tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post8160940574699159791..comments2023-12-21T06:35:36.624-05:00Comments on Recursivity: David Berlinski, King Of PoseursUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger73125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-44465572718377724362023-01-02T15:15:56.867-05:002023-01-02T15:15:56.867-05:00Another ignorant sucker hornswoggled.Another ignorant sucker hornswoggled.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-34232101792018681162021-10-26T08:37:05.932-04:002021-10-26T08:37:05.932-04:00By no means have I failed to understand the meanin...By no means have I failed to understand the meaning of this publication. When all you do are ad hominem attacks, it is clear that you want to overshadow, to hide what the other says under irrelevant personal insults.<br />In addition, therefore I said that I would be more curious to read Berlinski's works to see what you want to hide, so I don't see any laziness here.<br />In fact, after your reply I read "the Devil Dellusions...", a fantastic book about the impostures of modern scientism that you squeeze so hard to defend here, and so undignifiedly.Antonio Andradahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554974446353683934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-13202845071553332142021-07-12T19:20:23.711-04:002021-07-12T19:20:23.711-04:00Antonio: I'm sorry you were so unable to gras...Antonio: I'm sorry you were so unable to grasp what the piece was about. But if you want some detailed arguments against Berlinski's claims, you could have followed the link to Jason Rosenhouse's piece that I provided. Laziness is not a good look.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-60197336231684047572021-06-18T14:00:35.888-04:002021-06-18T14:00:35.888-04:00Amazing that between the article and the comments,...Amazing that between the article and the comments, "no one" proposed an argument, just ad hominen attacks. It doesn't take half a neuron to know what that means, now I'm curious to read this gentleman's books.<br />Antonio Andradahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14554974446353683934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-5304904177416781862020-05-11T06:05:37.964-04:002020-05-11T06:05:37.964-04:00Try reading Berlinski's paper "Gödel'...Try reading Berlinski's paper "Gödel's Question" in the book Mere Creation. If this is not enough to convince you that he's a poseur, then I think nothing I can say can convince you.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-81871285449518354592020-05-10T08:50:12.978-04:002020-05-10T08:50:12.978-04:00Thanks for your response!
> No, Berlinski is n...Thanks for your response!<br /><br />> No, Berlinski is not currently a professor of mathematics anywhere, to the best of my knowledge. He taught briefly in a number of places, apparently, but never for very long.<br /><br />I'm not sure if he's currently it, but in his own website he states that he has been a professor of mathematics. I tried to corroborate this - albeit superficially - and could not, but that's not unexpected as I haven't been able to corroborate about past professors I've had. It could be true, could be false, but at least that's what he's claiming and it seems plausible to me.<br /><br />> That's what a poseur does. He has a shallow knowledge which he uses to convince others that his knowledge is deep.<br /><br />That's certainly true, but wouldn't a poseur not be able to go 1:1 with someone who knows the field, wouldn't the knowledge be so shallow as to the poseur not really having an idea about what he's really talking about(he wouldn't be able to go 1:1), wouldn't a poseur most likely would not be able to relate to the relevancy of the topics(bringing out unrelated, or irrelevant topics)? I am no expert, so it's possible his knowledge to me seems more superficial than it is, but, mainly in philosophical terms, he seems to know what he's talking about. <br /><br />> Yet when the experts review his work, they are not kind. Why is that?<br /><br />I am not sure what we're talking about precisely; I've seen his discussions mostly, and in that, there doesn't seem to be a big difference. Are we talking a couple of experts, a majority of them, what are they saying? Could you link to any particular review you have in mind? I remember, for example, Medwara's review on "The Phenomenon of Man", which Dawkins highly praised and I read before reading the book(I was wondering whether the book would be interesting and worthy); however, even if done by an uncontestable expert(like Teilhard de Chardin would also be, I imagine), Nobel-prize winner, the review itself was not on the technical grounds, it was mostly about secondary objections like the use of language, the format of the book(which the author specifically addressed in his book), very precious few was on a technical level or substantial. This was a huge eye opener for me, because I started reading the book with the knowledge of the critique first, and found the review to be incredibly sub-par, even if done and validated by other experts - like Dawkins -. <br /><br />Mostly, I take his value, on philosophy, which is certainly something many experts seem to not only lack but reject - like Krauss -, and in that, he makes excellent points. In his criticism to materialism, he's on-point and way over the proponents of the idea he criticizes. Many experts are not well-versed in philosophical thought, and so, make errors when discussing conclusions and implications on a higher-level, and in that, I think Berlinski excels, especially when talking about materialist experts who are more than likely to make deep mistakes on a philosophical level, even if they mask it with the authority of science - a classic example of this, is once again, Krauss with his meaningless concept of 'Nothing'; by his rejection of philosophy, he makes it clear that he is in fact, being extremely obtuse trying to make a philosophical concept -. Like an expert of philosopher said, "Even when materialists try to reject philosophy, they are not absolved from doing philosophy, and as such, are bound to make really bad philosophy."Nathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03367265103812704248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-18048746317250590792020-05-09T04:23:19.171-04:002020-05-09T04:23:19.171-04:00No, Berlinski is not currently a professor of math...No, Berlinski is not currently a professor of mathematics anywhere, to the best of my knowledge. He taught briefly in a number of places, apparently, but never for very long. <br /><br /><i> From what I've seen from him it's clear he has a working and extensive knowledge of what he talks about. </i><br />That's what a poseur does. He has a shallow knowledge which he uses to convince others that his knowledge is deep.<br /><br /><i>It's also clear to me that the discussion with Berlinski is not on the obvious, it is, in fact, down to technical aspects, which tell me that his knowledge is not superficial.</i> Yet when the experts review his work, they are not kind. Why is that?<br /><br />Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-41185944019229597902020-04-29T17:45:43.537-04:002020-04-29T17:45:43.537-04:00Isn't he a professor of mathematics? I am not ...Isn't he a professor of mathematics? I am not going by his Discovery Institute bio, but his own bio. From what I've seen from him it's clear he has a working and extensive knowledge of what he talks about. Whether or not the knowledge is profound and accurate is another thing, but this is a very interesting review of him.<br /><br />As many have said, the many issue seems to be that he's not a researcher, which I don't see as a valid criticism. This is, indeed, a fallacy of authority, or so it seems to me. I doubt, for example, my professors had various publications, however they understood their topics. It's also clear to me that the discussion with Berlinski is not on the obvious, it is, in fact, down to technical aspects, which tell me that his knowledge is not superficial.<br /><br />Given that the main criticism is not a very valid or robust criticism, I see this as a very weak post. Maybe on the more technical aspects of what he says he's mistaken, but he's a very interesting fellow when it comes to his philosophical criticism of certain aspects of popularized science. I am not sure if you're a philosopher, but it bears to mind that philosophy touches upon all branches of human activity and as such he's well suited as a formal philosopher to critique the philosophical issues he sees within science.<br /><br />To extend on another point: One does not need to be an academic to be a mathematician or a philosopher, nor to expose perceived issues within scientific fields or scientific claims. This is beyond obvious, as many of the foundations of science are rooted on people who weren't academics or were academics of a different academia. Their claims rely on their own evidence, their philosophy holds under its own scrutiny, or not, and not in the fallacy of not being a researcher. The most valid aspect of peer-review is precisely the dialect between knowledgeable folk, but it seems to me that he's up to this dialect and so open to scrutiny.Nathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03367265103812704248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-27582732729458083512017-07-18T08:47:37.872-04:002017-07-18T08:47:37.872-04:00I warmly thank Prof. Shallit, who might well belie...I warmly thank Prof. Shallit, who might well believe he has better things to do, for going to the trouble to strengthen our intellectual immune systems against the posturings (I had almost said arguments)and attitudinizings of Berlinski. I would not have the patience and composure for it. Pace the last commenter, though he evidently should not be taken completely seriously, the point of this difficult effort on Shallit's part seems to me to purify the debate by removing incoherence and noise, (particularly the kind of noise in which resentment is controlling what one says behind the scenes), a purification without which the possibility of "arriving at anything" is foreclosed. Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14591843170437648842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-82815442870319283262016-09-06T23:06:30.613-04:002016-09-06T23:06:30.613-04:00This blog is like one long continuous Donahue show...This blog is like one long continuous Donahue show....love to hear themselves talk but they never really arrive at anything. <br /><br />Geraldo Riverahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11233742271109987427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-6015515469670226732016-08-22T09:47:46.267-04:002016-08-22T09:47:46.267-04:00Give me the scientific method, says the fool, and ...Give me the scientific method, says the fool, and I will explain the world. <br /><br />"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are part of nature and therefore part of the mystery that we are trying to solve". <br /><br />Max Planck. <br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-32222277197793677922016-03-10T05:27:52.584-05:002016-03-10T05:27:52.584-05:00Glad you find Berlinski entertaining. He is ente...Glad you find Berlinski entertaining. He is entertaining, in the same way that watching a traffic accident can be entertaining.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-60700585327540531942016-03-09T23:31:56.080-05:002016-03-09T23:31:56.080-05:00I am certainly entertained by Berlinksi from what ...I am certainly entertained by Berlinksi from what I read and have seen. I was looking for some more biographical material.<br /><br />And in that quest then I find a small, small blog, with small small readership, written by a small, small, combative man with a small, small, mind. Hopefully that fits in with your recursivity theme. <br /><br />Your comments certainly lack a certain....ummm....joie de vivre. Yeah...that's it. <br /><br />(Looking around with hands on hips)<br /><br />You should look at re-painting the place. Splash some colour around the page. Live a little and quit being envious and biting shoe soles. It's hard on the teeth and tastes very dry I hear. Forget about him. Live your own life, be your own man and make your own marks on the world.<br /><br />Now go mull and think of some really biting retort. Once you have done that and got that out of your system, go back to the table, be quiet and finish your oatmeal, Jeffrey.Small Lemonshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03159033532990256622noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-53866510155077837422015-11-03T23:16:57.510-05:002015-11-03T23:16:57.510-05:00Fascinating review.
You seem confused. It is not ...<i>Fascinating review.</i><br /><br />You seem confused. It is not a review.<br /><br /><i>your lack of knowledge of Dr. Berlinksi </i><br /><br />I know quite a lot about him, thank you. And I even know how to spell his name, which you don't.<br /><br /><i>your inability to provide any salient argument to his positions</i><br /><br />That was not the point of the post. If you want "salient argument", follow the link provided in the text (to the paper of Rosenhouse).<br /><br />I am sorry you have such reading comprehension problems!Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-80480689923996780962015-11-03T16:02:28.791-05:002015-11-03T16:02:28.791-05:00Fascinating review. Fascinating in that you do n...Fascinating review. Fascinating in that you do not hide your puerile anger, your lack of knowledge of Dr. Berlinksi and the subject matter, and your inability to provide any salient argument to his positions. <br /><br />One is forced to wonder: are you a tool, or a fool? SadEndinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10104166860952973172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-32848233791905924512014-12-18T02:41:53.555-05:002014-12-18T02:41:53.555-05:00If any of you knows Berlinsky's anti-evolution...If any of you knows Berlinsky's anti-evolution arguments, just answer then. If not respond point by point to his video. You find it on my Google+ page if you like.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10393305794402412999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-26920890517726428352014-07-02T14:47:57.826-04:002014-07-02T14:47:57.826-04:00If abiogenesis remains unresolved, none of evoluti...<i> If abiogenesis remains unresolved, none of evolutionary theory can be certain.</i><br /><br />Since nothing in science is certain, this is a non sequitur.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-53208115490360804582014-07-02T12:27:52.523-04:002014-07-02T12:27:52.523-04:00Why do people insist that abiogenesis is separate ...Why do people insist that abiogenesis is separate from evolution?<br /><br />It is the very start of it. If abiogenesis remains unresolved, none of evolutionary theory can be certain. <br /><br />The two cannot be separated.eoghanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03598984230324624981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-78900148267170564592014-03-28T02:45:02.156-04:002014-03-28T02:45:02.156-04:00Excellent arguments, Kevin! You are very convinci...Excellent arguments, Kevin! You are very convincing.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-2103731664658543562014-03-28T02:16:30.574-04:002014-03-28T02:16:30.574-04:00Quite disgraceful, Shalllit. You are quite the rep...Quite disgraceful, Shalllit. You are quite the reptile.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-45678744960142238282014-02-10T19:24:36.100-05:002014-02-10T19:24:36.100-05:00It seems your main argument against David Berlinsk...<i>It seems your main argument against David Berlinski is that he has never published anything of worth in a mathematics journal.</i><br /><br />I am sorry you are having reading comprehension problems. My post was mostly not about Berlinski's arguments, but about his pretensions. If one has not published anything worthwhile in mathematics, surely that is relevant to a claim of being a mathematician.<br /><br /><i> That being your point I do not know if you have understood anything of his criticism of modern science.</i><br /><br />He has little of value to say. But, if you disagree, why not enlighten us about Berlinski's finest moments? No one else has been up to the challenge.<br /><br /><i>You're not a historian, and have no credible publications in historical journals of any worth.</i><br /><br />Surely it is possible to speak about the fact of the Holocaust without having a publication in a historical journal -- such as when, for example, one has had relatives who died in it. May I not refer to the fact of gravity without a degree in physics?<br /><br />In any event, you are quite mistaken. I <i>am</i> an historian, although it is not my main focus, and you are more than welcome to read my article in <i>Historia Mathematica</i>.<br /><br /><i>you know nothing about civil liberties and you have no publications on the topic.</i><br /><br />Oh, dear, speaking with such confidence on topics you know little about! My dear sir, you are more than welcome to read my article that formed the introduction to the special issue of the <i>Information Society</i> about civil liberties in cyberspace, or my article reprinted in the book <i>Good Reasons</i>.<br /><br /><i>And I don't actually know why I'm talking to you - my Alma Mater ranks a good 100 - 150 positions above the University of Waterloo in any ranking.</i><br /><br />Surely it seems odd to compare the school where you got your Ph. D. to the school where I teach; isn't it a bit of apples and oranges? Since you insist, let's compare the rankings of the school where you got your Ph. D. to the school where I got mine. I doubt you will be so happy with the result.<br /><br /><i>I think that is called 'ad hominem' and it is saddening to see a serious academic use it.</i><br /><br />I think you don't know what ad hominem is! Nowhere did I say Berlinski's arguments are wrong <i>because</i> he is a poseur with no noteworthy mathematical accomplishments. If you want to read why Berlinski's mathematics article is silly claptrap, you could follow the link I provided. Or is that too much effort?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-18751717777446101942014-02-10T14:11:48.965-05:002014-02-10T14:11:48.965-05:00It seems your main argument against David Berlinsk...It seems your main argument against David Berlinski is that he has never published anything of worth in a mathematics journal, and that his PhD is in philosophy, not mathematics. That being your point I do not know if you have understood anything of his criticism of modern science. But OK, let's take this argument to its logical conclusion. If Berlinski should not talk about mathematics, can you be silent about the Holocaust? You're not a historian, and have no credible publications in historical journals of any worth. And step down from Electronic Frontier Canada. You have no law degree, you know nothing about civil liberties and you have no publications on the topic. And I don't actually know why I'm talking to you - my Alma Mater ranks a good 100 - 150 positions above the University of Waterloo in any ranking. It could be you make interesting arguments, but following your own logic I don't need to look at the arguments, I just need to see what kind of person you are. I think that is called 'ad hominem' and it is saddening to see a serious academic use it. Jaap Hoogenboezemhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12813443207644904457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-33269291210547147862013-11-01T08:50:47.528-04:002013-11-01T08:50:47.528-04:00It is not fault of David Berlinski that you are no...<i>It is not fault of David Berlinski that you are not able to understand his mind.</i><br /><br />Great comedy, Vladislav. Have you considered Saturday Night Live?<br /><br /><i>Why personal campaign? </i><br /><br />Because pretentious poseurs annoy me.<br /><br /><i>Leave him alone.</i><br /><br />This isn't communist Poland; you don't get to order me around.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-2018123048477306142013-10-31T18:08:13.351-04:002013-10-31T18:08:13.351-04:00It is not fault of David Berlinski that you are no...It is not fault of David Berlinski that you are not able to understand his mind. Why personal campaign? Leave him alone.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10663748917994188345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20067416.post-44866012589076731482013-02-28T17:03:05.426-05:002013-02-28T17:03:05.426-05:00"Hasn't published very much" is kind...<i>"Hasn't published very much" is kind of subjective.</i><br /><br />I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. By "hasn't published very much" I mean he hasn't published much original research.<br /><br />What do you think Berlinski's top three scientific results are?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.com