Søe, S. O. (2019). A unified account of information, misinformation, and disinformation. Synthese. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02444-x

Smaldino, Paul E., and Cailin O’Connor. ‘Interdisciplinarity Can Aid the Spread of Better Methods Between Scientific Communities’. MetaArXiv, 5 November 2020. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/cm5v3.

Mayo. (2019, August 2). S. Senn: Red herrings and the art of cause fishing: Lord’s Paradox revisited (Guest post). Error Statistics Philosophy. https://errorstatistics.com/2019/08/02/s-senn-red-herrings-and-the-art-of-cause-fishing-lords-paradox-revisited-guest-post/

Scientific Imperialism: Exploring the Boundaries of Interdisciplinarity. (n.d.). Routledge & CRC Press. Retrieved 20 February 2021, from https://www.routledge.com/Scientific-Imperialism-Exploring-the-Boundaries-of-Interdisciplinarity/Maki-Walsh-Pinto/p/book/9780367889074

"Eclecticism may be defined as the practice of choosing apparently irreconcilable doctrines from antagonistic schools and constructing therefrom a composite philosophic system in harmony with the convictions of the eclectic himself. Eclecticism can scarcely be considered philosophically or logically sound, for as individual schools arrive at their conclusions by different methods of reasoning, so the philosophic product of fragments from these schools must necessarily be built upon the foundation of conflicting premises. Eclecticism, accordingly, has been designated the layman's cult. In the Roman Empire little thought was devoted to philosophic theory; consequently most of its thinkers were of the eclectic type. Cicero is the outstanding example of early Eclecticism, for his writings are a veritable potpourri of invaluable fragments from earlier schools of thought. Eclecticism appears to have had its inception at the moment when men first doubted the possibility of discovering ultimate truth. Observing all so-called knowledge to be mere opinion at best, the less studious furthermore concluded that the wiser course to pursue was to accept that which appeared to be the most reasonable of the teachings of any school or individual. From this practice, however, arose a pseudo-broadmindedness devoid of the element of preciseness found in true logic and philosophy."

— Manly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings Of All Ages

Foucault probably offers the most helpful theoretical approach. His “archaeology of knowledge” suggests a way to study texts as sites that bear the marks of epistemological activity, and it has the advantage of doing justice to the social dimension of thought.

Lakens, D. (2019, November 18). The Value of Preregistration for Psychological Science: A Conceptual Analysis. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jbh4w

Learn from the past, before diving into the future. A modern ode to tradition.

Feenberg (2014) - The Philosophy of Praxis

• https://is.gd/rRdkpf
• urn:x-pdf:66643138316666396434353333386635343038303761366166633161366638316662343434306138303065653764313430666538396130653139366537353237

Cressman (2020) - Contingency and Potential: Reconsidering a Dialectical Philosophy of Technology

• https://is.gd/62UmVg
• urn:x-pdf:9a5a4b04e1f1024dac12fd2e41e9a87c

I'm curious to see what evidence of this the article will provide. How well read is he within the field of philosophy?

Trying out the public note feature

From Routledge:

Ernst Cassirer occupies a unique space in twentieth-century philosophy. A great liberal humanist, his multi-faceted work spans the history of philosophy, the philosophy of science, intellectual history, aesthetics, epistemology, the study of language and myth, and more. Cassirer’s thought also anticipates the renewed interest in the origins of analytic and continental philosophy in the Twentieth Century and the divergent paths taken by the 'logicist' and existential traditions, epitomised by his now legendary debate in 1929 with the philosopher Martin Heidegger, over the question "What is the Human Being?"

The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms is Cassirer's most important work. It was first published in German in 1923, the third and final volume appearing in 1929. In it Cassirer presents a radical new philosophical worldview - at once rich, creative and controversial - of human beings as fundamentally "symbolic animals", placing signs and systems of expression between themselves and the world.

This major new translation of all three volumes, the first for over fifty years, brings Cassirer's magnum opus to a new generation of students and scholars. Taken together, the three volumes of The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms are a vital treatise on human beings as symbolic animals and a monumental expression of neo-Kantian thought.

Correcting important errors in previous English editions, this translation reflects the contributions of significant advances in Cassirer scholarship over the last twenty to thirty years. Each volume includes a new introduction and translator's notes by Steve G. Lofts, a foreword by Peter E. Gordon, a glossary of key terms, and a thorough index.

“The Philosophy Of Symbolic Forms: Three Volume Set.” n.d. Routledge & CRC Press. Accessed January 26, 2021. https://web.archive.orghttps://web.archive.org/web/20210126070818/https://www.routledge.com/The-Philosophy-of-Symbolic-Forms-Three-Volume-Set/Cassirer/p/book/9781138907256.

Cassirer's Wikipedia page is here; from it:

Cassirer was one of the leading 20th-century advocates of philosophical idealism. His most famous work is the Philosophy of Symbolic Forms (1923–1929).

Though his work received a mixed reception shortly after his death, more recent scholarship has remarked upon Cassirer's role as a strident defender of the moral idealism of the Enlightenment era and the cause of liberal democracy at a time when the rise of fascism had made such advocacy unfashionable. Within the international Jewish community, Cassirer's work has additionally been seen as part of a long tradition of thought on ethical philosophy.

I'd have laughed too, but for the present moment this seems to in fact be the case.

Or as he might be termed today, Mr. Robot.

but on the other hand, how do you aware of your flaws without even just a polished, refined hate as a hint or sign for awakening you toward that flaws? maybe see your hate as a signal of something rather than a unrealistic shitty self

you mistakenly, and lazily, attribute something you don't know as you are shit and derive hate toward a imagined, self-created, inaccuratvily percevied shitty you, no wonder.

suceessee is a by product of the cumulative potential possibilities to which you expand and strech yourself by expericening real learning, real happiness, from the moment derived from encountering, embracing and digesting the difficulty when you are learning

Basically, the guy wants to teach kids but also be a professional academic researcher. While it's probably true that teaching kids philosophy is a good thing, I don't know why that has to be considered an academic practice. Maybe he should just start his own nonprofit for that stuff?

True for advanced study of any kind. [[complexity]]

explanation of godel's theorems

Is the author implying that, on a 'Referent' and 'Thought and Language' Grid, 'Referent" ("I" as Subject) as a content of the 'Thought and Language' ("My pants are on fire") calls for action enablement. Whereas 'Referent' ("Smith" as Subject) as content of the 'Thought and Language' ("Smith's pants are on fire") is not self-locating, for being non-first personal thought?

== Two Lines of Thinking == (1) Smith's pants are on fire. He should put it out. (2) Smith's pants are on fire. He should put it out. I am Smith. Therefore, my pants are on fire. Therefore, I should put it out.

== unless, I come to believe 'I = Smith', only then it calls for action. Unless and until, 'Smith' becomes first-personal in the mind, it is unable to self-locate.

Why life can't be simpler? (HN)

Why life can't be simpler? :D

A very apt description of Trump's life philosophy. Also a broad perspective at how many Republicans and Libertarians seem to view the world economically: privatizing profits and socializing losses.

I feel like this word captures very well the exact era of Trumpian Republicanism in which we find ourselves living.

How does this juxtapose with the ideas of indigenous scocieties in James Suzman's article The 300,000-year case for the 15-hour week (Financial Times, 2020-08-27)

hyperobject

And roughly at about that same time was the beginning of the IndieWeb.

I've not seen any research that relates the Renaissance ideas of the Great Chain of Being moving into this new era of supposed freedom. In some sense I'm seeing the richest elite whites trying to maintain their own place in a larger hierarchy rather than stronger beliefs in equality and hard work.

I like this sentiment. Had René Descartes been born a bit later might he have said "Blogeō, ergo sum"?

Slide 13:

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”

― Heraclitus

Of course it’s not the same river — the river, is, what? The water flowing past your feet? The sound that it makes? These things are different at every moment. Our idea of ‘the river’ doesn’t correspond to anything in the real world. Understanding this concept means getting closer to an understanding of reality itself — once you fully absorb the impact of this idea, it changes you, from a person who didn’t have that understanding into one who does.

And as you bask in your newfound zen-like enlightenment, you discover an almost spiritually calming effect — the world as it is right now is the only thing that matters, not the state of the world as it was yesterday or as it will be tomorrow.

Slide 39:

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.”

― Heraclitus

And I think Heraclitus probably understood it all along. There’s a paradox contained in this statement. If the concept of identity over time is meaningless, then what do we mean by ‘it’ and ‘he’?

Robertson, O. M., & Pownall, M. (2020). The Expertise Paradox: Opportunities and Challenges of a Public Psychology Framework [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/sfnb9

Landgrave, M. (2020). How Do Legislators Value Constituent’s (Statistical) Lives? COVID-19, Partisanship, and Value of a Statistical Life Analysis. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/n93w2

I wonder what Martin Buber would say about this use of the word 'dialogue'...

Starominski-Uehara, M. (2020). Mass Media Exposing Representations of Reality Through Critical Inquiry [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/vz9cu

American Philosophical Society. (2020, June 08). Evidence Symposium. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoKwLGnyZL4Ds5cQo5muFMg8zKXK4KobH

Something, something, eternal return

Richards, A. D. (2020). Ethical Guidelines for Deliberately Infecting Volunteers with COVID-19 [Preprint]. SocArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/jb7gq

Webster, G. D., Mahar, E., & Wongsomboon, V. (2020). American Psychology Is Becoming More International, But Too Slowly: Comment on Thalmayer et al. (2020). https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/wqmer Ame

Pensando a Pandemia: Tópicos em Filosofia da Mente e Psicologia. (2020, July 2). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiVz0q5oRK8

Shmueli, G. (2010). To Explain or to Predict? Statistical Science, 25(3), 289–310.

Jha, R. (n.d.). Sweden’s ‘Soft’ COVID19 Strategy: An Appraisal. ORF. Retrieved July 9, 2020, from https://www.orfonline.org/research/swedens-soft-covid19-strategy-an-appraisal-69291/

Argument Quality in Real World Argumentation. (2020). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(5), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.01.004

Margoni, F., & Surian, L. (2020). Judging Accidental Harm: Due Care and Foreseeability of Side Effects [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qgxsn

Il valore della ragione nella filosofia illuminista

Pigliucci, M. (2020, May 19). No, predictions are not overrated. On some scientists’ strange attitude toward philosophy. Medium. https://medium.com/science-and-philosophy/no-predictions-are-not-overrated-on-some-scientists-strange-attitude-toward-philosophy-60dfd5c2cb83

Prinzing, M., De Freitas, J., & Fredrickson, B. (2020). The lay concept of a meaningful life: The role of subjective and objective factors in attributions of meaning [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6sx4t

finalmente qualcuno che mi capisce

Fast Science and Philosophy of Science | Jacob Stegenga. (2020, May 11). BSPS. http://www.thebsps.org/auxhyp/fast-science-stegenga/

Disagree. It does once you master the "Inner Game" the way John Galway explains it. Competition then is your ally to find the best version of yourself. To do things you did not think you could because your opponent helped you bring this out of you. And so it is in Aikido and value of a good opponent.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeUXG-DsxF-nMJEidB6Ie83NPwUDwEuwHFPel36NoArBaMTrA/viewform

Although widely held, the belief that merit rather than luck determines success or failure in the world is demonstrably false. This is not least because merit itself is, in large part, the result of luck. Talent and the capacity for determined effort, sometimes called ‘grit’, depend a great deal on one’s genetic endowments and upbringing.

In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.

In addition to being false, a growing body of research in psychology and neuroscience suggests that believing in meritocracy makes people more selfish, less self-critical and even more prone to acting in discriminatory ways. Meritocracy is not only wrong; it’s bad.

Perhaps more disturbing, simply holding meritocracy as a value seems to promote discriminatory behaviour. [Researchers] found that, in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value, managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.

However, in addition to legitimation, meritocracy also offers flattery. Where success is determined by merit, each win can be viewed as a reflection of one’s own virtue and worth. Meritocracy is the most self-congratulatory of distribution principles.

Despite the moral assurance and personal flattery that meritocracy offers to the successful, it ought to be abandoned both as a belief about how the world works and as a general social ideal. It’s false, and believing in it encourages selfishness, discrimination and indifference to the plight of the unfortunate.

Why the Golden Rule isn't enough

Mengzian extension models general moral concern on the natural concern we already have for people close to us, while the Golden Rule models general moral concern on concern for oneself.

Ilike Mengzian extension better for three reasons. First, Mengzian extension is more psychologically plausible as a model of moral development. People do, naturally, have concern and compassion for others around them. Explicit exhortations aren’t needed to produce this natural concern and compassion, and these natural reactions are likely to be the main seed from which mature moral cognition grows. Our moral reactions to vivid, nearby cases become the bases for more general principles and policies. If you need to reason or analogise your way into concern even for close family members, you’re already in deep moral trouble.

Second, Mengzian extension is less ambitious – in a good way. The Golden Rule imagines a leap from self-interest to generalised good treatment of others. This might be excellent and helpful advice, perhaps especially for people who are already concerned about others and thinking about how to implement that concern. But Mengzian extension has the advantage of starting the cognitive project much nearer the target, requiring less of a leap. Self-to-other is a huge moral and ontological divide. Family-to-neighbour, neighbour-to-fellow citizen – that’s much less of a divide.

Third, you can turn Mengzian extension back on yourself, if you are one of those people who has trouble standing up for your own interests – if you’re the type of person who is excessively hard on yourself or who tends to defer a bit too much to others. You would want to stand up for your loved ones and help them flourish. Apply Mengzian extension, and offer the same kindness to yourself. If you’d want your father to be able to take a vacation, realise that you probably deserve a vacation too. If you wouldn’t want your sister to be insulted by her spouse in public, realise that you too shouldn’t have to suffer that indignity.

"Communitarian"

Fonte confiável de estudo.

In a post cold-war world, viewed in increasing binaries of left and right winds be it social liberal - conservative or socialist-capitalist tendancies, it seems incomprehensible as to how one can reject both USA's and Soviet's socio-economic models. I'm curious to know how they organize their economy in this case.

One part why the western world hates the Islamic revolution might be their lack of understanding about this exact phrase, other than the fact that Iran became a theocracy.

Like the air-pump, recent experiments with electricity also fascinate Victor even while he reaches for a non-modern "system" that would be antithetical to empirical scientific reason. See Iwan Morus, Frankenstein's Children: Electricity, Exhibition, and Experiment in Early Nineteenth Century London (Princeton UP, 1998).

It is unclear who this English philosopher might have been, though it might be a reference to Erasmus Darwin, who Percy Shelley cites in the novel's introduction.

William Godwin was Mary Godwin's father, the leading radical political philosopher of the Romantic period. A prolific writer, Godwin was known primarily for his political works, most notably Enquiry Concerning Political Justice and its Influence on Morals and Happiness (1793), but also for the novel Things as They Are; or, The Adventures of Caleb Williams (1794) and the biography of his late wife Mary Wollstonecraft, Memoirs of the Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1798), an early example of biography.

Not called "science" until the mid-nineteenth century, "natural philosophy" was science in the tradition of England's Royal Society (begun 1660), with its emphasis on Baconian induction, careful experiment, and refusal of any older science that could not be proven and demonstrated in a laboratory.

Albertus Magnus (1193-1280) was also the teacher of St. Thomas Aquinas. He is often praised for his rejection of dogmatic philosophy and his stress on experimentation. Many books, including the Little Book on Alchemy, were falsely attributed to Magnus but likely written by Paracelsus.

Born in Geneva, Switzerland, Victor is a potential hero insofar as he embodies the "republican" virtues of Europe's only country, much admired by the Shelleys, which did not have a hereditary monarchy. By making Geneva so central to the novel's cultural geography, Mary Shelley also designates the relation between Victor's ambition and Jean Jacques Rousseau's world-making ambition in Discourse on Inequality (1754) among other works.

identify

Victor appears so engrossed in his creation that he forgets his discoveries are predicated on the previous research of scientists and natural philosophers. He fails to acknowledge that he "stands on the shoulders of giants," to use the phrase from Sir Issac Newton (1642-1726), including his teachers, a shortcoming indicative of pride of ownership.

An essential instrument for scientific experiments on gases, the first entirely successful air-pump was created for Robert Boyle's experiments at the Royal Society in 1661. Victor's enthusiasm for a modern scientific instrument counterbalances his attraction to magic and pre-modern philosophy. For the broader significance of this invention, see Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air Pump (Princeton University Press,1985).

Far more than printed books, attendance at lectures on natural philosophy instructed thousands of eighteenth-century students of the sciences. Mary Shelley indirectly refers the reader to the vastly popular London lectures on the sciences to which audiences had been flocking since Humphry Davy's inaugural lecture in 1802. Anne Mellor has persuasively argued that Davy was a partial model for the character of Victor in this novel. [Anne Mellor, Mary Shelley: Her Life, Her Fiction, Her Monsters (Routledge, 1989) pp. 91-103)]

Shelley refers to Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), the polymath poet, inventor, and scientist who controversially speculated on the materialist idea of life's origins in matter.

First philosophical definition of veganism.

Step 1. Get comfortable. Get a pen.

Step 2. Four questions before you read and during. Goal to find answer.

2:26 Q1. What's the point? (Vad diskuteras?)

i.e.: What is the issue or question that drives this book? What area is it in? Why is being written?

2:30 Q2 Why did they bother? (Varför diskuteras det?)

i.e. Motivation. What do they want to you think or believe?

2:49 Q3 What are they trying to prove? (Vad försöker de övertyga dig om?)

i.e. Thesis. What they are trying to convince you to believe, what they are trying to get you to share.

2:55 Q4 How are they trying to prove it? (Hur försöker de övertyga dig om det?)

i.e. Evidence, arguments in favor

Step 3. Interrogate the text.

Detective looking for clues, find answer to the four questions

• Read blurb
• Read inside jacket copy or back cover
• First and last paragraph of the book
• First and last paragraph of each chapter
• First and last paragraph of the section working on for current day/week
• Review what you have found: What should you expect to find when you study this further?

Step 4. Fast read.

Overall movement and architecture of work.

Mark with pen. Draw horizontal line at break in text, e.g. when author says that "Now we are finished with this question."

5:15 Step 5. Slow, careful read.

Go through text paragraph by paragraph, annotate with pen, trying to find answers to the four questions.

Annotate:

• Structural clues: introduction, thesis, outline of the argument
• Write numbers in the margins.
• Mark key passages. Write a descriptive word or two next to each paragraph for future reference. If unable write a question mark and go on.
• Question marks in margin when confused and point out what confuses you (e.g. by circling och underlining words).

7:14 Step 6. Write a short summary.

10 minutes after finished reading. Do not postpone.

In book or on sticky note.

The author of this article articulates the instrumental learning theories in the healthcare industry. The information provided is more like a speedy way for students and healthcare providers to understand the learning theories. Rating: 4/5

Quaker principle "speak truth to power."

It means a collection of things (human or not) that relate to each other and do things. For example, guns don't kill people, nor does people kill people. (Gun + people) kill people.

a nice way to put it

what's the way to shield yourself from that? This is stresfull mostly because this is not who he (or I) is... i.e. person equipped to deal with this kind of relations