Social Mode

,

  • Mathematical Inspiration from Mathematicians: An Outer View of the Inner World, Mariana Cook, Princeton University Press, 2009

    “In the past, mathematicians always tried to solve problems exactly. Now we realize that most problems will never have an exact solution. Nonetheless, we can hope to understand the general shape of a solution, and topology gives a language for talking about these shapes. Topology gives a new point of view on all kinds of physical phenomena: the collapse of a bridge that vibrates too much, the tangling of strands of DNA, and so on. But I have to admit that my own interest is based on the joy of understanding shapes rather than on any particular applications.”

    – Burt Totaro, page 64 (a professor I had in college, FWIW)

     

    “As a grad student I had become interested in the annulus conjecture. Saunders Mac Lane advised me that it was a bit hard for a thesis problem (it was), but I thought about it whenever I had an idea. In 1968, while looking after my four-month-old son, an idea occurred to me, now called the “torus trick.” It only took a few days to realize that I had reduced the annulus conjecture to a problem about PL homotopy tori, and in a different direction had proved the local contractibility of the space of homeomorphisms of n-space.”

    – Robion Kirby, page 62

     

    “The imprint of the world in our minds is not photographic; all the brain knows of the outside world is a chaotic sequence of electric impulses and out of these it creates a structural entity: our perception of what we see and hear. Most of the time, an adult’s brain talks to itself and creates more and more refined structures within itself. The word “structure” means a mathematical structure, something which becomes more and more abstract and better and better logically organized in the course of this self-conversation….

    We are all fascinated with structural patterns: periodicity of a music tune, a symmetry of an ornament, self-similarity of computer images of fractals. And the structures already prepared within ourselves are the most fascinating of all. Alas, most of them are hidden from ourselves…. Brains are our masters, with only 2 percent of our body weight, they take 20 percent of the oxygen resources of our bodies; you cannot cannot resist their commands. You become a mathematician, a slave of this insatiable hunger of your brain, of everybody’s brain, for making structures of everything that goes into it.”

    – Mikhael Leonidovich Gromov, page 34

     

    “I often think of cats. I think of trees. I think of dogs occasionally but I don’t think of them all that much because dogs are agreeable. They do what you want them to do to some extent. Some people believe that mathematics is what we think it is and it’s created by our thoughts. I don’t. I’m a Platonist at heart, although I know there are a very great difficulties with that view.”

    – John Horton Conway, page 18

     

    “At the moment, one of the things I’m working on understanding is the total wavelength of a surface like a sphere or something of greater complexity, such as the surface of a bagel or a pretzel. What is the total wavelength? … I first became interested in the total wavelength as a model related to a question which can be roughly stated as, can one hear the shape of the universe?”

    – Kate Abedola Okikiolu, page 98

     

    “For example, the “Ode to Joy” would be 334554321123322 for the right hand, and 332112345543344 for the left, with corresponding digits always adding up to 6. Soon music became a passion itself, on a par with my passion for numbers, though on its own terms.”

    – Noam K Elkies, page 158

     

    “In mathematics, there are not only theorems. There are, what we call, “philosophies” or “yogas,” which remain vague. Sometimes we can guess the flavor of what should be true but cannot make a precise statement. When I want to understand a problem, I first need to have a panorama of what is around it. A philosophy creates a panorama where you can put the things in place and understand that if you can do something here, you can make progress somewhere else. This is how things begin to fit together.”

    – Viscount Pierre Deligne, page 156

     

    ” I prefer to close my eyes when I think about mathematics. The best work is done by night, in half sleep. Sometimes I go to bed thinking, “Ah, I have a nice lemma to prove–or disprove.” (Should I explain what a lemma is? A mountain climber needs holds to get from one level to the next one. Lemmas are the the holds of a mathematician.)”

    – Jean-Pierre Serre, page 144

     

    “How to define the roughness of rusted iron, of broken stone, metal, or glass? What shape is a mountain, a coastline, a river, or a dividing line between two watersheds? That is, can geometry deliver what the word seems to promise, namely, truthful measurements of untamed Earth? How fast does the wind blow during a storm? what shape is a cloud, a flame, or a welding? What is the density of galaxies in the universe? What is the volatility of the prices quoted on financial markets? How to compare and hopefully even measure different writers’ vocabularies?”

    – Benoit Mandlebrot, page 94

    Wondrous Mathematical Thinking

    –––––––

    Jul 14
  • Anyone that has worked with me is tired of me suggested that everyone in business should know how to program.   This thought is met with a variety of rebuttals that have only a slight shred of a validity.

    Everyone programs.  If you get out of bed in the morning and go through any sort of routine (everything is pretty much a routine) you are programming.   This is not semantics. Programming is nothing more than organizing things in such a way that they transform into other things.   Everyday life is programming, it’s just not the uber-formal (re: very restrictive) programming  we think computer programmers do.

    When people reject my statement about everyone programs and should get better at what they are actually rejecting is the specific implementations of computer programming – the syntax, the formalities, the tools, the long hours in front of a headache inducing screen.

    If you speak, write, draw or communicate at all you have learned a set of rules that you apply to various inputs and produce various outputs.   If you work in spreadsheets, at a cash register, with a paint brush, in a lecture haul, in a lab, on a stage, you are programming.   If you make yourself a sandwich, eat it and go for a jog, you are programming.  Everything you do is taking inputs and transforming it into outputs using various rules of a system.   The system is more or less formal, more or less open.

    I don’t see there being any room for dispute on this observation or rather this definition or axiom.

    With that basic assumption as a starting point let me make the case that honing your more formal, strict and, yes, traditional “computer” programming skill is a must do for anyone participating in modern society.  (yes, if you do not participate in modern society and do not wish to do so, you don’t need formal programming skill, but you will always be programming within the universe…)

    Without getting too out there – our lives will never have fewer computers, fewer programs, fewer gadgets, fewer controllers monitoring, regulating, data exposing, recommending, and behaving on our behalf.   Cell phone penetration is near ubiquitous, every car has computers, trains run on computerized schedules, more than 50% of stocks are algorithmically trade, your money is banked electronically, the government spends your taxes electronically and so on.   So in some sense, to not be able to program formally leaves you without any knowledge of how these systems work or miswork.  Some will have the argument that “I don’t need to know how my car works to use it/benefit from it.”   This is true.  But computers and programming are so much more fundamental than your car.   To not be able to program is akin, at this point, to not being able to read or write.   You are 100% dependent on others in the world.  You can function without a working car.

    Before you reject my claim outright consider the idea that learning to program is quite natural and dare I say, easy.   It requires no special knowledge or skill.  It requires only language acquisition skills and concentration which every human i’ve read about or know has these two basic capabilities (before we go on destroying them in college.)

    Why do I make this claim of ease?

    Programming languages and making programs that work rely on a very small language.  Very simple rules.   Very simple syntax.   Frustratingly simple!   The english language (or any spoken language) is so much more ridiculously complicated.

    It does not surprise me that people think it’s hard.  It’s frustrating.  It’s the practice and the simplification of your thoughts into more simple languages and syntax that’s hard.   And so is writing a speech others will understand, or painting a masterpiece, or correctly building a financial accounting book, or pretty doing anything you do for a living that requires someone else to understand and use your output.

    I firmly believe each persons ability to translate their lives into useful programs is a differentiator of those that have freedom and identity and those that do not.  Either you are programming and able to keep watch over the programs you use or you are programmed.

    Sure, companies and people are busy at work making easier and easier tools to “program” but that doesn’t change the fundamental problem.   The programs you layer on top of other programs (web page builder guis to HTML to browser parsers to web servers…) the more chance of transcription problems (miscommunication), unnoticed malicious use and so forth.

    Beyond the issue of freedom it is fun and invigorating to create, to mold your world.  This is the part that’s hard for adults.  Having spent probably from age 10 to whatever age we all are following rules (others programs) and being rewarded (program feedback loops) we all don’t really do a great job molding our world.  Kids are so good at experimenting (playing).   And playing is essential to really great programming.   Programming that will fill you up and make your life better is the kind that generates wonderfully unexpected but useful results.   It’s not always about getting it right or spitting out the answer (though for simple programs that might be the point).  It’s about creating, exploring, and finding connections in this world.

    I can replace the word programmer (and programming) in this post with Artist, Mathematician, Reader, Writer, Actor, etc and it will be essentially the same piece with the same reasoning.   All of these “occupations” and their activities are programming – the only thing that differs are the implementations of language (syntax, medium, tools).

    When people are rejecting my argument that everyone should learn to program, they are rejecting the notion of sitting down in front of a blinking cursor on a screen and having a piece of software say “error”.   Reject that!  I hate that too!  For me, correcting grammar in my posts or emails or journals is as painful! (but it doesn’t prevent me from wanting to write better or write at all, i *need* to to survive and be free!)

    Don’t reject the notion that you shouldn’t be always trying to communicate or understand better – taking inputs from the world and transforming them into useful outputs.  To reject that is essentially rejecting everything.  (and that is now the annoying over-reaching philosophical close!)

    Everyone is a Programmer and Everyone Should Hone Their Programming Skill

    –––––––

    Feb 26
  • If you haven’t read Cory Doctorow’s Makers you should.

    A couple years after reading it I’m reminded of it daily.   The march of technology, culture, business, education towards a future in which large organizations simply can’t withstand the tide of individual creators creating on a small scale and networking upwards.

    creative destruction, as it were, little tiny piece by piece.   all on the backs and hands of people who probably wont make a fortune on these creations.  They will get by enough.

    I don’t know if it turns out that everyone gets what they need and this is the new economy capable of supporting 300+ million people.  It is the new culture.  and maybe we’ll do with less. or we’re have a larger and larger income gap.

    artisans, craftmakers, app developers, youtube stars, self employed…

    then again, we need infrastructure.  roads, info networks, cellular towers.  can a world of makers fully exist on top of a large commercial infrastructure?  the network is the thing and the network is still owned by huge, controlled, controlling organizations.  The pipes and search engines and the social networks, owned by perhaps 10-15 organizations.

    Perhaps the rise of 3d printing will make it so that eventually makers can print the necessary network at a scale that removes the requirement of these big infrastructures.

    Not sure.

    hard to sort out.

    i’m too busy making.

    a world of makers

    –––––––

    Feb 25
  • A friend gave me this problem a couple of weeks ago:

    What is the longest word you can type on the QWERTY keyboard with just your left hand using the proper position?

    I love problems like this.

    Especially because I get to toy around with Mathematica and use features that day to day I may not interact with for biz problems.

    Finding the solution required only a tiny bit of code.

    alpha = “”;
    ourdictionary = “”;
    alphabase = {“q” | “w” | “e” | “r” | “t” | “a” | “s” | “d” | “f” | “g” | “z” | “x” | “c” | “v” | “b”};
    alpha = StringExpression[alpha, alphabase];

    Code

    n = 0;
    dictionarycount = 0;
    ourdictionary = DictionaryLookup[alpha];
    While[n < 20 && Length@ourdictionary > 0,
    ourdictionary = DictionaryLookup[alpha];
    alpha = StringExpression[alpha, alphabase];
    n++;
    If[Length@ourdictionary == 0, Print[{Length@ourdictionary, n – 1}];
    Print[DictionaryLookup[alpha[[;; n – 1]]]]]]

    The Answer(s):

    {“aftereffects”, “desegregated”, “desegregates”, “reverberated”, “reverberates”,”stewardesses”}

    Fun Word Problems!

    –––––––

    Oct 9
  • NYTimes Oped this morning on GDP as a pursuit or measurement of how we’re doing as a country and society is nicely reflective.

    We want to be No. 1 — but why, and at what?

    Yes.  That is a good question.  And “being number 1” is such a useless statement when talking about anything beyond an amateur sporting event.   When we’re considering what we value and how we teach each other and feed each other chasing these numbers is such as wasteful activity.

    I know, we’ve all been taught, if you don’t measure it, you can’t improve it.   I get it.  The measurement thing is fine as long as you question the measurements too and understand that measurements and any model is just a model.

    The articles points out how GDP and other measures aren’t great and how other cultures have stopped focusing on being number 1, etc.  But I think the bigger point is here:

    But in the midst of the Great Depression, Congress, showing a great deal more intellectual curiosity than it does today

    INTELLECTUAL CURIOSITY, as a social value.   We don’t have enough of that.  Our education system, politicians, marketing, media all reflect this.   Perhaps we even have more than we had 200 years ago, but it’s not enough.  Things are more complicated, more connected so we need more than ever.

    And be careful before quoting back to me stats on education and literacy and college enrollment and knowledge worker jobs… what we current measure as Intellectual Curiosity is a very limited view.  I won’t propose a measurement myself and I will say the annoying point that you know it when you know it, and most of my interactions out in the world aren’t full of intellectual curiosity.  The movies, shows, news reports, sound bytes, songs, conversations, etc… how many of these things are pushing you, all of us?  is your knowledge job really about uncovering and sharing knowledge?  is facebook, google, twitter really a utility to spread knowledge? engaging in questions?

    I don’t have the answer.  I do have questions.

    Sounds exactly opposite of our political system.  Might be the problem.

    Pursuit of _________

    –––––––

    Oct 9
  • I rather like this tight piece on the history behind labor day.

    With that in mind, it is worth recalling President Abraham Lincoln’s words during the dark early days of the real Civil War. “Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed,” he told Congress in December 1861. “Labor is the superior of capital and deserves much the higher consideration,”

    Labor Day History Reminder

    –––––––

    Sep 3
  • After a TechCrunch article writer by Sarah Lacy posted August 22, 2011

    A few months ago Sarah Lacy, a TechCrunch.com writerwas giving a talk in her hometown of Memphis, TN, and someone asked what the city could do to ignite more entrepreneurship among inner city kids. Her immediate answer was to teach coding– even basic app building skills– along with English and Math in every public school. She was surprised that her brother– an engineer who worked for many years in Silicon Valley before relocating to the Midwest– didn’t necessarily agree.

    The thing is that while this is a first level issue of who gets the jobs needed in coding – foreign or domestic coders, it occurred to me that we are in the 30th year or so of serious code writing and it has had some unanticipated consequences.  The changes in the world that have been brought about by the Internet and technology have changed what is done by people.  Now, more and more what is done is done by software applied to different technologies.  The world of TechCrunch and other quasi-geek clusters are alive and well due to the prevalence of algorithms.  They are the workers in a mired of different ways today.

    They paint the cars, cut the steel, do the book binding, print the content, answer the phone and a zillion other things that we all used to do.  In a cumulative way the jobs that were are now being done by technology just like was the case when ol’ Ned Lud (see emphatic published accounts for the most favorite spelling…) brought to mythical status between 1779 and 1812 that changes in British textile practices were coming to a screeching halt.

    No, I am not being Luddite here.  I am simply pointing out that, when all the talking heads whine and moan about this political union or that political union not producing jobs for the reconstitution of the economy, they should take note; the jobs in the past that went away aren’t coming back.   Many of them aren’t coming back due to being  long overdue to be absorbed before the downturn and no one – or not many, took notice.

    Instead of asking for someone else to provide jobs, it is time to create jobs based on that uncomfortable situation that we find ourselves in every 70-90 years.  Change has overtaken the status quo.  Now we need to create jobs that machines can’t do – yet.  That is, jobs involving organizing communities, infrastructure, law, education and human-care… for children, for families in transition, for elders and for soldiers who are brought back and deposited on the steps of America.  They were taught how to do what was necessary to what they had to do to survive.  Nowhere is the training they get any better for that purpose.  Now however, they have done that under duress, for double tours, etc. etc. etc.  To be spit out by those that trained them as worn out and disposable civilians with defects without the slightest bit of care on how to survive reestablish domestic values, is despicable.  Software and algorithms can’t pull that off.  We can if we stop waiting for someone else to do something we favor or don’t find dogmatically repugnant.

    HP’s decision to go big and purchase the U.K.’s Autonomy Corp., and probably other players doesn’t seem so ridiculous under a ‘software good – hardware sad’ scenario, does it.

    UN-intended Consequences of software…

    –––––––

    Aug 23
  • Guest Writer Ron Williams again… Attorney, Businessman and Citizen

    It is clear to even the most casual observer that the sole political agenda of the Republican Party is to prevent the reelection of Pres. Barack Obama. It is equally clear that it is the absolute, single-minded focus of the Far Right of the Republican Party to prevent the reelection of a Black Man, any black, as President of the United States.

    Thus, for nearly two years, as the President negotiated health-care with the Republican Party, those negotiations were futile, because no matter what would have been offered by this President the answer from this Republican Party would have been “no”. It is clear that no matter what initiative this President put forward, the Republican Party answer would always have been “no.”

    And today, we see the Republican Party, and in particular the Far Right portion of that party, deciding to attach items on their political agenda to the debt ceiling bill as a means to further weaken the president and as a means to move their political agenda forward. As a political strategy, the move is almost brilliant. They were able to attack Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security (three programs that the Republican Party has been attempting to repeal sent each of them were first adopted) while at the same time further demonstrating the weakness of this President.

    The mistake President Obama continues to make is to attempt to negotiate substantive programs with a group of people whose agenda is not to negotiate on those programs, but to attack the man himself. They will never negotiate to yes until they have used the so-called negotiations to attack the President (demonstrating his weakness) and until they have also gotten what concessions they otherwise wanted.

    I predicted when this whole debt limit “crisis” began that the Republican Party would string this out until the end of July, after they had extracted significant concessions from the President and the Democratic Party, that is they had gotten as much as they could based on the time limit left. I am being somewhat facetious when I suggest that if these negotiations continued much longer, President Obama would eventually have negotiated away the entire Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid programs.

    It is telling that the Republican Party started these negotiations stating that there could be no revenue increasing tax changes that would affect the wealthy. And that exactly where they ended. How can you have negotiations when one side gives up nothing in the other side makes all the concessions? That because their whole purpose of the Republican Party was to use the debt ceiling issue as a means of moving their political agenda forward with demonstrating their basic weakness of President Obama. And the Democratic Party and this President let them.

    What Barack Obama should have said to the first overture from the Far Right that they would not agree to raise the debt ceiling unless there were major cuts to the various social programs, was “no.” He should have simply stated that he would veto any legislation that came across his desk that did anything other than simply raise the debt ceiling. And then stopped negotiating. Whenever they said “well let’s talk about this,” his response should have been “there is nothing to talk about.”

    The President should have said, “I’ve told you my position. Congress, you do what you feel you need to do. If you want to pass legislation that has provisions other than raising the national debt attached to it, do so. I will veto it. And if you choose to then put the full faith and credit of the United States government at risk because you want to attach non-relevant politically motivated subject matter on what should be otherwise routine legislation, do so, but I will not be a party to this game-playing”.

    If he had said that from day one, and then stuck to his guns,, this so-called crisis would’ve gone way. Then should he want to discuss modification of Medicare, Medicaid and/or Social Security that could have been done in conversation along with tax code changes.

    The president has got to learn to stand up. If he doesn’t he will be a one term president. As it is, he is losing his base and maybe a one term president in any event. It may already be too late.

    Sometimes I Think President Barack Obama Is an Idiot

    –––––––

    Aug 10
  • With all the hyped and real charisma that can be mustered concerning a NFL Hall of Fame enshrinement, two of my favorites were inducted last week.   Yes, some of the presentations were better than others but it may be that way based on which player was your favorite person to follow or scorn.   You saw it all on TV.  You were treated to the stories, the emotions, the commitments and sometimes the confessions that came forth.  Almost to a person, each claimed that they were who was now standing in front of that elite group, family, friends and invited quests due to the hardships they experienced and overcame along the way.

    Here are some of the statements from Deion Sanders:

    “I made a pledge to myself.  I don’t care what it takes.  I’m not going to do anything illegal.  But my mama is never going to have to work another day of her life someday.”

    “When you told me what I couldn’t do; when you told me what I didn’t do; when you told me what I’d never be, I saw …”

    There were equally compelling statements by Shannon Sharp and sometimes even poetic descriptions of living in poverty in a leaking cinderblock house in Glennville, Georgia, where his existence was hard, unforgiving and marginalized:

    “I didn’t want my kids to live one hour in the life that I had, let alone a day.  … [I] got them to a life they never would’ve enjoyed had it not been for that” [the costs to his family…]

    No, there was going to be no country cooked raccoon, opossum, squirrel and turtle. He committed then and there that…

    “I’m not gonna have to eat that when I become an adult.”

    And he didn’t.  He committed at an early age that his family would never have a reason to endure that level of despair and poverty.  And they didn’t ever have to.  Both these heroes of mine made millions and provided for mothers, grandmothers, sisters, wives, brothers and friends in ways that made certain those individuals would not have to do what he did… to experience the elevated status that both were now experiencing.

    But the power of consequences of those commitments was lost on their self-congratulation and entitlement.  I was hoping they heard their own voices but the lights were bright and those sitting there on folding chairs may not have sensed their missed opportunity, not of experiencing poverty but of commitment and dedication.

    Each person in the audience that was provided for by these athletes would never know the thrill of victory or the despair from a loss.  No one wants to have that poverty and no one wants their children or family to struggle against all odds.
    They hadn’t been ‘robbed’ by being provided for but in most ways their chance at learning and achieving great success was ‘short-circuited’.    There they were, Deion and Shannon, the pillars of self-reliance and perseverance having learned, struggled, and found success now entitling others to watch rather than start doing early and do what they did to succeed. Not necessarily football but anything…

    Experiencing the consequences of commitment, focus and dedication is what the Hall of Fame members in all sports share.  Deion got the closest to describing the formula for his success by providing the components for “Prime.”  But, the $1500 plane ride to hear someone talk about how they prevailed is transitory and is known to induce a stupor similar to that of being stoned.

    It was how Deion and Shannon handled the consequences of their struggles, their focus and their perseverance that got them there and nothing else.  It is what they did…  It would have been nice to know both understood that and to hear them say it loud so the fans that idolize them could hear it clearly that nothing is free and everything each of us values comes with a price.     Maybe next year.

    http://theurbandaily.com/sports-news/theurbandailystaff1/deion-sanders-nfl-hall-of-fame-speech-video/

    Follow the Consequences: NFL Hall of Fame Enshrinement 2011

    –––––––

    Aug 9
  • Dr. Tim Maudin posits in his “BIGTHINK.COM” article, that there is not much procedural difference between how one arrives at philosophical axioms for life and scientific ones.

    However, let’s not wax Pollyannaic to the gods of ‘blog’; there are major processes that are different.   The philosophical axioms of life that one distills along the way are private and not amiable to testing or any type of validation or falsification.  That’s good for the individual according to those that traffic in concepts, metaphors, mysticism and similes, but it is not so relatively good for the species and the universe.  Those philosophical interpretations, rules, axioms and beliefs die with the owner.

    Scientific ones may have, but don’t necessarily have, a similar etiology.   But scientific content is converted from private to public by the bridging of communication that can be scanned for a value proposition by anyone exposed who is attending to it and, in so doing, gets to tests the content in their reality as well as the public reality that science serves.

    Our belief frame out behavior and when those beliefs don’t have any course correction available they can lead to good and less good consequences for the owner and the community that owner inhabits.  We all are stuck with some very outdated concepts; mostly tied to the Judeo-Christian-Newtonian World view, as some have pointed out responding to philosopher Maudlin’s article. No attempt or clue is offered how we all have these albatross’ of folk science, folk psychology and folk folklore and that, for some, make this Dr. Maudin’s video an opinion piece rather than an information piece.

    What is unbounded is the need for explanation of relationships in ways that are general or conditional.  Private or covert neural patterns that equal what we call “cognitive” is not been a productive place to look to find out what the heck is going on in the world.  It is unbounded because of the complexity.   Staring at our belly button is one relationship that, while interesting to many philosophically, medically or technically, is not particularly relevant scientifically other than how it fits into existing context of those who value understanding a broader set of relationships. A scientific “explanatory crisis” is critical only because there is so much to do and behavior is complex. The philosophical procedures that have been around for 2500 years have left us wondering and wanting.  Scientific approaches have provided the Gore-Tex to suit the astronauts on the moon, if you get the difference in meaning. The differences are literally mind boggling because we’ve spent so much time in the ‘mind’ idiom that is marginal if not, blatantly unfruitful.  Current philosophical journals and entries validate this one-liner’s contributions to “our ordinary life”.

    in starts and sputters science handles the changes in content understanding.  Philosophical approaches hang on using the metaphors and mysticism that was oh, so trendy in 1200 BC (interesting way to reference, ah!?). Thus, we have a similar explanatory crisis in our individual daily lives right now.  It could be called a dichotomy between those that ‘Get it” and those that “Don’t Get it” concerning myth, gods, premonitions, intuitions, feelings, motivations and the private axioms we treat as real (reification).  These reified concepts keep us ginned up recycling tattered messages rather than focused on the infinite simple relationships that make up the complex relationships that contribute to figuring out what the heck is going on out there.  Many people just gave up, are giving up, to become atheists, agnostics or vaccumists musing the antics of the “–isms” which are the stock and trade of philosophy as well.  But the quest to make sense of things is valuable and will find a course it finds rather than one based on ‘should-ought,’ or truth, beauty, right, wrong, etc., ad nauseum.

    It is ironical that those that want to disagree with this piece are right now looking for a scientific-looking way to frame their Judeo-Christian-Newtonian folklore arguments to make them so strong that it will launch their careers… as philosophers.   Lol.

    1. Thursday, June 23, 2011; http://bigthink.com/ideas/24170

    Philosophically – NOT so BIGTHINK

    –––––––

    Jun 23
Previous Page Next Page

Blog at WordPress.com.

 

Loading Comments...
 

    • Subscribe Subscribed
      • Social Mode
      • Join 99 other subscribers
      • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
      • Social Mode
      • Subscribe Subscribed
      • Sign up
      • Log in
      • Report this content
      • View site in Reader
      • Manage subscriptions
      • Collapse this bar