Thanks for respecting my views. I certainly didn't mean any disrespect to yours -- in fact, I agree with them. Your original post was (rightly) modded funny. I was just adding some information.
It's not uncommon for an eponymous award to be won by the person it's named after. In fact, they're often the first person to win it, if they're alive.
Alas, if only that had been the case for Alan Turing.
Science is Faith's eternal enemy!
Science is not Faith's eternal enemy. Faith is Science's eternal enemy.
Ignorance is Science's eternal enemy. Faith in and of itself is not Science's enemy, but it is not unusual for Faith and Ignorance to go hand in hand.
I think we're really talking about reason vs. faith, and I don't think they're necessarily enemies. But I make a distinction between faith and Faith. Uncapitalized faith is about the belief in an outcome that cannot be determined absolutely from evidence. Capitalized Faith is the belief in an outcome that is contrary to evidence. A few illustrations, with varying degrees of faith required...
(1) I can understand a great deal about how the earth rotates, and have strong evidence that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. There is a miniscule chance that something could happen to the earth in the meantime (e.g., an asteroid hits it and changes its rotation axis) and the sun will rise somewhere other than the east. Yet I will plan my day with the assumption that the sun will rise from the east. My reason says that I'm almost, but not entirely certain of this. My faith lets me overlook the miniscule chance that it could be otherwise.
(2) When I prepare to cross a street at a crosswalk, and a car approaches and stops, my reason says that it is safe to cross because the car has stopped. However, my faith must fill in what's missing. Specifically, my faith in a fellow human who I assume will obey traffic laws and who has the same compassion for humanity as I do, and therefore would not run me over.
(3) When I hear a family member, spouse or friend say "I love you", there is little that my reason can do to support my acceptance of what they say. They are describing how they feel, and it is up to me if I can truly accept what they say is true. I can consider past actions if I have known the person for some time, but for the most part, I have to rely on faith, based on how I feel, not on how I think. Yet I must rely on some small amount of rational observation in order to accept the idea that someone loves me.
The point, I think, is that faith and reason are two sides of a coin known as The Human Condition. We cannot survive with just one. Each fills in what the other cannot supply. Uncapitalized faith uninformed by reason is foolishness. But reason uninspired by faith is paralyzing. With only faith (or worse, Faith) I would be blind to reality. With only reason, I would never cross the street.
YOU might not share it, but if you read all the posts, some people do.
Agreed. I should have qualified that it is not shared by all. Peace.
Laws have been settled and theories haven't.
This is a common misconception. It appears in several places in this thread. I suffered myself from this misconception before someone set me straight.
Roughly speaking, laws are quantitative whereas theories are conceptual. They both need experimental evidence to be considered "settled" in the sense of the current discussion, and both can be considered to have equal support in that sense. One is not "stronger" than the other.
For example, Newton's laws of motion express relations between quantities measured of objects in motion. Atomic theory provides a conceptual framework for explaining the behaviour of matter. Both are highly successful. The latter is in no way reduced by calling it a theory.
Feynman, in the first of his Lectures on Physics asked his reader to imagine that some cataclysmic event has wiped out all human knowledge, but that one single sentence could survive to be passed on to the next generation. What would he suggest that sentence be? The universe is made of atoms.
Sure; Picasso painted a lot of cool stuff before he went off his nut and mailed his own ear to his girlfriend.
I think you're confusing Picasso with Van Gogh. And it was a prostitute, not his girlfriend. And the story has been disputed by a couple of German historians, who claim he actually lost his ear in a fight with his friend Paul Gaugin. And Van Gogh painted cool stuff before and after the incident.
And, to be fair, I never said anything about Cage's body of work as a whole, other than positing my belief that this particular piece exists purely to stroke his own ego. Which is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.
You are indeed entitled to it. However, it is clearly not shared. The piece, while obviously not performed often, has been a historical way-point for much discussion about the nature of composing, performing, and listening to music. In that sense, I think it is a success, and not a way for Cage "purely to stroke his own ego." Which is my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.
it represents that self-serving form of 'performance art,' that has absolutely no artistic value but rather is an expression of the "artists" narcissistic desire to be the center of attention by doing something remarkably weird and/or stupid, and subsequently pontificating on the topic as if they're the first person in history to ever do anything weird and/or stupid.
I can understand your dislike of self-absorbed narcissistic artists, but I don't think it's fair to put John Cage in that category. After all, 4'33" was not the only thing he wrote. He was completely serious about composing, and was quite prolific and innovative.
To paraphrase Arnold Schoenberg (one of his teachers) Cage was more of an inventor than a composer. Some of his music is highly approachable, similar in style to Eric Satie (whom Cage admired greatly.) Some of his prepared-piano pieces are fascinating, and evoke a kind of javanese gamelan sound from the instrument.
And of course, others are admittedly weird, like 4'33", and ASLSP (As SLow aS Possible). (A performance of the latter began in 2001 on an organ at St. Burchardi church in Halberstadt, Germany, and is scheduled to last 639 years.)
In short, I think it's important to judge John Cage on his entire output, not just the one single gedankenstucke that is 4'33".
and because of John Cage 1% - 3% becomes 0%, case dismissed! That might be my favorite XKCD.
I daresay the percentage of people who would like this is not zero.
Notice carefully who wrote it.
Those who know, do. Those who understand, teach.
Sounds like you still want to teach so why not teach in the private sector? http://www.microsoft.com/learn...
This fellow is a teacher, but it's not clear what his depth is. He says he is "intrigued by topics like setting up e-mail servers, reading about cloud stuff like Office 365, and looking at information on collaborative technology" [emphasis mine].
It sounds to me like he needs to learn more before he can teach. But he has time -- I mean, he's only 30 years old FGS.
Maybe but I'm not sure anyone other than the gotse dude could use an iphone to clear his bowels
the constipated mathematician ?
He worked it out with a pencil.
Nowadays, he'd work it out
Hmm, that's O(n).
Trashsort is O(1)
But IdentityTheftSort is O(n!).
you'd be amazed at how many scuba divers root around in the muck looking for dunderhead logs that were too dense to float from logging a century ago.
For their sake, I hope they have salvage rights. Without them, they're undoubtedly breaking the law if they remove the logs, or anything, including old Coke bottles, etc.