4 ms·

The article totally lost me when the author called Godel's incompleteness theorem a "cheap trick" used to "frighten mathematicians". That comment makes it clear

by lbarrow 13y ago

The article totally lost me when the author called Godel's incompleteness theorem a "cheap trick" used to "frighten mathematicians". That comment makes it clear that despite his claims to the contrary, the author is very comfortable dismissing ideas that he does not understand. For this reason, I can't really trust the rest of the article.

candeira 13y ago
I'm fairly sure that was a joke.
- sramsay 13y ago
  I'm not convinced of that at all. "One or two volumes is all it takes, since it's all pretty much the same." Ah, so much time wasted on my English Ph.D. (studying under Richard Rorty, at one point, starting the year before this was written). Could have just read Culler (which, actually, I did), instead of the entire tradition of continental philosophy going back to Kant. I've also read Gödel, by the way. But really, that was all I had to do -- mathematics is all the same shit anyway. I'm an English professor who occasionally teaches in the CS department. I am fully capable of detailing the absurdities in computer science (as well as great virtues). Forgive the vent (which isn't directed at you); the article irritated the hell out of me. I have to say I expected a lot of "Yeah, literary study is garbage" in this thread. I was pleasantly surprised to see so much thoughtful engagement.
  - igravious 13y ago
    Studied under Rorty? Ooh, do tell. Funny thing, there is no way an average English Lit. major could tell if your average research-level maths paper is nonsense or not because it would take, you know, six years or more to get up to speed. Why it is that science and engineering types think that all they need to do is read a couple of primers and they're good to go is beyond me. I think it speaks to the arrogance and elitism of the scientific method as The One True Path To Truth. I'll tell you the truth about truth. How long you got? Vent more I say, this crap has real-world consequences -- humanities budgets are under fire. Whole flippin philosophy departments are being closed down because, you know, who needs philosophy anyway. Grumble grumble.

by lbarrow 13y ago

candeira 13y ago

I'm fairly sure that was a joke.

sramsay 13y ago
I'm not convinced of that at all. "One or two volumes is all it takes, since it's all pretty much the same." Ah, so much time wasted on my English Ph.D. (studying under Richard Rorty, at one point, starting the year before this was written). Could have just read Culler (which, actually, I did), instead of the entire tradition of continental philosophy going back to Kant. I've also read Gödel, by the way. But really, that was all I had to do -- mathematics is all the same shit anyway. I'm an English professor who occasionally teaches in the CS department. I am fully capable of detailing the absurdities in computer science (as well as great virtues). Forgive the vent (which isn't directed at you); the article irritated the hell out of me. I have to say I expected a lot of "Yeah, literary study is garbage" in this thread. I was pleasantly surprised to see so much thoughtful engagement.
- igravious 13y ago
  Studied under Rorty? Ooh, do tell. Funny thing, there is no way an average English Lit. major could tell if your average research-level maths paper is nonsense or not because it would take, you know, six years or more to get up to speed. Why it is that science and engineering types think that all they need to do is read a couple of primers and they're good to go is beyond me. I think it speaks to the arrogance and elitism of the scientific method as The One True Path To Truth. I'll tell you the truth about truth. How long you got? Vent more I say, this crap has real-world consequences -- humanities budgets are under fire. Whole flippin philosophy departments are being closed down because, you know, who needs philosophy anyway. Grumble grumble.