4 ms·

> The problem with Carmack and many like him, is that they think of themselves as purely rational beings operating within scientific frameworks and based purely

by _gabe_ 4y ago

> The problem with Carmack and many like him, is that they think of themselves as purely rational beings operating within scientific frameworks and based purely on scientific results, but whenever they step outside the technical fields in which they work, they are ignorant and dogmatic. I'm just curious, do you happen to work in a technical field and consider yourself rational and scientific? And if you do, why do you presuppose that your views are automatically correct? Couldn't it also hold that your views may be ignorant and dogmatic if you apply the same scrutiny to yourself that you do to Carmack? And if you don't work in a technical field, then I guess this is all irrelevant anyways. I just don't like when I see people making these types of arguments where you can't speak on a subject that you're not actively pursuing a PhD in, and then they proceed to do exactly that.

seu 4y ago
I have a degree in computer science and worked in a technical field for over 20 years. I don't call myself "rational and scientific", though I do think that the Scientific Method is a great way of creating useful models of the world. But those models - like all models - are wrong. Maybe it's just semantics, but one of my points is exactly that some people believe that they are "rational and scientific" and ignore that we are not just computers; experience, emotions and unconscious bias plays an important role in our decisions. Thinking that the whole world (and themselves) can be perfectly rationalized, makes them miss the point that there are non-rational reasons for them to think the way they do. That's why I refer to when I talk about dogmatism. I suggest everyone (who wants to hear me) to read Joseph Weizenbaum's "Computer Power and Human Reason"; he does a much better job than me at raising similar arguments to mine. Also, Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow", for the ways in which we _all_ are so _not_ 100% rational in our everyday decisions.

by _gabe_ 4y ago

seu 4y ago

I have a degree in computer science and worked in a technical field for over 20 years. I don't call myself "rational and scientific", though I do think that the Scientific Method is a great way of creating useful models of the world. But those models - like all models - are wrong. Maybe it's just semantics, but one of my points is exactly that some people believe that they are "rational and scientific" and ignore that we are not just computers; experience, emotions and unconscious bias plays an important role in our decisions. Thinking that the whole world (and themselves) can be perfectly rationalized, makes them miss the point that there are non-rational reasons for them to think the way they do. That's why I refer to when I talk about dogmatism. I suggest everyone (who wants to hear me) to read Joseph Weizenbaum's "Computer Power and Human Reason"; he does a much better job than me at raising similar arguments to mine. Also, Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow", for the ways in which we _all_ are so _not_ 100% rational in our everyday decisions.