Saturday, June 30, 2012
Chill, please
Hi. I do this blog for fun. I do not have time to manage it. So it needs to remain something that does not require management. If you'd like to bitch about other blogs, ok. But I don't think we need to get into bitching about particular individuals. And we don't need to use proper names. Go to the blogs you don't like and trash the proprietors there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
145 comments:
Our backbiting discipline comes with a substantial opportunity cost.
Doctors and dentists will often tell patients that they will not comment on the work of other doctors. A patient under a physician’s care who seeks a second opinion from a new doctor may be informed that she must end her current course of treatment before the new doctor can propose an alternative. Or the new doctor may inform the patient about treatment options and decline to pass judgment on the current course of treatment. Generally speaking, not commenting on the work of other physicians is normative.
The conclusion is that not commenting on the work of other philosophers is the only professional attitude to take.
Closing ranks is a necessary but not sufficient condition for philosophers to earn a living wage. Educators are rarely compensated, nevertheless it is considered bad form to comment on other teachers or professors, especially to students.
Philosophers should close ranks if they want their compensation to begin to approach that of physicians and other professionals.
No proper names? Are definite descriptions ok?
I don't understand 1:48. I am currently writing a book review. How do I do this if I am not supposed to comment on their work?
In the case of teaching I understand that it is bad form to say negative things about other teachers. But quite often I will comment on other teachers and professors when I am recommending their classes or work to students.
2:05, is this another NDPR review?
2:08, are you Simon Critchley?
Once ranks are closed, the 'chat and cut' further increases compensation for a professional philosopher. Why? University administrators prefer those at the front.
I'm a little confused. Wasn't the point of the earlier NDPR blog post to trash the author of the review (and by extension NDPR)? Is there a substantive difference in trashing bloggers (and by extension the blog itself)?
I agree with Spiros on this one. Entre nous sniping about people is commonplace enough, but when the nous is everyone with a computer, then we start encroaching on not just gossipy incivility, but libel. The blog may be anonymous; IPs are not.
Well, yeah, but 3:21 has a good point. Anybody have an answer?
Someone misbehaved on the internet? On a non-moderated blog? Shocking.
Moderate your blog, or STFU. Because honestly, this is far more interesting than your updates on who died or rants about music you don't like.
but when the nous is everyone with a computer, then we start encroaching on not just gossipy incivility, but libel.
I suppose we could reach the point of libel, but nothing that's been said in the "break" post, or the one complaining about the silly review in the NDPR, is even close to a plausible instance of libel. Saying that so-and-so is a jerk, or that whoever is pompous, or that person X is a bad philosopher who writes nonsense, isn't liable, and isn't close to it, at least not in any country with decent laws.
Perhaps the "Ghent enforcer" threatened Spiros? Frankly, I'm surprised New APPS has not posted something about this along with an update concerning Brazilian music.
It is unfortunate that New APPS hasn't escalated this publicly. The stakes are tremendous. For even if the received opinion of the Centre for Spirosiana be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested by New APPS, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.
3:21, nothing to be confused about. spiros doesn't give a damn about the author of the NDPR review but doesn't want to piss off his illustrious colleagues at the blog that cannot be named.
"Go to the blogs you don't like and trash the proprietors there."
Do you really think one can do that at NewAPPS? I've seen people run out of town for much less.
The problem with philosophy is that its full of overgrown junior-highschool boys.
You people really need to grow up.
You ruin the profession for the rest of us.
8:41, was that a parody of NewAPPS or are you one of them?
I am 8:41.
I did not intend for it to be a parody. I concede, however, that the post itself can now be considered a parody.
Both sides of this cyber-conflict have been immobilized in their armchairs by the threat of Mutually Assured Deconstruction.
9:29=troll bait
7:42,
Ohhhhh, that is perfect.
This is the first time I've read PhilAnon while drunk. I finally get it. The fog lifts, the veil falls away.
This message brought to you by the Center for Mister Señor Love Daddyania.
Sooo, without getting anyone in trouble with whomever, may I ask exactly what it is about NewApps that people are complaining? (I'm not a big fan, but I just don't usually find much there that interests me.)
@ 10:18
Just swung by here after watching porn. Haven't read the other comments, but are you by chance drinking absinthe?
Nudechaps is about the inner sanctum. Not that as commentator? Then you're interregnum.
Sports, you might want to thunk about what you're doing to encourage the juvenile behavior. You might be an old cranky jerk, but your fanbase seems to be 14 year old assholes.
Verification: Orkpubs. Yes, but orcs have more social graces.
That's it! I'm going over to News Apps to trash Spiros!
So: which one of you anonymous jerks is Caiden Cowger?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/23/bill-maher-slams-gop-you-act-like-14-year-old-boys_n_1621182.html
@ 6:25
We are are the assholes and NewApps are the 14 year-olds. Now, let's get back to CTS's question.
Exhibit A:
http://www.newappsblog.com/2011/04/what-is-at-stake-in-the-synthese-brouhaha.html?cid=6a00d8341ef41d53ef014e87f67d41970d#comment-6a00d8341ef41d53ef014e87f67d41970d
Regardless of whether you like Plantinga (I assume all of us do not), the comments section of this post may contain content that provides a substantive reponse to CTS.
Thanks, 12:09. I'll go take a look. But, you know, I still wish someone would articulate a complaint/criticism - in case my surmise from the comments on NA is not what you all have in mind.
Ok, so I gather some think the commenters (and the OP that 12:09 kindly sent me to) are unfair to Plantinga - or, doctrinaire atheist/leftist/something?
Is the idea that NA generally is unfair and/or docrtinaire X?
Generally unfair. That is, if you don't tow the party line.
I was under the impression that what people found objectionable was the tone of many of the posts there. I thought that some people might find their tone self-important or pretentious. I've not read enough of that blog to say that I find anything wrong with the tone myself, but I can see how someone might get that impression.
CTS,
Their (1) unfairness and (2) doctrinaire leftism probably are related. (1) is (at least in their case) a consequence of (2). They are leftist, continental and feminist. Even the analytic ones (no proper names).
What 12:09 referenced is nothing compared to some of the newapps crap surrounding the 'Hendricks Affair'. Talk about towing the party line... sheesh
Which Hendricks affair? Hendricks doing the bidding of ID proponents and trashing the contents of his own journal in the process? Or Hendricks posing with cheerleaders?
The latter (i.e. the one that really DIDN'T matter).
L'Affaire Hendricks didn't matter? But I read about it on New APPS!
Best (worst?) part is how the same righteously outraged philosophers regularly link to and praise music and music videos by popular artists that dehumanize, disrespect and objectify women far more than VH’s silly photos. Vomit vomit vomit.
10:07, this point needs to be expressed on a billboard somewhere. I'll pay for it. The best part of the sexist discussion concerning this matter, was that people started reading into it like literary theorists (academic scam artists?) reading into Shakespeare. To be fair, NewApps was not alone in this.
I believe someone mentioned on a different PA thread how surprising it was to see otherwise objective, rational academics throw critical thinking to the sideline on related issues.
Personally what I can't bear is the combination of navel-gazing narcissism, arrogance, self-righteousness, pompousness, superficial celebrity-style politics and intolerance to any kind of dissent.
The fact that one of them thought it was a good idea to run a "most-underrated philosopher of the week" series in which he picked a number of colleagues who he thought were "underrated" gives you an idea of the kind of thoughtlessness, arrogance, and self-importance that irks a lot of people.
I know. I totally can't stand all those crazy feminists on nudechaps. I'm so glad I found this blog, and I can't wait to study philosophy in college, especially Nietschee. I'm gonna tell all my friends about you guys. You rock, and say cool shit.
11:21, you are clearly a greenhorn. Don't you know that we need to overcome the analytic-continental divide?
Careful fellow cranks, 11:21=troll bait. I should say, though, that 11:21's post has a redemptive feature in that it contains nudechaps.
troll 11:21 is trying to make it sound as if those who don't like New APPS have a problem with "feminism", but that's not necessarily the case. I for one consider myself a feminist but I hate New APPS and find their gender analysis extremely shallow. I know that many other feminists who agree with my assessment.
We're all state philosopher-apologists. PA:NA::Democrat:Republican is the apt analogy.
As far as I can see New APPS is the only place trying to keep the analytic/continental distinction alive!
Holy Mama.
I think I am beginning to get a sense of what folks find objectionable - and I have sometimes thought some of the posts/comments over there were very very intolerant of dissent, as 10:33 notes.
At this point, I guess my question is "Why such hostility?" There are any number of phil blogs out thee, now; why is NA such a target, here?
P.S. I actually did think the Hendricks 'ad' was a real issue, even if some folks got a bit overwrought about it.
@Anon 10:29:
I admit I do not read the music/art posts. I have genuine if not 'serious' interests in both music and art, but I did not find the intial NA posts I read on those topics worthwhile (not when there is SO much good stuff to read).
Gee, I would love an 'edit' feature. :-)
there is too much religious shit on there for me but that goes along nicely with the self-important and intolerant nature of the blog one might say...
Hey I miss Spiros's anti-religious posts!
Why it's a good day: someone appreciated my "nudechaps" rebrand.
Why it's a bad day: the phrase is "toe the line", as in keeping to a line of demarcation and not crossing it, not "towing" it out to "see".
Why it's a worse day: split my tooth on a freaking ham sandwich, for which my "Cadillac" Wisconsin funded health-care will pay $160 out of $4000.
CTS,
10:33 here. My answer to your "Why such hostility?" question is simply: "Because they are by far the worst offenders (with Leiter possibly a very very distant second but at least he was there first and he provides a useful service to the profession)".
(BTW I agree with you on the Hendricks affair but the campaign to get Hendricks to take down its pictures was started by Feminist Philosophers; the people at New APPS only jumped on the bandwagon after Hendricks had already removed the pics from his website)
@10:33,
Point taken about literary theorists, but there *is* really all that amazing shit in Shakespeare, whereas the Hendricks affair wasn't, so far as I could tell, even an affair. Gotz to give props to the Bard, is all Im sayin.
Wait, we still like the Smoker, right?
"Wait, we still like the Smoker, right?"
It's hard to get offended by one post a month.
love nudechapps!
I don't know what nudechaps is, exactly. There seemed to be several possible links, according to Google, each unsavory in its own way.
This thread is truly crazy-awesome. I'd like to buy a drink for the person that coined the term 'nudechaps.'
Have I got this right?
People here aren't finding the objectionable behavior of philosophers objectionable, what they're finding objectionable is NewAPPS pointing out the objectionable behavior *as objectionable* (e.g., the Hendricks affair)
Some of the posters at New APPS deal with comments to their posts in a very heavy handed way (such as by dismissively replying to individual comments before others have a chance to engage those comments). This often prevents interesting discussion from developing among readers.
Here in PA, it's the reverse. The comments deal with posts in a dismissive way before the poster has a chance to engage the comments.
no, 9:19, you got it wrong--most critics of NA don't seem to be antifeminist or apologists for hendricks. try rereading the thread slowly and i'm sure you'll get it right this time.
You had a weak tooth!
"Philosophers should close ranks if they want their compensation to begin to approach that of physicians and other professionals."
2 cheers for commenter #1 and Alvin Plantinga. The first takes greed as a priori, the second the divinity of Christ. Call it the immanent frame.
@ 11:11am - I'm reading the same thread you are, and I'll grant you that *some* people don't seem to objecting to people being called out on bad behavior. But I'm not sure it so obvious that "most" aren't.
In the meantime, a question for you: Why do you feel it's appropriate to respond like such a juvenile asshole?
1:12pm it's appropriate because you are behaving like a troll and i don't like to waste too much time with trolls.
most of the comments on this thread don't even mention hendricks so your generalization ("people" which has the scalar implicature "most people" in most conversational contexts) was unwarranted. since i assume you are an intelligent person, I assume you were trolling.
That makes me one cheer shy of three. "Educators are rarely compensated,..." should have been "Educators are rarely well compensated,..." but the mistake is not altogether inaccurate, given the abysmal treatment of educators by a public who believes that gain from trade in competitive markets is the only mechanism of cooperative benefit worth mentioning, and, as in full evidence here, educators. This has the effect of depressing wages. Those beliefs stem from an inbred bias in economic theory which might have been confined to that discipline, but for the efforts of a handful of billionaires who detest paying taxes.
"given the abysmal treatment of educators by a public who believes that gain from trade in competitive markets is the only mechanism of cooperative benefit worth mentioning
...Those beliefs stem from an inbred bias in economic theory which might have been confined to that discipline, but for the efforts of a handful of billionaires who detest paying taxes."
Commenter#1 is defending corruption as a mode of self defense. And he refers to "opportunity cost."
Maybe he should have gone into banking.
"The conclusion is that not commenting on the work of other philosophers is the only professional attitude to take."
Ideas are not lives. Philosophy professors are not sued. You're arguing not that the ideal "free exchange of ideas" is a pleasant fiction, you're opposing the thing itself: opposing the ideal of philosophical inquiry in the name of the philosophers' career. And you're blaming billionaires for your own corruption.
I understand the trap you're in, but at the same time it's an argument for leaving serious philosophy to amateurs. You're proving yourself worthless.
This is an earnest analysis, but commenter #1 doesn't believe a word of it. And you're proving your "worth" by taking it seriously.
@1:33pm - Whether someone is, in your estimation, “behaving like a troll” is irrelevant to whether or not it is appropriate to behave like a juvenile asshole. It may be true. It may not. It makes no difference.
There are, it seems to me, a number of important issues being raised on this thread, as well as the thread that preceded it. One of those issues is the inappropriateness of juvenile behavior in the profession, and just how fed up some of us in the profession have become with such behavior.
Or at least, that's how it seems to me.
3:00 PM is right--according to commenter #1. The idea that I lay the blame for my own corruption at the feet of a handful of billionaires is mistaken. The point about the mechanisms of cooperative benefit was lost. What are the others? Why is that important? Philosophy claims to clarify the confusions of other disciplines--here is a case study. (I won't be more specific than that--it's too rich a field to be given away altogether.)
There is a reddit thread on this:
http://tinyurl.com/cvqpnre
Take it outside, boys.
Competition works when it's between people who play the same "game": tennis players, mathematicians, car salesmen and those who share religious faith. Outside that it doesn't work, and in any event it's not a value in itself. Plantinga is a theologian and Alex Rosenberg is... a schmuck -but whatever- the point is that they are not playing the same game by the same rules.
Filial piety has its own problems. Meet Peter Moskos, a sociologist who did his fieldwork as a cop and who makes his living Impressing liberal academics with his street smarts.
"Had I been there and seen everything, would I have turned in the cop? I doubt it. That same stomping cop may have saved the life of me or a friend some other time. That's what makes it so tricky. When you have a job where you need people to cover your back and save your life, you're going to cut them a lot of slack. How can you not? Hell, we all make mistakes."
Thought experiment: A heart surgeon accused of rape. He's saved more lives than most cops.
Read the comments about Serpico and his testimony in '97. My girlfriend at the time was the daughter of a NY City cop. She put it simply. "Cops hate Serpico. He was a rat."
Here's more on the lower middle class integrity Moskos defends. He does so implicitly and explicitly, though without the sort of examples I've supplied.
Anonymous @ 3:29
"The idea that I lay the blame for my own corruption at the feet of a handful of billionaires is mistaken. The point about the mechanisms of cooperative benefit was lost. What are the others? Why is that important?' Philosophy claims to clarify the confusions of other disciplines--here is a case study. (I won't be more specific than that--it's too rich a field to be given away altogether.)
3:29 Meet Frank Serpico.
it's too rich a field to be given away altogether.
Distribute freely.
Given the reaction to "nudechaps" I'm including it on my faculty activity report.
3:30--you're on, my woman/man!
Update: three hours in the dentist's chair; one hour alone to remove the tooth, bit by crunching bit. On my third glass of anesth--chardonnay. Feel pretty good, if significantly poorer, watching Storage Wars.
I'm either awesome or pathetic. I think I know what Spiros would say.
Anon 3:00: I think one can be fed up with the behavior of some in the profession and also be of the opinion that the way the blog handles matters is not helping.
3:52: can the girls join in too???
Signed Female Philosopher who regularly posts jerky-asshole comments here
Seth Ghirlandaio, if mentioning old girlfriends is worth street cred, then mine made out with Sokal when she was a grad student at NYU. This is uninteresting.
It's not enough to dismiss competitive markets as a game--they comprise 20% of the story. Game theorists and logicians intuit that so much mathematics of the behavioral sciences have been developed that surely one could improve our economic models. You see the Crooked Timberologists groping toward something that might transcend non-cooperative game theory. This is not news. The great academicians of game theory believe that the individual is the wrong unit of investigation. The Nash Program to derive cooperative game theory from non-cooperative game theory has failed. But cooperative game theory isn't quite right either as it takes cooperation for granted as an unanalyzed notion. There are hints in the recent (philosophical!) literature of the right kind of mathematical structure. But I will spell out the mathematics that follows from this another day.
For the life of me, I'm not sure that the life of someone who says, "That same stomping cop may have saved the life of me ..." is worth saving. Unless s/he moonlights as a heart surgeon.
8:49, keep us posted. Wish I could provide more support than one sentence saying so on an anonymous comment to an anonymous blog. You have my anonymous empathy. Also, may I ask how the hell a ham sandwich broke your tooth?
Cheers,
10:52
D. Seth Ghirlandildo Edenbaum,
Street cred is hard to come by on the anonymous streets of Spirosiana. Hustle your first ounce of Kripkaine to help yourself out. Also, be alert for nudechaps.
And with all the gangsta argot I figured you for negroes.
Academia's a shithole, but this place reaches new depths.
Hey, let's try to keep the conversation to criticism of the discipline, the place of all us assholes within it, and witty banter. No need to get all racialist.
Anonymous college professor 10:45
"It's not enough to dismiss competitive markets as a game"
I take games seriously. You assume too much.
But those who identify animal experience with numerical value have that tendency.
Self-Government is a game without referees, but game designers see themselves as something other than game players. If they defend democracy (and there's no guarantee they do) they need to imagine it existed first as a philosophical program rather than as the product of an antagonistic cooperation among people capable of an ironic understanding of their own desires: people of a rich, complex, divided intelligence. Designers think top down, and democracy (like all culture in fact) moves in the other direction.
We have a surfeit of designers in academia at the moment. "Look! I've built a 9 string violin!" That's fine, but how good are you at playing it?
Politics and society are founded in reciprocal performance, but game designers indulge the superiority of technocrats: they identify with reason, like cops who've slid from seeing themselves correctly as representing the law to seeing themselves as personifying it. "To the pure all things are pure", as Paul says. If your professional title is Philosopher or Artist, or Economist, or Priest, you begin to lean on the rhetorical authority of the title. We have evidence that this has occurred in all four cases. And as long as we're on the subject of evidence:
Son, my reference to a girlfriend was a reference to the relevant data she supplied. Yours was an attempt at least at name dropping. I had another girlfriend who argues that mathematics is not science, because its not empirical. You could argue that Scientist is just a title like Philosopher but I don't think you want to. You could argue that she's wrong, but it's not an argument that interests me. My only argument is with those who identify words, which are used as a means of "representing" the world of experience, with numbers that may or may not model it. Just for fun:
1- Language is a common form. Experience is private. Representation in common form is a function of social life.
2- Model makers, eschewing representation. [eliding the role it plays in their own use of language] are/have always been authoritarian.
3-Authoritarianism is a famously violent and unstable form of government.
A- Philosophical inquiry and careerism are antithetical by nature.
B-Chemistry and careerism are antithetical or not, depending on context.
C-The supposed equivalence of speculative metaphysics and natural science, has given us philosophical careerism.
It's returned us to the 13th century. And Ghirlandaio was a painter of the renaissance.
Anonymous College Professor 10:46
"For the life of me, I'm not sure that the life of someone who says, 'That same stomping cop may have saved the life of me ...' is worth saving."
I wouldn't go that far. I just think it's amusing, and important if you're trying to follow historical change, that he calls himself a "liberal".
Alex Rosenberg: 'History is bunk"
Descartes said pretty much the same thing.
What the fuck are you talking about?
Edenbaum-Ghirlandaio, the power of certain modelers is beyond the ken of artistes like you. You don’t have the requisite mathematical soul, man.
Yeah, I also have an argument with those who identify words with numbers. My argument is very short.
That’s a brave fuckin’ statement. Would you like a chance to back that up, wha’?
On the date of the announcement of the discovery of the Higgs boson, 40 years after it was predicted theoretically, we have an artiste deploring what he perceives as the authoritarian reduction of experience to numbers.
To Anonymous college professor JULY 4, 2012 2:06 PM
Have you ever read Steven Weinberg's Against Philosophy?
I'm a Naturalist, and my naturalism says that we tend to recognize others' mistakes before we recognize our own. My political philosophy such as it is is based on that.
Have you read "Facing Up: Science and it's Cultural Adversaries"? Chapter 15. Zionism and Its Adversaries.?
The arguments in that chapter are both factually incorrect and founded on imperialist rhetoric straight out of 19th century. But no argument that I could make would change his mind.
But history is bunk!
The world is full of little facts, and our lives are full of big assumptions. I just picked that one above because it comes as a surprise to many people. [I won't nitpick the fact/value distinction today I have other things to do]
This.
"This."
Like.
Glaucon wins another thread.
It is the fundamental law of philosophy blogging that if you engage crazed and drunk Edenbaum-Ghirlandaio in dialogue, your thread is doomed. Just ignore him. I implore you!
He has a history of micturating the same stream onto Crooked Timber, among other blogs and tree stumps. May that he choose to mark the third rail.
Oh, Glaucon: that was lovely.
I have to say, this thread just keeps getting weirder. I wonder if I miss anything but not knowing which Anon is which?
@8:49: Try to embrace the Epicurean thrill of being free from pain. (I find mixing meds and booze quite effective in this pursuit.)
Toothguy update. I have additional appreciation for Prior's "thank goodness that's over". Apparently it was a small fracture that sorites-style just got a little worse and worse until ham-stuff under pressure was the death-stroke. Vagueness trumped by catastrophe??
Thank you CTS and anons wishing me well. You are the hopeful future of us.
CTS,
Let's start ranking philosophy blogs? Well, from 2nd place on down. PA is the top dog.
7:43,
You made me laugh so violently - while eating pringles - that I am now blowing pieces of them out of my nose. Thanks dick.
Anonymous 7:43, you found a good one, though these days I separate Modern from Modernist. We don't have a choice about the first.
I know that with this one - after the last- you and your frat friends will start to calling me a fag (though not here), but has anyone heard of Dierdre McClosky?
More data for you and another verbal game. I assume most of you would consider yourselves supporters, even vaguely, of the state of Israel, so riddle me this:
A Jewish State for a Jewish people iff a German state for a German people.
Honest "liberal Zionist" Peter Beinart:
" I'm not asking Israel to be Utopian. I'm not asking it to allow Palestinians who were forced out (or fled) in 1948 to return to their homes. I'm not even asking it to allow full, equal citizenship to Arab Israelis, since that would require Israel no longer being a Jewish state. I'm actually pretty willing to compromise my liberalism for Israel's security and for its status as a Jewish state."
Germany used to have Jews and now it has Turks. Show me you're capable of basic logic in the context of the world at large. Show me that ideology or bias or fear of pissing off your friends or employers doesn't get in the way.
Krugman used to be a free trader. He was wrong, but it took an economic disaster for him to admit it. Many others haven't even come that far.
None of you are very smart. That's the problem.
Yes, fire away!
I've already collaborated with serial commenter who was kicked out of a Ph.D. program. Didn't do a stitch of work. His excuse: Adult Deficit Disorder. The joint paper was RWR. You remind me of him. What Glaucon said.
"...these days I separate Modern from Modernist." The differential diagnosis of two streams indicates multiple hypospadias. Nudechaps! There--the remark is rehabilitated.
Your friend "Glaucon" defends professional philosophers. His old friends didn't.
Lissen kids, enough is enough.
It's the fourth of July. Go to a barbecue. Go for a drive. Turn up the AC. Go shopping.
I make money off you by betting against you.
I'm in a bar having a drink.
goodnight, and good luck.
Back to NewApps fatuity. Consider this post entitled, The Higgs boson and American UnExceptionalism. This uninformed piece makes the vague statement that "...we surely know that the USA is not in this game. This saddens me, truly it does—but at the same time we should recognize, with joy, that American exceptionalism is dead."
The first is inane beyond belief. Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN emphasized the role of grid computing in the analysis of the tens of petabytes of data generated by the Large Hadron Collider each year. "Without the worldwide grid of computing this result would not have happened," said Rolf-Dieter Heuer, director general at CERN during the press conference of July 4. The analysis of the data relies on the Worldwide Large Hadron Grid, which connects to the "Open Science Grid, a United States Department of Energy and National Science Foundation initiative. The analysis of the CMS and ATLAS experiment data in the United States by research teams here depends crucially on these computing grids. CERN processes only 20% of the data it generates from the Large Hadron Collider; the rest is transmitted over the grid for analysis.
Next is the silly assertion that, because the United States is "out of this game", American Exceptionalism is dead. This unsound conditional is true because both the antecedent and consequent are false. In any case the author of the NewAPPS post suggests near total ignorance about how science at this scale is done.
The most one can say is that the cancellation of the Superconducting Super Collider in 1993 hurt physics research in the United States, and probably delayed the discovery of the Higgs boson.
Back from the bar and going to sleep...
and defending New Apps? I never thought that would happen.
The point, dear Kraut, is that Higgs is capitalized and boson is not. And that the boson is named for a wog named Bose.
Jesu Christu, make the ganglia twitch.
Shell blew up of f'ing oil rig. I want money.
Driiiiiive.
Um... Spiros?
2That last one of mine made no sense at all.nritr
Just drunk enough to be sloppy, and spoiling for a fight.
And now the above.
retyping the captcha, on a cell phone.
oy
Hey, 12:37--if anybody's bothered by the thought that 'boson' isn't capitalized in 'Higgs boson' tell them it's not common practice to capitalize a common noun, even if coined from a person's name. Fuck's sake.
Good thing that Thomas Hardy wasn't a subatomic physicist.
--Your friendly neighborhood Nudechaps guy.
@Anon 8:53 (Jluy 4):
No, no: I do not want to start a ranking war! (Heck, if you ask me my favorite color I will ask whether the category is flower colors, wall colors, or clothing colors. Then, after you answer that, I'll ask for further specification.)
QUERY: Do all of you know to whom you are responding when you respond to yet another Anon and do not give the time/date?
I feel so old. :-(
WV: decement. Not unlike my current mental state.
Witness what happened when the NewAPPSilons were engaged. Your pretentiometers <a href="http://www.newappsblog.com/2012/07/the-higgs-boson-and-american-exceptionalism.html#comment-6a00d8341ef41d53ef017616282b72970c>should have been pinned</a>.
Seriously, 10:22. Is John Protevi planning to start writing reviews of blog comments for the NDPR?
Beats me 11:00--I'm just swinging from limn to limn. I'm somewhat taken aback by the episode. There must be something worthier of aspiration than a sense of pity.
I gotta say, I generally like NewApps, and I almost commented a few days ago to defend them. But the NewApps crew's comments on that American Exceptionalism post have truly pushed me to agree with the hivemind here. Ridiculous.
Nudechaps has indeed reached a new nadir of the self-imposed branding of unimportance with the boson thread. Hardon indeed.
Preston Stovall:
"Post 5 (anon 13:10)'s analysis shows such a failure to appreciate the historical significance imputed to American exceptionalism by the individuals who take the project seriously."
With Protevi I just laughed, but that's on another level entirely
I mean the dicussion was shit with overtones of clubby thuggishness. I found many elements of it quite revealing and sickening but I'd rather not waste my time thinking about it anymore. There are better blogs to read thankfully.
And I am somewhat disgusted with myself for having cynically elicited some words of approbation from a sequipedalian innocent.
the american UNexceptionalism thread sums up almost everything that's wrong with those clubby nudechaps. i've decided to remove the blog from my feed.
I want to create a Facebook group that supports everything that opposes NudeChapps. Have to make an anonymous Facebook account first. Anyone want to join?
3:26: it might be the only thing to get my cranky ass back on Facebook. I tried it once before but it had to stop since it made me hate humanity.
No. I'm not on Facebook. I wouldn't join. It has taken me hours and days of concentrated effort to see that NudeChapps was a play on NewAPPS (with vaguely homoerotic over- and undertones). How are these assertions connected? If history is any guide, it will take me hours, days and weeks to articulate a connection. Let the opposition, such as it is, fester in sporadic comments of PA. NewAPPS isn't hostile to criticism anyway. And should you engage them in discourse and offer the slightest encouragement, they are embarrassingly, desperately grateful for the attention.
"...had to stop since it made me hate humanity."
3:49 wins the thread.
I coined "Nudechaps" and while I was typing onto the PA comment thread and it took maybe 2 seconds to do so. I assure you it was entirely homophonic, and any homoeroticism I guess you have to import via Sigmund. I still read Nudechaps--mainly for the women who write there, who are not just clever, but intelligent.
SemiProphilosophy is pretty dull
It's prophylosophy. Keep taking notes!
If you want to witness some fun with NudeAnts
http://www.newappsblog.com/2012/07/federer-art-and-sport.html
My name is Wrong
wrong is wrong. It wasn't fun. Not even interesting. Wrong made a minor point, which Protevi conceded. And?
note taking.
Philosophers dislike rhetoric unless it's the rhetoric of Truthiness. If your art can't be described as serving the Church, you got a problem.
Federer isn't interested in truth he's trying to win. He's like a lawyer not a judge. Protevi the philosoph is trying to re-imagine the ideal out of the casuistry of competition, trying to return the formalism of relations -prosecutor to defense attorney/ baseline game to serve and volley/ Karsparov to Karpov to unity of holy order: reason.
Philosophy is parasitic, and Nadal is up 18-10.
Apologies.
There should be a dash after "Karpov".
Perfect example, in a new comment from the next post:
"I remember falling in love with Quine's "Two Dogmas" way back when. Isn't there a sentence there...."\'meaning is what essence becomes when it is divorced from the referent and wedded to the word.' (or something like this)--Poetry!"
The permissible poetry of Truthiness
In Parkih's Beth Definability, Interpolation and Language Splitting, Parikh states a parallel form of Craig's lemma (p. 3) and remarks,
"To use a somewhat colorful metaphor, if a king is receiving advice from a general and an economist, it would be sufficient for the general to submit a battle plan and for the economist to submit a budget. Any advice which the general gave about budgets or the economist gave about battles could simply be ignored by the king."
The message to D. Whiligig is: stick to art, you unconscionable, fatuously incoherent boretroll.
Considering the incompetence of our generals and our economists, maybe you should reconsider.
And since Dolce and Gabbana are bigger fans of William Burroughs than I ever was, maybe you stop slicing at your nose to spite your face.
D. G., the only thing you could possibly mean by that, if I'm understanding the quote right, is that you're not to be trusted about art, either. That seems pretty likely, so good point.
This cell of the hive mind buzzes its agreement, 4:31.
Rare serious enquiry:
Does Seth Edenbaum/D. Ghirlandaio mean anything by his posts?
Good news everyone!
This thread has driven me to drink more!
You're the products of your time.
You are an atavism that has somehow found its ecological niche sniping at anonymous philosophers in blog comments. I wouldn't say you were completely at home in your own blog.
A couple more from the next post up the line:
"Anonymous said...
I can't believe someone suggested Two Dogmas. It's one of the most confusing articles in modern analytic philosophy. Last time I checked, people still aren't even sure what the argument in that paper is. I suppose someone will suggest McDowell next. Then Kant maybe?
JULY 9, 2012 2:45 PM
Anonymous said...
I honestly can't think of a single example.
JULY 10, 2012 1:30 AM"
I think I'm going to refer back to this blog anytime one of your compatriots makes an offhand reference to "The Folk"
more evidence: http://www.newappsblog.com/2012/03/new-apps-symposium-on-paul-livingston-derrida-and-formal-logic.html#comments
Post a Comment