Personally, I like my truth sandwich with truth, truth spread, and a side of truth. I would like some truth coffee with that, make sure that the truth and coffee is strong followed by truth pie and ice cream.
The question is how do we break the trance that Republicans and old white people are under. Every time I talk to old white Republican I see swastikas in their eyes.
By somehow convincing them that “the bell is tolling for them” too; and everything they claim to care about.
OK, I probably wouldn’t characterize that as “Science”. The half that isn’t simply philosophy (academic philosophers might even label it “casual speculation”) is very much reflective of the standards of its time.
Nothing about freedom of the press in the Bible.
Personally, I’ve always found Lakoff’s brilliance overblown.
Maybe if I investigated him more carefully I’d better understand why people are so taken with him.
The first NPR broadcast in the morning sometimes just runs the Republican talking points as the news lede. Then they tone it down a bit after the editor has had another cup of coffee.
That is still pretty much true of generative linguistics today, and it’s sad, because there are linguists (functionalists, etc.) who actually go out and do fieldwork to gather data and empirically describe languages, but a large portion of the available resources for academic linguistics are wasted on Chomskyist navel-gazing.
I once went to a talk where Roger Schank said he’d got the idea for his latest research from thinking about Burger King (the idea was that cognitive data structures evolved from one another the way that Burger King was just like McDonalds except you could “have it your way”).
A year later he had changed to something completely different, no doubt as a result of eating elsewhere.
The waxwork is like Trump with Assange hair.
Me too…false equivalencies just too much to handle.
At least Wait Wait… still tells it like it is.
“The family separation policy is imposed by the White House. President Trump has said it is mandated by law, but that’s not true.”
now, why do i remember this? because npr as an organization does indeed seem to support “american exceptionalism.” on this topic though they haven’t had trouble calling out truth.
i like to think they’re trying. maybe it’s just this one thing goes too far. time will tell.
Yh, truth really does have very little to do with what “the media” does. What is truth anyway? As soon as an issue gets even moderately complex, there is no truth anymore and even objectivity is almost impossible to achieve. Sure, they could show enough restraint not to just push blatant propaganda, but that would require some work.
One just has to look at how the news is reported in different parts of the world. The Korean issues are actually a great example of this. At times, you would be forgiven to think that war is imminent the way European sources report on tensions between North and South, while in South Korea it’s just business as usual.
Indeed, I guess that’s the reason why they are called, “News Stories”, not “News Facts”. There has always been editorial bias, and that bias is generally directed by the wealthy owners.
For this to work, you still need a receptive audience. This is an old comedy trick – comedy shows have long been the best news shows (not sitcoms, but satires and shows like Royal Canadian Air Farce (especially the original radio version) or Jon Stewart. Show reality, juxtaposed to the outlandish claim.
Problem is, if you feel more inclined to believe the speaker of the claim, reality doesn’t matter. If you’re indoctrinated into “both sides”, reality will have less of an impact, because you heard two bits from one side… is there more to the other?
If there’s one thing Trump know how to do, it’s play the media. He’s a con man. He does it well.
That depends on what you’re looking for, and at.
He did fantastic, evidence-based work on categorization, synthesizing the research work of Eleanor Rosch and several others and illuminating some extremely important aspects of group classification. If you understand why POSIX group semantics are a toxic perversion in the field of computer science, you’d like that stuff.
He did work that is less well regarded concerning framing, which I think @d_r would not laud because a great deal of it is based on thinking deeply instead of measuring - like the work of Cantor and Einstein, what Euclid might well call “a shabby way to do science”. (I personally am not a Euclidean, I believe Einstein’s “thought experiments” were brilliant science.) You can also dislike Lakoff’s work in cognitive science because of the paucity of testable hypotheses in that entire field, which is both a valid criticism and arguably the hallmark of a young discipline.
I think the Democratic Party, in broad, dislikes Lakoff because he keeps telling them they are failing to change American thinking, again in broad, due to their broken messaging and failure to reject framings that inherently support unsustainable social and economic practices. This is so obviously true (see 80% of @wanderfound’s posts) that it stings their collective ego and so they won’t listen. I find that the more strongly a person identifies with the Democratic Party, the more likely they are to be pungently dismissive of Lakoff. THIS IS MY OPINION, not an objectively provable truth.
Personally, although I respect a great deal of Lakoff’s work, I feel his insistence on framing America’s divisiveness in terms of the Authoritarian Father Figure Conservatives and the Nurturing Mother Figure Liberals is off base. I think this framing is due to his own cognitive biases that are deeply shaped by the circumstances of his own upbringing, and I do not find it useful in the way that he believes it to be. Far too much Freud and Jung, not enough empiricism, is the way I see Lakoff’s political views. So if that’s what you’re looking at, I can understand being less than impressed.
Maybe it’s just the way he’s reduced (or has to reduce himself) to sound bites in interviews, etc. I usually leave with a feeling of “Well, no shit.”
Oh please. I am a mathematician, so of course consider theoretical physics good science (and the work of Cantor “good mathematics”). Lakoff is not engaged in reasoning that can be considered mathematical. He references mathematical work – many of the people he cites are or were people I know well, one was on my thesis committee – but is not contributing either any mathematical reasoning to it, or using the mathematics as a model in a sense that would be be recognizable to a mathematical scientist.
Euclid basically said if you can’t draw it, it ain’t real, so you can’t use infinity or infinitesimals in calculation, right?
And you said above, that at one time, computational linguistics was “… dominated by ideas that were obtained not through research or scholarship but through introspection, which is a really shabby way to do science.”
I thought that you were showing a pretty clear preference for solid, euclidean reasoning, and a disdain for the Einstein method, which is dependent on and explicitly acknowledges both introspection and imagination. My apologies if I have misrepresented what you wrote, it wasn’t intentional and I appreciate correction.
Anyway I am not in any sense a mathematician, and I have no great liking for math, despite having spent five or six undergraduate semesters at it to get my degree. It’s not one of my talents or skills. I am, however, earning a decent living through logic, introspection, and imagination. I appreciate Lakoff’s writing on categorization because it is directly useful in my work, and I find it to be very good science, well supported by empirical data and solid reasoning.
No, he did not say that. The piece of The Elements that is usually taught in high school was about finitary constructions, but the book also included limiting reasoning (eg, the method of exhaustion for finding the area of a circle).
