quus

8 ms·

1.
by quus 2y ago
yeah, I wish we could be more specific here. Like I appreciate the things you’re saying, and I don’t doubt the truth or sincerity of that opinion — but I feel like I’ve encountered some math PhD students who were surprisingly inflexible in
2.
by quus 2y ago
Great, so what are those benefits all the way up?
3.
by quus 2y ago
You’re sort of making my point — there are people out there who think math education sets the mind free and opens the gates of higher cognition, and then others talking about hum drum stuff like tax brackets and compound interest. If the be
4.
by quus 2y ago
My claim isn’t really that there’s no benefit or utility to math — that’s obviously false — but that maybe its benefits to regular people are more modest than the cheerleaders want to admit.
5.
by quus 2y ago
Math doesn’t seem to me the only source of thinking clearly, or learning how to learn, etc. And if I’m searching for an aesthetic high, there are definitely better places to look — and ones that don’t require such a long runway.
6.
by quus 2y ago
I’m actually interested in the “can benefit from” claim in this title. I don’t particularly doubt that most people could become reasonably good at math, but I wonder how much of the juice is worth the squeeze, and how juicy it is on the sca
7.
by quus 2y ago
a post which will spawn many bad takes on philosophy in the comments section by tech workers who barely know the subject but believe they are experts
8.
by quus 2y ago
lol bro, I can’t imagine thinking that Wittgenstein is obfuscation. If anything that guy’s entire life was dedicated to de-obfuscation through logical analysis. Probably you don’t understand cause you casually picked up the Tractatus or Inv
9.
by quus 2y ago
This is not accurate. Ethics is very well-studied in analytic philosophy, and discussion of Plato and Kant are central topics.
10.
by quus 3y ago
> The reason might be that philosophy is actually practically mostly irrelevant. I have not seen one undisputed statement of philosophy. And so it can neither test its statements, nor let others see their validity. This is the core confu
11.
by quus 3y ago
sounds like you don’t know what philosophy is and why it’s dope, so rather than me try to explain in a comment on hackernews, I would say try reading Plato
12.
by quus 3y ago
I’m not sure what your professor writing some book with a vague title is meant to show. Am I supposed to google this to find the thesis? Yes, there is a sub area called philosophy of science, and many people in that area are trained in phil
13.
by quus 3y ago
Im a grad student in philosophy, and this one unfortunately risks perpetuating the annoying myth that philosophers are somehow in competition with the natural sciences — usually believed by people who have literally never taken any courses
14.
by quus 5y ago
I did not know “strafe” which I guess a lot of guys do? “Gauss” I just thought of the mathematician; forgot it was a science thing. I’m not at all sure what to make of where “shemale” ranks
15.
by quus 5y ago
Maybe, but it doesn’t seem like a requirement. Like having an understanding of jazz at the level of music theory vs being a jazz musician.
16.
by quus 5y ago
They talked about this on an episode of Very Bad Wizards
17.
by quus 6y ago
Reminds me of https://telegra.ph/