iBores
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Pd on 11 Jun 2010 04:13 Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > Yes well, there's a great deal that is better than that or than the book > reviewed. The book itself presents nothing new and appears to offer no > unique insights. > > It was done better a long time ago by Giancarlo Livraghi in his book > "The Power of Stupidity". That would be the one published in May, 2009. Obviously a long time before 2007. > http://gandalf.it/stupid/chapters.htm I wonder if there's a book called "The Power of Rancor". -- Pd
From: Jim on 11 Jun 2010 04:21 On 2010-06-11, Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > >> Yes well, there's a great deal that is better than that or than the book >> reviewed. The book itself presents nothing new and appears to offer no >> unique insights. >> >> It was done better a long time ago by Giancarlo Livraghi in his book >> "The Power of Stupidity". > > That would be the one published in May, 2009. Obviously a long time > before 2007. Um...according to http://www.gandalf.it/stupid/stupid.htm it was originally written in 1996. Jim -- Twitter:@GreyAreaUK "If you have enough book space, I don't want to talk to you." Terry Pratchett
From: Pd on 11 Jun 2010 04:34 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > I've long thought that all this stuff which can be written in actual > words about the workings of the mind is bullshit. We certainly don't > think in words - the words are the excuse that the mind generates to > justify the decision it's made for `you', whatever `you' might be > considered to be. A lot of people don't think in words, but there are plenty of people who do a lot of hard thinking that do think in words. Language is a tool that allows access, codification, specification and manipulation of ideas and concepts. Without language it's very difficult to think very far into a problem, particularly sociological problems that only exist in language. Obviously not all language uses words made of letters - another example is musical notation, which neatly demonstrates the difference between the language and what it represents - but the abstraction of objects, actions, feelings, theories, concepts and so on into symbols that can be worked with is the foundation of transferable knowledge, hence society, civilisation, and almost everything that involves meaningful interaction with other people. That's just off the top of my head, so it might be full of holes, but I think those words are whatever it is that's doing the thinking thinks I think. -- Pd
From: Pd on 11 Jun 2010 04:47 Jim <jim(a)magrathea.plus.com> wrote: > On 2010-06-11, Pd <peterd.news(a)gmail.invalid> wrote: > > Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> Yes well, there's a great deal that is better than that or than the book > >> reviewed. The book itself presents nothing new and appears to offer no > >> unique insights. > >> > >> It was done better a long time ago by Giancarlo Livraghi in his book > >> "The Power of Stupidity". > > > > That would be the one published in May, 2009. Obviously a long time > > before 2007. > > Um...according to http://www.gandalf.it/stupid/stupid.htm it was originally > written in 1996. Nah, that was "Il potere della stupidit�" that was published in 1996. The prima edizione in inglese, of the book called "The Power of Stupidity", was in 2009. But yeah, fair enough. I claim powerful stupidity in my defence. -- Pd
From: Sak Wathanasin on 11 Jun 2010 04:47
On 10 June, 18:36, Tim Streater <timstrea...(a)waitrose.com> wrote: > Not really. A statistically tiny sample. Another example of blasted > doctors with no training in mathematics; see: > > http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~streater/goodcures.html You might be interested in Gerd Gigerenzer's Reckoning with Risk: Learning to Live with Uncertainty for more examples on how doctors and maths sometimes don't mix well. |