3 ms·

You’re just assuming your conclusion, that the thing you enjoy and value, intellectual stimulation, should be supported by default. Both of the people you’re di

You’re just assuming your conclusion, that the thing you enjoy and value, intellectual stimulation, should be supported by default. Both of the people you’re dismissing are intellectuals. They’re just self aware enough that they don’t think their preferences should be enforced on others without a rash justification. Lovers of physical exercise, the production of art or combat can sing the praises of their joys and the benefits according thereto. We don’t rearrange the world to force their interests on the world. If we’re going to do it for our interests we should have actual reasoning behind it, not hand waving.

epgui 4y ago
I understand that the author is "an intellectual", but he is nonetheless defending a fundamentally anti-intellectualist idea. This is not compatible with an inquisitive, academic or intellectual mindset, no matter that he is a professor or that he holds a PhD. He's free to advance arguments in support of this position, but he should be met with extreme skepticism, as he is defending a difficult position.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  > This is not compatible with an inquisitive, academic or intellectual mindset The world has millions of things to learn about. Why is Math specially subsidized? That’s good argument. That’s not anti-intellectual. > He's free to advance arguments in support of this position, but he should be met with extreme skepticism, as he is defending a difficult position. Again, you’re just assuming[edited] your conclusion. You and I and he are people who like ideas and arguing over ideas. He’s arguing that what he teaches isn’t that useful and asking why it gets so many resources. There’s nothing there about the beauty or joy of Math, which I presume he could wax rhapsodic about as a professor. You’re attacking a position that doesn’t appear in article. It’s about the practical value of advanced Math.
  - epgui 4y ago
    > Why is Math specially subsidized? That’s good argument. First, that's a question, not an argument. Second, math is special because it's an exact science, as opposed to a natural science. Encompassing the study of "logic", "information", "things that change", "symmetry", "equality" or equivalence... it applies to pretty much everything. In other words it's one of the skills that has the most potential to be widely applicable. > Again, you’re just aiming your conclusion. I'm not sure what you mean by "aiming", but I am referring to the burden of proof [1], which the author has not shifted one iota. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

epgui 4y ago

I understand that the author is "an intellectual", but he is nonetheless defending a fundamentally anti-intellectualist idea. This is not compatible with an inquisitive, academic or intellectual mindset, no matter that he is a professor or that he holds a PhD. He's free to advance arguments in support of this position, but he should be met with extreme skepticism, as he is defending a difficult position.

barry-cotter 4y ago
> This is not compatible with an inquisitive, academic or intellectual mindset The world has millions of things to learn about. Why is Math specially subsidized? That’s good argument. That’s not anti-intellectual. > He's free to advance arguments in support of this position, but he should be met with extreme skepticism, as he is defending a difficult position. Again, you’re just assuming[edited] your conclusion. You and I and he are people who like ideas and arguing over ideas. He’s arguing that what he teaches isn’t that useful and asking why it gets so many resources. There’s nothing there about the beauty or joy of Math, which I presume he could wax rhapsodic about as a professor. You’re attacking a position that doesn’t appear in article. It’s about the practical value of advanced Math.
- epgui 4y ago
  > Why is Math specially subsidized? That’s good argument. First, that's a question, not an argument. Second, math is special because it's an exact science, as opposed to a natural science. Encompassing the study of "logic", "information", "things that change", "symmetry", "equality" or equivalence... it applies to pretty much everything. In other words it's one of the skills that has the most potential to be widely applicable. > Again, you’re just aiming your conclusion. I'm not sure what you mean by "aiming", but I am referring to the burden of proof [1], which the author has not shifted one iota. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)