http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/19/daniel-dennett-intuition-pumps-thinking-extract?CMP=twt_gu
Some nice info in there to share with friends. But, I put this in the Entertainment and Pop Culture section because of where I found it: the U.K.'s The Guardian.
With a piece on an American thinker, no less.
Thanks for the link.
Nice extension to the forum rules %-P
How to compose a successful critical commentary: 1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way." 2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. Mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Thanks for the link. Nice extension to the forum rules %-PWow, if everybody followed those rules, the ratio of fruitful discussions might increase dramatically.How to compose a successful critical commentary: 1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way." 2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. Mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Thanks for the link. Nice extension to the forum rules %-PI totally agree!! It is one of the first rules of critiquing. One begins with acknowledging the merits of the argument and only then asks for clarification or propose a counter argument. Civilized discussion never needs ad hominem interjections (I admit to being guilty on occasion), they are NEVER productive.How to compose a successful critical commentary: 1. Attempt to re-express your target's position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says: "Thanks, I wish I'd thought of putting it that way." 2. List any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement). 3. Mention anything you have learned from your target. 4. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.
Wow, if everybody followed those rules, the ratio of fruitful discussions might increase dramatically.But the plain number of discussions might decrease tremendously...
Speaking of these tools, I ran across a deepity in a fortune cookie recently:
āDo what you think is right, not what you think you should.ā
Makes me wonder if fortune cookie fortunes might be a good source of deepities.
I recommend āAttacking Faulty Reasoningā by T. Edward Damer. His latest edition has expanded the introductory to fallacies with two full chapters on codes of intellectual conduct and the expectations of a good argument which includes what Daniel has to say.
Code of Intellectual Conduct:
- Fallibility Principle- everyone in an argument should be willing to accept their fallibility to recognize that their position may not be the most defensible one on the issue.
- Truth-Seeking Principle - everyone should be committed to seeking the truth or, at least, the best defensive position.
- Clarity Principle - position should be free of linguistic confusion and keep other non-related issues separate.
- Burden-of-Proof - rests on the person who sets forth the position; if and when asked should provide an argument for it
5)Charity Principle - if a personās argument is restated by another, they should express it with the assumption of the strongest version consistent with their intent. If questions arise to intention or any regards to any implicit parts of an argument, the arguer should be given the benefit of doubt - Structural Principle - arguments should us one that follows a fundamental structure for a āwell-formedā argument: reasons cannot contradict each other or the conclusion nor implicitly assume the conclusion; certainly, no invalid deductive inferences.
- Relevance - arguments should maintain significance.
- Acceptability - the reasons for or against should be such that they are likely to be accepted by mature and rational person
- Sufficiency Principle - the relevant and acceptable reasons should be of the right kind that are sufficient in number and weight
- A Rebuttal - One should provide a rebuttal to all anticipated criticisms
- Suspension or Judgement - be able to suspend a conclusion if necessarily un- or non-resolvable.
- Resolution - everyone should accept a closure to the argument if one side meets fairly the above concepts
He gets way more descriptive than my wording above and adds other particular factors throughout. This is the best and most detailed book on fallacies that Iāve found to date. (Pricey too, but worth it.)
**I would add that the best way Iāve ever found of convincing anyone of anything is if you provide a way that they can discover it for themselves. When we learn something from our own drive, it sticks and also lacks the baggage of any prejudices you may psychologically have towards another. This isnāt easy though because it requires patience and a willingness not to be noticed for your effort in others to the process ā itās sacrificial in this respect.
P.S. That link to Danielās book write-up has been withdrawn for copyright reasons.
Michio Kaku had another interesting episode on TV.
He postulates that on a scale from 1 - 10 in intelligenc, man currently is at about 0.7
He forsees that man will harness fusion and create our own local suns (tiny black holes which spew pure energy), so that we become independent of our sun and we will be able terraform almost any planet which may be suitable but currently is barren.
He suggested that Mars is a good candidate. All we need is a bunch of robotic greenhouse gas generators (something which we are already very good at) and once we manufacture clouds, the toughest part is done. He estimates that a project might take about a century, but is by no means impossible.
Michio Kaku had another interesting episode on TV. He postulates that on a scale from 1 - 10 in intelligenc, man currently is at about 0.7 He forsees that man will harness fusion and create our own local suns (tiny black holes which spew pure energy), so that we become independent of our sun and we will be able terraform almost any planet which may be suitable but currently is barren. He suggested that Mars is a good candidate. All we need is a bunch of robotic greenhouse gas generators (something which we are already very good at) and once we manufacture clouds, the toughest part is done. He estimates that a project might take about a century, but is by no means impossible.If we want Mars to be habitable for more than a few million years, we's also need to somehow create a planetary magnetic field for Mars, to keep the solar wind from stripping the atmosphere. Shoot, for that matter, Venus is habitable, too, if we can figure out how to get it rid of most of it's atmosphere, or move ir farther from the sun.
Michio Kaku had another interesting episode on TV.Michio Kaku is a crackpot, as evidenced by the crap you paraphrased.
He postulates that on a scale from 1 - 10 in intelligenc, man currently is at about 0.7That is an absolutely meaningless statement.
He forsees that man will harness fusion and create our own local suns (tiny black holes which spew pure energy), so that we become independent of our sun and we will be able terraform almost any planet which may be suitable but currently is barren.Riiiiiight. Nuclear fusion has been 20 years off for the past 50 years.
He suggested that Mars is a good candidate. All we need is a bunch of robotic greenhouse gas generators (something which we are already very good at) and once we manufacture clouds, the toughest part is done. He estimates that a project might take about a century, but is by no means impossible.What TA said, but I'll add that level-headed astronomers estimate terraforming Mars, if it could be done, would take millennia at the very least. Robotic greenhouse gas generators would be useless in Mars' thin atmosphere. We haven't even started discussing whether the soil is suitable for growing Earth native plants, how we're going to keep UV radiation from frying everything and everyone on Mars, where we're going to find enough water to sustain a colony... Kaku is a crackpot, but it seems to pay well.
Imagine if we invested so much energy in getting to terraform mars only to have a comet come by and wipe us out as the first ship arrives on Mars! I find all these dreams extensively irrational. If we need more space, wouldnāt be cheaper and more reasonable to make laws to curtail birth rates? But, I admit, itās entertaining to dream. Darron, are you ready for transport? Iām beaming right now! Donāt fidget and stay real still. (Unless youāre not worried if your outie turns innie.) :sick:
I donāt think Kaku is really a crackpot. He just likes science fiction.
BTW, Darron, Mars already has an ozone layer. Presumably, making the atmosphere thick enough would solve the UV problem on itās own. And the soil, from what the Mars landers are finding, probably would be acidic, but workable.
But this idea of robotic greenhouse gas genereators is awful. Plants would do a much better job, if someone can get a plant to grow in 1% of Earthās atmospheric pressure. Aside from that, the most economical way to get gases to Mars would probably be to deliberately crash a few large comets into it.
I have no idea how to feasibly create a planetary magnetic field.
He postulates that on a scale from 1 - 10 in intelligenc, man currently is at about 0.7Yeah, that's not even a deepity, it's just nonsensical.