4 ms·

seeing a comment like this downvoted to the bottom.. i just.. miss the old HN

• modzu 8y ago
  let the downvotes begin, rain them upon thee! am not looked to get myself banned but the parent comment is as outright an original, authentic, relevant comment you will find here. yet there it is, too light grey to read. serious question: what is going on?
  • pulisse 8y ago
    > the parent comment is as outright an original, authentic, relevant comment you will find here The comment casts a lot of aspersions on academics but doesn't actually justify any of it.
    • zzzzzzzza 8y ago
      so, tone policing. I'm not an academic but from my limited interaction with philosophy subreddits (r/philosophy, r/askphilosophy), which seem to an outsider to have an academic bent, there is 0 interest in the intersection of cs and philosophy/ethics; so from my outsider perspective he doesn't even seem entirely meritless in his tone.
      • pulisse 8y ago
        I'm not complaining about the tone of his criticisms. I'm complaining about the absence of any justification of them.
        • deleted 8y ago
          [deleted]
• Kinnard 8y ago
  It's a good comment. I down voted because I do see the reason for the allergic reaction. Perhaps the diction could be improved but I think what the piece points out is a dastardly trap as you're just upon grasping (whatever can be grasped of) Gödel's Wonder. I speak as a layman.
  • jeromebaek 8y ago
    If there's nothing to be grasped in "Gödel's Wonder", why do you think the man himself, who, we can reasonably conjecture, understood his theorems more than anybody else, spent the remainder of his life "grasping" at what his theorems meant? I find it much more reasonable to conclude that there was, and is, in fact something significant to be grasped, and thinkpieces like this simply want to declare that there's nothing to be grasped.
    • Kinnard 8y ago
      I meant by people like me :)
    • throwawaymath 8y ago
      Brilliant mathematicians and computer scientists are capable of making mistakes. Atiyah was a titan of his field, but in the twilight of his life he published a superfluous, incoherent "proof” of Riemann. It was so deeply flawed that not a single well known mathematician has commented on it publicly out of respect for the man - the most you can find is a MathOverflow discussion picking apart specific claims. We aren’t flying too close to the Sun if we dare to question their conjectures, even those regarding their previous work. In consideration of this point and the available evidence, I remain deeply unconvinced there is a unrealized, grand philosophical insight to be derived from whatever Gödel’s later, more obscure work had to say about the incompleteness theorems. Likewise Fermat was probably the foremost authority on his most famous conjecture during his life; but the common consensus is that he did not, in fact, have a “truly marvelous proof” of the FLT which he couldn’t fit in the margins. Everyone thinks silly things from time to time, their prior work notwithstanding. I’m inclined to believe Gödel either wasn’t as invested in the philosophical implications of his earlier work as you believe. Or perhaps he was, but I really doubt he actually arrived at a novel, rigorous result from it. Occam’s Razor suggests we would know if he had.
      • jeromebaek 8y ago
        The difference between Godel and Atiyah is that Godel's later (and more "philosophical") works are very hard to dismiss, because literally nobody understands it. Though it hasn't stopped people from trying: https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/avigad/Papers/dialect.pdf https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/avigad/Papers/dialect.pdf