3 ms·

Only sloppy-minded Continental philosophers would typically discard the distinction of accurate vs inaccurate. (Though there may certainly still be a large spac

Only sloppy-minded Continental philosophers would typically discard the distinction of accurate vs inaccurate. (Though there may certainly still be a large space for variation within images of equal accuracy. If this were not the case, then one might plausibly argue that there is no art in making accurate photographs.) As this book would seem to be written in the more clear-headed Analytic tradition, I am guessing, if anything, it bears light on this distinction, rather than attempting to merely subvert it. If you fall into the Continental camp of thought, then that explains why you are so hard to pin down. Continental thought is rife with meaningless hot air. Here's piece of evidence for that assertion, just in case you doubt it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair If you do fall into the Continental camp, you surely are not to blame. I blame society. On the other hand, it's never too late to replan your route to a saner road.

001sky 14y ago
Try: Nietzsche. I think he lights fire to this debate pretty well. The issue at hand is about perspectivism, not relativism. And not Nihilism. All of that is boring. Like Continental philosophy. Also, Like Nietzche, I don't always write to be understood, at least noy just by just anyone. You may need to do some work or have some training. But to those that know, it will make sense. As a sidebar example: accurate/innacurate. Think about this at the pixel level. It already is innacurate (its a square). Or with Jpeg compression, its also deleting information and replacing it (less accurate--like areas of information are simplified). And then, at another leve of abstraction consider something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking. You should read this, but the tl;dr is I can make an image "sharp" by ~blurring it. So, is that "more accurate" (can see it clear) or less accrurate (its more blurry?). I've just lost data. But I gained contrast. Wait, what? So, there is a problem in continuing the discussion at this level without alot more work. Its a practical problem as well. One just need different mental frameworks to progress. Its just that simple. At the end, only then, can you come back and have a better understanding of "accurate" etc. But don't take my word for it -- that book is really good--and touches on all of this. And it is Rigorous. He's an Oxford man. Etc. Of course, there is a reason it is a book and not a Hacker News Thread. =D

001sky 14y ago

Try: Nietzsche. I think he lights fire to this debate pretty well. The issue at hand is about perspectivism, not relativism. And not Nihilism. All of that is boring. Like Continental philosophy. Also, Like Nietzche, I don't always write to be understood, at least noy just by just anyone. You may need to do some work or have some training. But to those that know, it will make sense. As a sidebar example: accurate/innacurate. Think about this at the pixel level. It already is innacurate (its a square). Or with Jpeg compression, its also deleting information and replacing it (less accurate--like areas of information are simplified). And then, at another leve of abstraction consider something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_masking. You should read this, but the tl;dr is I can make an image "sharp" by ~blurring it. So, is that "more accurate" (can see it clear) or less accrurate (its more blurry?). I've just lost data. But I gained contrast. Wait, what? So, there is a problem in continuing the discussion at this level without alot more work. Its a practical problem as well. One just need different mental frameworks to progress. Its just that simple. At the end, only then, can you come back and have a better understanding of "accurate" etc. But don't take my word for it -- that book is really good--and touches on all of this. And it is Rigorous. He's an Oxford man. Etc. Of course, there is a reason it is a book and not a Hacker News Thread. =D