January 05, 2005

Edge's 2005 Question: What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it? (seen on that ...other site).
posted by Gyan 19 years ago
  • [comment mocking John Brockman, bootlicker extraordinaire]
  • that the government is secretly watching everything everyone does on the internets
  • I believe that children are the future. Also, I believe that I can lose weight by eating lots of cream pies.
  • I believe posting on Monkeyfilter makes me better than mere humans.
  • [Comment defending John Brockman, good guy] This is fine stuff. Still exploring it. Dennett's response was extremely interesting' Sheldrake's, naturally, was good for a terribly superior giggle. It's a great question to ask, both for casting light on some great concepts at the forefront of current thought and research, but also for exploring the role of 'hypothesis and imagination' (as Peter Medawar put it) as an essential element of the methodology of rational thought. Which can be overlooked sometimes, especially in non-historical contexts, as something that's going on right now. So yes, it's good stuff.
  • That I am the sexiest man alive.
  • Bigfoot.
  • That I am as sexy as Bondurant.
  • That I am as sexy as Bigfoot... wait.. That I am as sexy as Nostrildamus... crap.
  • This article can be had via Arts & Letters Daily so if you haven't already made this site a part of your weekly browsing rounds I hope you consider adding it, if only because it seems to host a relatively unbiased source of entertainment.
  • Another absorbing post, Gyan. Thanks.
  • a relatively unbiased source of entertainment. I wouldn't say the words "Denis Dutton" around rodgerd for quids.
  • Good post...this will take a while to explore.
  • a relatively unbiased source of entertainment. One of those words doesn't belong.
  • This is, as they say, post-interesting.
  • I also thought Dennet's response to be interesting, although I don't think he's quite right. On the same subject, though, I think Ned Block probably is.
  • I believe that seven paragraphs were five too many to introduce the topic in that link.
  • *looks up Dutton's comments* And finally, it is beginning to look as though empirical psychology is equipped to address the universality of art. For example, evolutionary psychology is being used by literary scholars to explain the persistent themes and plot devices in fiction. Expect an even more formula-driven run of movies you have no interest in seeing coming down the turnpike real soon now.
  • Expect an even more formula-driven run of movies you have no interest in seeing coming down the turnpike real soon now.
    A lot Brocker's (Kay, the thinking machines crew) friends are connected with Disney. Coincidence? I think not.
  • Expect an even more formula-driven run of movies you have no interest in seeing coming down the turnpike real soon now. I will spare you the long lecture, but if you want to see where "hollywood formula" comes from, check out Aristotle's Poetics. Following the rules of storytelling is not the problem with bad movies- following them with insufficient imagination is.
  • I agree with the preceding two comments. I am so shallow that I can't be bothered tracking the thread back any further. At this point, I usually recommend that people read Vladimir Propp's Morphology of the Folktale. Wonderful stuff.
  • Some unique works of art ... possess this rare but demonstrable capacity to excite the human mind across cultural boundaries and through historic time. A lot Brocker's ... friends are connected with Disney. Coincidence? Simple shakey philosophy? The glimmer of a key to a conspiracy? Time to start looking for some patterns in A&LD's offerings, but picking up Propp's books anytime soon is a bit much. Maybe when I feel more zealous.
  • What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it? Riemann Hypothesis, natch!
  • I don't know. I read a bit of Brockman's The Third Culture, and it filled me with brand-spanking-new hate. That guy's got talent.
  • I believe that while I am too lazy to surf A&LD (note: "too lazy to surf" -- now that's fucking lazy), I'm always grateful for its nuggets that wash up here. Thanks, Gyan.
  • I found the discussions about belief, proof and the limits of what is possible to prove quite dull. That should be a rule - no discussing the question. It's as bad as people talking about jazz. I liked the ones where people stated belif in the existence of aliens or that the electron is composed of more fundamental particles.
  • It's as bad as people talking about jazz And somewhere, in the jungle, the ground trembles and small animals flee in terror as the mighty behemoth Wolof stirs from his slumbers....
  • I believe that 'all things in time...' Thanks Gyan, I had lost this site in a melt-down and am so happy to have it back. Or is this supposed to be a really profound type question? I hope not as I'm too tired to be deep.