyway, you owe us some examples of what you DO think are profound statements.<br /><br />Thanks,<br />Monica Englander, LCSW<br />(from the States)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-84238712775863006512010-09-13T18:28:24.087+00:002010-09-13T18:28:24.087+00:00. . . jot down in clear, unambiguous prose on bac...<i>. . . jot down in clear, unambiguous prose on back of an envelope precisely what they do mean.</i> SB: <br /><br />. . . jot down in clear, unambiguous prose on back of an envelope precisely what they mean.The Pick Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14167368361703474113noreply@blogger.com