Just finished Huxley and am almost done with Marx and Engels. Anyone want to recommend anything? I prefer philosophy, antiquities, or just any old classic.
(Going to assume most people know the general synopses of these books...if not I'll be happy to reply)
I posted this a few posts up, but I'll directly recommend it to you because it is based in a philosophical question. It's very heavy on the science aspect, but in my opinion that only adds value to the philosophy behind the question.
"A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss
Krauss and Dawkins..yum.
Meh, in my eyes that book turned out to be more of an embarrassment to both of them than anything, particularly as a philosophy recommendation since they gravely misunderstand philosophy/don't actually address the philosophical question and then Krauss went on to disparage philosophy in a juvenile way when he couldn't handle valid criticism.
Anyway I've picked up Gravity's Rainbow by Pynchon, but it's pretty intimidating, this might be like a year long trek with asides to read other things in the middle.
Yeah, Krauss responded like a child to this totally spot on review by David Albert:
Just finished Huxley and am almost done with Marx and Engels. Anyone want to recommend anything? I prefer philosophy, antiquities, or just any old classic.
(Going to assume most people know the general synopses of these books...if not I'll be happy to reply)
I posted this a few posts up, but I'll directly recommend it to you because it is based in a philosophical question. It's very heavy on the science aspect, but in my opinion that only adds value to the philosophy behind the question.
"A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss
Krauss and Dawkins..yum.
Meh, in my eyes that book turned out to be more of an embarrassment to both of them than anything, particularly as a philosophy recommendation since they gravely misunderstand philosophy/don't actually address the philosophical question and then Krauss went on to disparage philosophy in a juvenile way when he couldn't handle valid criticism.
Anyway I've picked up Gravity's Rainbow by Pynchon, but it's pretty intimidating, this might be like a year long trek with asides to read other things in the middle.
Yeah, Krauss responded like a child to this totally spot on review by David Albert:
Gravity's Rainbow is probably my favorite book. Enjoy.
I, too, am a huge fan of Gravity's Rainbow; I've read it through three times, and am planning on a fourth soon. If you have any questions or just wanna discuss the work, ZapRoffo, feel free to send me a PM. I've gotta put these English major skills to work somehow
Just finished Huxley and am almost done with Marx and Engels. Anyone want to recommend anything? I prefer philosophy, antiquities, or just any old classic.
(Going to assume most people know the general synopses of these books...if not I'll be happy to reply)
I posted this a few posts up, but I'll directly recommend it to you because it is based in a philosophical question. It's very heavy on the science aspect, but in my opinion that only adds value to the philosophy behind the question.
"A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss
Krauss and Dawkins..yum.
Meh, in my eyes that book turned out to be more of an embarrassment to both of them than anything, particularly as a philosophy recommendation since they gravely misunderstand philosophy/don't actually address the philosophical question and then Krauss went on to disparage philosophy in a juvenile way when he couldn't handle valid criticism.
Anyway I've picked up Gravity's Rainbow by Pynchon, but it's pretty intimidating, this might be like a year long trek with asides to read other things in the middle.
Agreed. I don't really respect either man's capacity for philosophy, but I like them because I'm a fan of scientists.
Just finished Huxley and am almost done with Marx and Engels. Anyone want to recommend anything? I prefer philosophy, antiquities, or just any old classic.
(Going to assume most people know the general synopses of these books...if not I'll be happy to reply)
I posted this a few posts up, but I'll directly recommend it to you because it is based in a philosophical question. It's very heavy on the science aspect, but in my opinion that only adds value to the philosophy behind the question.
"A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss
Krauss and Dawkins..yum.
Meh, in my eyes that book turned out to be more of an embarrassment to both of them than anything, particularly as a philosophy recommendation since they gravely misunderstand philosophy/don't actually address the philosophical question and then Krauss went on to disparage philosophy in a juvenile way when he couldn't handle valid criticism.
Anyway I've picked up Gravity's Rainbow by Pynchon, but it's pretty intimidating, this might be like a year long trek with asides to read other things in the middle.
Agreed. I don't really respect either man's capacity for philosophy, but I like them because I'm a fan of scientists.
I've started to sort of hate scientists nowadays actually, heh, and the stuff around this book is one example of the attitude I don't like. I'm generalizing grossly throughout this post, I know, but as a group they just seem too high on science, especially like "hard" science disciplines. It's like the ego of science overall or something, overstepping its bounds, which is what leads to things like Krauss defenders on this saying that philosophy of science is useless because it doesn't discover things about the world--and that's why only science is useful. It's an obnoxious and limited viewpoint, and it seems like a lot of the real science people I encounter have that outlook.
Also disparaging things disciplines like social sciences or sociology of science--an example of something that puts science in context--I see a lot, and it's annoying. Among academics, the scientists seem to have least perspective about where they fit, and the most megalomania. I attribute a little to having a taste of victory and the finish line in the battle with theology for mainstream understanding/control of the direction of society.
But what it almost reminds me of is the rise of the revolutionaries in Russia or especially the pre-revolutionary materialists like Chernyshevsky (who very strongly influenced Lenin/the revolution), as they basically worshiped scientific progress as the one true good in the world that would lead to something like a utopian society. It's a view that lacks in the human dimension, and I feel like what eventually came about in the Soviet Union reflected that. Dostoevsky ingeniously, artfully and totally rips it apart in maybe my favorite novel ever, Notes from Underground, to bring this back to literature .
I'm not saying we try to apply science now like they did, but the lack of perspective on science I see from a lot of modern scientists/followers is reminiscent and maddening.
Just finished Huxley and am almost done with Marx and Engels. Anyone want to recommend anything? I prefer philosophy, antiquities, or just any old classic.
(Going to assume most people know the general synopses of these books...if not I'll be happy to reply)
I posted this a few posts up, but I'll directly recommend it to you because it is based in a philosophical question. It's very heavy on the science aspect, but in my opinion that only adds value to the philosophy behind the question.
"A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss
Krauss and Dawkins..yum.
Meh, in my eyes that book turned out to be more of an embarrassment to both of them than anything, particularly as a philosophy recommendation since they gravely misunderstand philosophy/don't actually address the philosophical question and then Krauss went on to disparage philosophy in a juvenile way when he couldn't handle valid criticism.
Anyway I've picked up Gravity's Rainbow by Pynchon, but it's pretty intimidating, this might be like a year long trek with asides to read other things in the middle.
Agreed. I don't really respect either man's capacity for philosophy, but I like them because I'm a fan of scientists.
I've started to sort of hate scientists nowadays actually, heh, and the stuff around this book is one example of the attitude I don't like. I'm generalizing grossly throughout this post, I know, but as a group they just seem too high on science, especially like "hard" science disciplines. It's like the ego of science overall or something, overstepping its bounds, which is what leads to things like Krauss defenders on this saying that philosophy of science is useless because it doesn't discover things about the world--and that's why only science is useful. It's an obnoxious and limited viewpoint, and it seems like a lot of the real science people I encounter have that outlook.
Also disparaging things disciplines like social sciences or sociology of science--an example of something that puts science in context--I see a lot, and it's annoying. Among academics, the scientists seem to have least perspective about where they fit, and the most megalomania. I attribute a little to having a taste of victory and the finish line in the battle with theology for mainstream understanding/control of the direction of society.
But what it almost reminds me of is the rise of the revolutionaries in Russia or especially the pre-revolutionary materialists like Chernyshevsky (who very strongly influenced Lenin/the revolution), as they basically worshiped scientific progress as the one true good in the world that would lead to something like a utopian society. It's a view that lacks in the human dimension, and I feel like what eventually came about in the Soviet Union reflected that. Dostoevsky ingeniously, artfully and totally rips it apart in maybe my favorite novel ever, Notes from Underground, to bring this back to literature .
I'm not saying we try to apply science now like they did, but the lack of perspective on science I see from a lot of modern scientists/followers is reminiscent and maddening.
This goes too far, I think. I know plenty of scientists who are perfectly aware that science doesn't have every answer and who respect disciplines that answer non-scientific questions. I also know plenty of non-scientists who have far too little respect for science and who don't care as much as they should when their own work conflicts with what we've come to know through science.
There doesn't seem to be any important sociological trend of scientists being narrow-minded assholes, just a few idiots given a podium.
Heh I had that rant in me for a while, it had to get out somehow. I'm not really saying most scientists are like that, I knew I was using generalizing terms, but they are out there and they have an influential voice (and get tons of defenders in things like blog comments among the educated, and this following is actually what rubs me the wrong way). And I feel like the people who are giving it too little respect actually lack in real influence to academia and thinking and usually don't have that big of an educated following (though their influence in politics and business is alarming).
Haven't gotten far in Gravity's Rainbow yet, I've ended up talking more about Anna Karenina recently since that movie's coming out soon. My dad's reading it for the first time and keeps commenting on it.
philosophy of science isn't that spotless imo. it's got a lot of confused arguments (realist v antirealist is particularly aggravating) going around. while i do think it can provide guidance to philosophically caused divisions within science itself, it's not styled that way yet.
if you think philosophy of science is bad, you should try talking to some "science studies" folks some time
edit: went to go visit a school where a full professor with an interest in science studies, I kid you not, did not understand the difference between "theorem" and "theory"
On November 17 2012 09:35 oneofthem wrote: philosophy of science isn't that spotless imo. it's got a lot of confused arguments (realist v antirealist is particularly aggravating) going around. while i do think it can provide guidance to philosophically caused divisions within science itself, it's not styled that way yet.
There are philosophers of science and then there are philosophers of a science. The dispute referred to above was between Krauss and Albert, who is a philosopher of Physics but not of science generally.
On November 17 2012 09:41 sam!zdat wrote: if you think philosophy of science is bad, you should try talking to some "science studies" folks some time
"If x you should try talking to some 'science studies' folks some time"
it's an infestation. all I know is that one of these days I'm going to end up having to read a book by bruno latour and I'm extremely unhappy about that
On November 17 2012 09:57 sam!zdat wrote: it's an infestation. all I know is that one of these days I'm going to end up having to read a book by bruno latour and I'm extremely unhappy about that
Lucky for me, that day is in my past. Never again.
On November 17 2012 09:35 oneofthem wrote: philosophy of science isn't that spotless imo. it's got a lot of confused arguments (realist v antirealist is particularly aggravating) going around. while i do think it can provide guidance to philosophically caused divisions within science itself, it's not styled that way yet.
I don't see how philosophy of science as a broad entity has to have every argument be spotless and well formed to have it be applied usefully in some places (it doesn't try to do what science does, consistently explain things, apply generally, etc.) As long as it well-reasonedly talks on some some issues, I don't see why it's below consideration.
On November 17 2012 10:56 Grantalf wrote: I've been going through Hugo award-winning books (I think they've all won).
So far my list is:
Starship Troopers Ender's Game Stranger in a Strange Land The Hyperion Contos (Book 1 is definitely one of the best books I've ever read!!!!)
check out A Canticle for Leibowitz, The Man in the High Castle, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, Babel-17, Stand on Zanzibar, The Left Hand of Darkness, Bug Jack Barron, The Dispossessed, Shadrach in the Furnace, Gateway, Neuromancer, Red Mars, the Diamond Age, American Gods, Perdido Street Station, Accelerando, Rainbow's End, and The Dervish House...
nice selection of the best hugo award has to offer, beyond what you've read
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/62/BraveNewWorld_FirstEdition.jpg/200px-BraveNewWorld_FirstEdition.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_PunlxVHoX4/UDHXuktLDeI/AAAAAAAAEzg/h6BpKRoBVco/s1600/29eb3_communist-manifesto-cover1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.paranormalpeopleonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/6a00d8341c562c53ef0168e4edebee970c-320wi.jpg)
. ![[image loading]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OrW5Uw4NkCE/TVfxx49xTpI/AAAAAAAAAZY/8GE9KWo5D0I/s1600/The-Quantum-Thief-US.jpg)
