6 ms·

As someone with a BA in English and wrapping up an MS in Computer Science, I really think anyone who considers themselves an "intellectual" should know both the

As someone with a BA in English and wrapping up an MS in Computer Science, I really think anyone who considers themselves an "intellectual" should know both the theory of probability and Foucault. I'll be the first to agree that probability will land you more jobs, but from a purely intellectual angle I woulds say these have equally helped me undertand the world around me. I've been in rooms of really smart technical people who have a child-like understanding of social and cultural issues that effect them (discussion about gender on HN can be a great example of this). At the same time I've been in rooms of extremely well read humanists who cringe at any attempt to understand the world through mathematical models. Both of these groups exhibit a clear intellectual poverty that limits their overall understanding of the world. The worst part isn't merely that each group has such ignorance of the other's domain, but that each will proudly defend this ignorance. The "enjoy working at starbucks" and "buzzes like a fridge" comments are equally anti-intellectual. The first thing that needs to change is this attitude.

slurgfest 14y ago
How does one determine whether Foucault's statements are true or not? At any rate, why should I accept them? If the answers to these questions are negative, then in what way can Foucault be put on the same level as the theory of probability, so that it is a shameful thing not to know anything about what Foucault says?
- mattgreenrocks 14y ago
  See, this is exactly the sentiment that the parent was talking about. And this crops up repeatedly on HN. It seems incredibly presumptuous to go to other fields and demand that they produce answers in the way that you were trained: "philosophy doesn't yield data like hard science, so it's not as important!" Why should they listen to an outsider who doesn't even take the time to learn the field? More to the point, why should one be proud of a reductionistic and truncated worldview?
  - DanBC 14y ago
    But how do you tell the difference between something which is important and something which is idle noodling?
    - mattgreenrocks 14y ago
      Subject it to critical thought, like you should be doing with everything else. If it is sound, it will hold up to being logically dissected, and wrestled with in your mind. If we're talking about something that could change one's worldview, then you also need to evaluate whether it resonates with your own belief system. For example, I liked Thus Spoke Zarathrusta's concept of the Ubermensch as a goal for aspiration, but realized I would never want to deify myself as much as Nietzsche espoused.
      - derleth 14y ago
        > you also need to evaluate whether it resonates with your own belief system. The universe has never asked my input into anything before. Why should it care whether any aspect of itself resonates with my belief system? I've seen what happens when people evaluate new ideas based largely on whether they resonate with their belief systems. The world doesn't need any more votes on whether the sea level is rising or whether the human genome is similar to the chimp genome because Jesus. If you question whether this has any relevance to morality, for example, ask yourself why morality shouldn't be evaluated empirically. Might yield better results than channeling a mythologized goatherd.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > philosophy doesn't yield data like hard science, so it's not as important! This is deliberately misstating the position, something a philosopher should be acutely aware of and avoid entirely. The problem with philosophy is, where is the falsification? How can a philosophical position be refuted and discredited in the way phlogiston has been?
    - slurgfest 14y ago
- Homunculiheaded 14y ago
  How does one determine that the value of a discipline is dependent upon the boolean verifiability of it's conclusions? Why should I accept this conclusion? In your very question you assume the existence of an ethical system which distributes values to systems of knowledge and yet that ethical system cannot be verified or tested the way that you demand all meaningful such systems should be. The answer to why Foucault is important is the same as the answer to why you hold a belief system which itself denies it's own value.
  - slurgfest 14y ago
    It is curious that Foucault's questioning of other fields cannot be sustained by Foucault himself. If I can't reliably determine that what he says is actually true or applicable to anything then there is no more reason for me to buy into his opinions than those of the Catholic church or the guy next door. Possibly less. I don't have to live with Foucault and I can't hurt his feelings, at any rate.
- pradocchia 14y ago
  if you could fit foucault into that box, he would no longer be foucault, yes? Just another piece of science. perhaps there is a single box of knowing--explicit, falsifiable knowing--and everything else is noise. this is attractive: learn a set of rules, apply them rigorously, yield knowledge, repeat. clearly productive, many fruits. alternately, perhaps this box is a subset of knowing. it's conceivable. and necessarily, the whole wouldn't follow the same rules as the part. it could be a challenge to leave our box, like learning a foreign language without cognates. i mean, it does all sound like noise, doesn't it? gives me such a headache.
  - derleth 14y ago
    > if you could fit foucault into that box, he would no longer be foucault, yes? Just another piece of science. This grossly misunderstands science. If you think science is just everything we can fit in a box you've missed the past few centuries and still think everything is ultimately down to which religious leader has the most followers who haven't died of religion yet. If you demand pithy quotes, here's one: Science is the process by which we gradually learn to stop fooling ourselves about things. Remember, asking why the sun rises in the East was once a moral and philosophical question.
    - pradocchia 14y ago
      > If you think science is just everything we can fit in a box... no, I don't. you misunderstand. willfully? or just hubris? box == frame of reference == paradigm == system of thought == set of axioms, habits, etc, that fit together into a semi-cohesive whole. you may, or course, not be able to perceive the box as a box, and invert the negative space into something substantial. that is, you may not be smart enough to understand, to avoid the wrong questions.
      - derleth 14y ago
        > box == frame of reference == paradigm == system of thought == set of axioms, habits, etc, that fit together into a semi-cohesive whole. Science is the process of changing boxes based on new evidence, without being constrained by preconceptions.
abecedarius 14y ago
I can explain the broad value of probability: Cox's theorem, in theory, and broad use in mathematical sciences, in practice. What makes Foucault comparable? (Honest question from the ignorant. Though I'd be less skeptical if you'd said something like 'postmodern critical theory' instead of a name.)

slurgfest 14y ago

How does one determine whether Foucault's statements are true or not? At any rate, why should I accept them? If the answers to these questions are negative, then in what way can Foucault be put on the same level as the theory of probability, so that it is a shameful thing not to know anything about what Foucault says?

mattgreenrocks 14y ago
See, this is exactly the sentiment that the parent was talking about. And this crops up repeatedly on HN. It seems incredibly presumptuous to go to other fields and demand that they produce answers in the way that you were trained: "philosophy doesn't yield data like hard science, so it's not as important!" Why should they listen to an outsider who doesn't even take the time to learn the field? More to the point, why should one be proud of a reductionistic and truncated worldview?
- DanBC 14y ago
  But how do you tell the difference between something which is important and something which is idle noodling?
  - mattgreenrocks 14y ago
    Subject it to critical thought, like you should be doing with everything else. If it is sound, it will hold up to being logically dissected, and wrestled with in your mind. If we're talking about something that could change one's worldview, then you also need to evaluate whether it resonates with your own belief system. For example, I liked Thus Spoke Zarathrusta's concept of the Ubermensch as a goal for aspiration, but realized I would never want to deify myself as much as Nietzsche espoused.
    - derleth 14y ago
      > you also need to evaluate whether it resonates with your own belief system. The universe has never asked my input into anything before. Why should it care whether any aspect of itself resonates with my belief system? I've seen what happens when people evaluate new ideas based largely on whether they resonate with their belief systems. The world doesn't need any more votes on whether the sea level is rising or whether the human genome is similar to the chimp genome because Jesus. If you question whether this has any relevance to morality, for example, ask yourself why morality shouldn't be evaluated empirically. Might yield better results than channeling a mythologized goatherd.
- derleth 14y ago
  > philosophy doesn't yield data like hard science, so it's not as important! This is deliberately misstating the position, something a philosopher should be acutely aware of and avoid entirely. The problem with philosophy is, where is the falsification? How can a philosophical position be refuted and discredited in the way phlogiston has been?
  - slurgfest 14y ago
Homunculiheaded 14y ago
How does one determine that the value of a discipline is dependent upon the boolean verifiability of it's conclusions? Why should I accept this conclusion? In your very question you assume the existence of an ethical system which distributes values to systems of knowledge and yet that ethical system cannot be verified or tested the way that you demand all meaningful such systems should be. The answer to why Foucault is important is the same as the answer to why you hold a belief system which itself denies it's own value.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  It is curious that Foucault's questioning of other fields cannot be sustained by Foucault himself. If I can't reliably determine that what he says is actually true or applicable to anything then there is no more reason for me to buy into his opinions than those of the Catholic church or the guy next door. Possibly less. I don't have to live with Foucault and I can't hurt his feelings, at any rate.
pradocchia 14y ago
if you could fit foucault into that box, he would no longer be foucault, yes? Just another piece of science. perhaps there is a single box of knowing--explicit, falsifiable knowing--and everything else is noise. this is attractive: learn a set of rules, apply them rigorously, yield knowledge, repeat. clearly productive, many fruits. alternately, perhaps this box is a subset of knowing. it's conceivable. and necessarily, the whole wouldn't follow the same rules as the part. it could be a challenge to leave our box, like learning a foreign language without cognates. i mean, it does all sound like noise, doesn't it? gives me such a headache.
- derleth 14y ago
  > if you could fit foucault into that box, he would no longer be foucault, yes? Just another piece of science. This grossly misunderstands science. If you think science is just everything we can fit in a box you've missed the past few centuries and still think everything is ultimately down to which religious leader has the most followers who haven't died of religion yet. If you demand pithy quotes, here's one: Science is the process by which we gradually learn to stop fooling ourselves about things. Remember, asking why the sun rises in the East was once a moral and philosophical question.
  - pradocchia 14y ago
    > If you think science is just everything we can fit in a box... no, I don't. you misunderstand. willfully? or just hubris? box == frame of reference == paradigm == system of thought == set of axioms, habits, etc, that fit together into a semi-cohesive whole. you may, or course, not be able to perceive the box as a box, and invert the negative space into something substantial. that is, you may not be smart enough to understand, to avoid the wrong questions.
    - derleth 14y ago
      > box == frame of reference == paradigm == system of thought == set of axioms, habits, etc, that fit together into a semi-cohesive whole. Science is the process of changing boxes based on new evidence, without being constrained by preconceptions.

abecedarius 14y ago

I can explain the broad value of probability: Cox's theorem, in theory, and broad use in mathematical sciences, in practice. What makes Foucault comparable? (Honest question from the ignorant. Though I'd be less skeptical if you'd said something like 'postmodern critical theory' instead of a name.)