Email was invented gratis by government and university employees who were largely paid by the public. Email worked fantastically for decades before the private sector monetized it with spam and CTAs to drive more interactions.
No, we might be having this discussion on mars instead of iPhones.
None of our elites care about:
a) 99% of us living a meaningful life
b) technologically moving humanity forward (supports bullet a)
Install elites that care about those and then you can use any measure you want, any system you want, etc. Instead we’ve replaced god with money. Only an upgrade for the 1%.
There is no epistemological collapse. Access to accurate information has never been so fast nor so easy. To be sure, lies are spread on the internet - but people believed all sorts of bullshit before the internet. Those who want to claim there is a crisis don’t have a principled argument as to how things are worse.
But surely there are also more truths, and they spread faster than ever before? The amount of lies has increased but so has the amount of information in general, any question you have can be answered within 10 seconds.
Michel Desmurget is a well-respected neuroscientist working in research in France, so the Sokal thing is totally irrelevant to him, presumably? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Desmurget
The Sokal affair is a funny thing yes, which I'd seen before (and I presume many people here are familiar with). I don't see how it's relevant here?
I mean - it was one journal, in 1996, that had no peer review process, that published a fake article someone sent in to prove a point that the journal publishes at least some crap...
What should we reject based on that in your opinion - all cultural and media studies presumably, at the very least, you seem to be clearly suggesting. And every philosopher too? The logicians? The linguists? All of social science? Economics too? Is it just STEM-type stuff that's acceptable then?
Seems preposterous to me. The soft sciences are looser, and definitely have a higher proportion of hand-wavy nonsense, but rejecting it all to avoid stuff you don't like is just silly. Learning to avoid the crap and find the good stuff is pretty similar to other fields.
And often, anecdotally, it seems to me that the more interesting figures in the experimental sciences tend to be very intrigued by the softer, arguably sometimes "trickier" questions that the non-STEM sciences can explore.
A neat list, but there is a bias toward authors who published one controversial (and not necessarily good) argument that got a ton of rebuttals. Williamson is the worst offender.
The article is rife with references to a mediocre tv show, but it doesn’t contain a single example of the principle as applied to a firm. The author is an expert in something, but it isn’t business.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensemble_learning
reply