
Peter Thiel is almost definitely behind this mysterious Heterodox Science course - mnmlsm
http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/21/14025760/peter-thiel-heterodox-science-class-berkeley-institute
======
kafkaesq
We know Thiel has a lot of business smarts; and apparently he won a math
competition in junior high, or something. But does actually _know_ any basic
science? Like you know -- hypothesis testing? Thermodynamics? Atomic decay?
The carbon cycle? Stuff like that?

I'm not talking about the "gist" or the "general idea" behind these subjects.
I mean the actual, bullshit-proof, nuts-and-bolts level. You know, _science_.

And since the answer (given the unscientific gobbledygook he routinely spouts)
is in almost all probability "no" \-- why would anyone in their right mind†
present this man with the task of teaching a "science" course at a putative
educational institution, accredited or otherwise?

† Other than the "right" mind to fleece a whole lot of gullible young people
out of their Benjamins, and to promote Thiel's personality cult and
pseudoscientific agenda, generally.

~~~
wahern
Science in this context is more like the archaic meaning--knowing. As opposed
to the arts, which has to do with crafting and manufacturing things. That
dichotomy doesn't work well in the modern world and so the sense has been
lost.

But the archaic meaning is reflected in, e.g., Knuth's "The Art of Computer
Programming" (the book is meticulously and rigorously mathematical, not a
treatise on style or idiomatic programming patterns; today we categorize the
field as a science--computer science--instead of an art), and in the Copyright
& Patent Clause of the U.S. constitution, where copyright is meant to promote
"Science" (because the product of science is principally literary works) and
patents the "useful Arts" (i.e. creation of functional objects).

The course is clearly a course on the philosophy of science, which among other
things explores and critiques methods of acquiring, identifying, and applying
knowledge, including things scientific inquiry.

Today science has a more narrow meaning--pursuits of knowledge by way of the
scientific method and other systematized empirical methodologies (e.g.
statistical inferences). Although, some of what we call science today is
purely mathematical, like string theory; and many of the criticisms and
defenses of string theory are great examples of what the philosophy of science
encompasses.

The philosophy of science is a big tent. And, yes, a lot of it is
gobbledygook: are we really in a dream world? Oh noes, Roko's basilisk! But
there's a lot of mediocre "science" occurring in labs all around the world, so
I'd think twice before dismissing the domain altogether. Ultimately, both in
the archaic and modern meaning, science is based on the application of logic
(of which there are several kinds) and I think that's what matters most; it's
not sufficient in itself but it's definitely the greater distinction.

(END OBJECTIVE POINTS) (BEGIN SUBJECTIVE POINTS)

Peter Thiel strongly identifies as libertarian. An article[1] posted here
recently, written by a well-published libertarian-anarchist, described
libertarianism as suffering from "a bias toward contrarian narratives". It
only makes sense that Peter Thiel would be strongly interested in examining
and analyzing so-called mainstream assumptions in sociology, economics, and
political theory. I don't think Peter Thiel is wrong in being critical of
mainstream assumptions and ways of thinking, but libertarians today are too
incredulous regarding mainstream theories and "facts", and insufficiently
skeptical of contrarian narratives, particularly those that lead to seemingly
counter-intuitive and even opposite policy recommendations.

It's no coincidence that some of the most prominent climate change deniers and
their apologists are avowedly libertarian. Being skeptical of climate change
(unreasonably skeptical, I should say), and having an abiding "faith" in free
markets, fits the culture of modern libertarianism. No matter that the science
of economics is fundamentally descriptive, not prescriptive; strictly
speaking, it makes no more sense to be pro-free market than it does to be pro-
gravity. And no matter that the scientific method does not affirm facts, but
merely rejects null hypotheses; and so in some sense even the most rigorous
science is inconclusive.

I used to identify as libertarian years ago. But for this and other reasons I
identify as an anarchist, at least in terms of what I consider ideal.
Libertarianism began as a more pragmatic political movement derived from
anarchist thought. It was a rejection of many radical and absolutist ideas in
the anarchist community, and grounded itself in the science of economics. But
libertarianism has become more like a religion now, whereas anarchist thought
has softened. Libertarians are committing the same errors anarchists once did,
namely eliding the distinction between normative (what should be) and positive
economics (immutable economic phenomena)), and not appreciating the
limitations of their models and assumptions. Libertarians (including in
academia) increasingly tend to discount and reject empirical evidence when it
doesn't line up with their philosophy (e.g. free markets are optimal), rather
than accepting and applying empirical evidence, qualifying it as necessary but
nonetheless reassessing theory in light of the evidence. It's really
disconcerting. Peter Thiel seems like a very smart guy, but he does seem to be
suffering from this contrarian bias. The thing is, some people like being
contrarian. It's the adult version of the rebellious teenager. It's not enough
to recognize that mainstream theory is flawed and incomplete; they have to
reject it in its totality in favor of radical counter-narratives. This is
increasingly happening across the ideological spectrum, rather than being
confined to the edges of scholarly discourse; but it's really pervasive in the
libertarian community.

[1] [http://romaninukraine.com/putins-
libertarians/](http://romaninukraine.com/putins-libertarians/)

------
MustrumRidcully
René Girard is a joke. His theory about mimetic desire is pseudo-science and
does not rely on evidence. Girard is a litterature teacher that got the
mimetic idea reading 19th century novels and then proceded to prove it using
19th century novels.

The fact that he taught for so long at a major US university is telling about
the poor state of social siences and the coward mentality of the academic
world.

If you speak French, read "René Girard, un allumé qui se prenait pour un
phare" by René Pommier, it's a very clever and funny refutation of this
theory.

