She sucks when overextendeding her aura of expertise to domains she’s not good in (eg metaphysics and esp pan-psychism which she profoundly misunderstands yet self-assuredly talked about). Her criticism of academia is good, but she reproduces some of that nonsense herself.
Can you explain how you reached that conclusion? Since you’re a rigorous thinker, no doubt it would be trivial for you. After all, you’re notably up against Bertrand Russell, one of the writers of the first attempt to ground maths onto rigorous foundations, so since it only took you a few minutes to come to your conclusion, you must have a very powerful mind indeed. Explaining your reasoning would be as easy as breathing is for us the lesser-minded.
Aristotle believed in it too, along with the four humors and classical elements.
Doesn’t make his thoughts on rhetoric irrelevant, but those also don’t make his mystical solutions to problems he didn’t have the tools to solve correct.
That someone like Russell subscribed to a form of protopanpsychism is not a proof that his position is right. It does indicate, on the other hand, that it could be a kind of metaphysical position that’s more serious than you believe it is, serious enough that vaguely recognizing a few words in a few sentences on wikipedia is not enough to actually understand it. Not only that but it’s had actual scientific productivity through ergonomics (eg “How the cockpit remembers its speed”), biology (biosemiotics), sociology (actor network theory), and even arguably in physics through Ernst Mach and information theory.
What are you even responding to? You don’t seem too keen on learning anything honestly. Can we at least agree that saying “panpsychism is woo/mysticism” is a form of ignorance, willful, stubborn ignorance in your case? It’s fine, it’s impossible to learn everything in a single lifetime, but at least let’s be honest.
She sucks when overextendeding her aura of expertise to domains she’s not good in (eg metaphysics and esp pan-psychism which she profoundly misunderstands yet self-assuredly talked about). Her criticism of academia is good, but she reproduces some of that nonsense herself.
As someone who just looked at the Wikipedia article, I too am an expert in this field, unironically, because it’s woo woo nonsense.
Can you explain how you reached that conclusion? Since you’re a rigorous thinker, no doubt it would be trivial for you. After all, you’re notably up against Bertrand Russell, one of the writers of the first attempt to ground maths onto rigorous foundations, so since it only took you a few minutes to come to your conclusion, you must have a very powerful mind indeed. Explaining your reasoning would be as easy as breathing is for us the lesser-minded.
Aristotle believed in it too, along with the four humors and classical elements.
Doesn’t make his thoughts on rhetoric irrelevant, but those also don’t make his mystical solutions to problems he didn’t have the tools to solve correct.
That someone like Russell subscribed to a form of protopanpsychism is not a proof that his position is right. It does indicate, on the other hand, that it could be a kind of metaphysical position that’s more serious than you believe it is, serious enough that vaguely recognizing a few words in a few sentences on wikipedia is not enough to actually understand it. Not only that but it’s had actual scientific productivity through ergonomics (eg “How the cockpit remembers its speed”), biology (biosemiotics), sociology (actor network theory), and even arguably in physics through Ernst Mach and information theory.
No it doesn’t.
What are you even responding to? You don’t seem too keen on learning anything honestly. Can we at least agree that saying “panpsychism is woo/mysticism” is a form of ignorance, willful, stubborn ignorance in your case? It’s fine, it’s impossible to learn everything in a single lifetime, but at least let’s be honest.