3 ms·

I disagree with your assessment of what the main point is. I don't think anyone else is interpreting it that way, and can confidently assert that the error is e

by Retra 8y ago

I disagree with your assessment of what the main point is. I don't think anyone else is interpreting it that way, and can confidently assert that the error is entirely on your end. Moreover, Hofstadter's study of physics isn't unrelated to his study of intelligence. I personally got a degree in physics to study language and intelligence, because the way physicists use language, analogy, and simple concepts to understand the world is particularly effective and interesting. So I can tell you first-hand that they are related. In fact, anyone who studies philosophy is probably making a serious mistake to not study physics first.

jamesrcole 8y ago
> I don't think anyone else is interpreting it that way, and can confidently assert that the error is entirely on your end. The post is very clear that it's talking about expertise in the sense referred to in my comments (which, as also indicated in my comments, I don't fully agree with): "Rule #1: Prefer books by experts in the field The best nonfiction books I have read have invariably been by folks who spent their lives researching that particular issue. A couple of books in this category immediately come to mind: Why We Sleep, The Language Instinct, Gödel Escher Bach. Positive indicators of this in a blurb may include “Professor in [field directly related to the book’s topic]”, “Long-time researcher in [field directly related to the book’s topic]”. Note how they say "Professor in" and "Long-time researcher in". The way you're using a term, a 21 year old can have "spent their life researching the topic" if they've been focused on it over the previous three years.
- Retra 8y ago
  You don't need to focus on these kinds of semantic quibbles if you want to miss the point. You can do that directly. Albert Einstein was 21 when he published his first paper, and 26 when he published his best. Please tell me that he didn't spend his life researching physics, even then.
  - jamesrcole 8y ago
    You've completely missed the point of my comments. Go back and read them more carefully.
    - Retra 8y ago
      I've reread your comments and stand by what I said. Perhaps you should confer with someone else.

by Retra 8y ago

jamesrcole 8y ago

> I don't think anyone else is interpreting it that way, and can confidently assert that the error is entirely on your end. The post is very clear that it's talking about expertise in the sense referred to in my comments (which, as also indicated in my comments, I don't fully agree with): "Rule #1: Prefer books by experts in the field The best nonfiction books I have read have invariably been by folks who spent their lives researching that particular issue. A couple of books in this category immediately come to mind: Why We Sleep, The Language Instinct, Gödel Escher Bach. Positive indicators of this in a blurb may include “Professor in [field directly related to the book’s topic]”, “Long-time researcher in [field directly related to the book’s topic]”. Note how they say "Professor in" and "Long-time researcher in". The way you're using a term, a 21 year old can have "spent their life researching the topic" if they've been focused on it over the previous three years.

Retra 8y ago
You don't need to focus on these kinds of semantic quibbles if you want to miss the point. You can do that directly. Albert Einstein was 21 when he published his first paper, and 26 when he published his best. Please tell me that he didn't spend his life researching physics, even then.
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  You've completely missed the point of my comments. Go back and read them more carefully.
  - Retra 8y ago
    I've reread your comments and stand by what I said. Perhaps you should confer with someone else.