Movie/TV recommendations

[Frenetic Pony]

Exasperated Sigh.

[Gormongous]

Exasperated Sigh.

 

Yeah, I know. It's just a jag I've been on lately, having recently reread Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and spoken with several scientists who seem to feel that their discipline somehow is uniquely connected to the true nature of existence and reality in a way no other human endeavor is able to be.

 

Tyson's pretty much an idiot when it comes to anything except telling everyone how amazing science is and how shit everything else is. Listen to this podcast at 20:19 if you want to hear him 1) not understand anything about philosophy, and 2) not let that stop him from saying philosophy is a worthless waste of time that will "mess you up." Tyson thinks maybe there's too much question asking in philosophy, and that we shouldn't concern ourselves with "the meaning of meaning," and that philosophers are distracted by their questions and can't move forwards, whereas the scientist discards these distractions and simply moves forwards and makes progress.

 

I don't know if I'm willing to call him an idiot myself, but it is really creepy for a public intellectual to bag on philosophy at length because it doesn't use the methods or produce the results with which he is personally comfortable.

[Frenetic Pony]

Stuff shortened

 

 

Not really. I don't mean to insult anyone, I don't mean to bag on anyone's "thing". But science isn't a "philosphy" or a "belief" like most people understand and categorize as such. It simply the act of attempting to determine what happens when. That's it, that's all it's "trying" to do. To say "oh yes, objects attract each other. This happens, ok." No meaning or lack of meaning is ever tied to it, other than determining how objects in the universe appear to work to the best of the observers ability.

 

Now I can understand where his frustration with, err, philosophical thinkers, comes in. Occasionally they'll pop up in a scientific debate, even as I've tried to establish they're really two different things. And they'll try to marry the two somehow, and that just plain annoys scientists. One of my favorite examples was just a forum thread like this one, on the "nature of reality". But since the forum thread read "science" with explicitly science based content, it was a scientific argument of "what have we figured out."

 

Then someone came in and started talking about how mathematics could describe any possible universe, and so what was there to separate all those other theoretical universes from ours? Is our universe just math? And that really gets into philosophy stuff. I proved it as comically as I could, refined by a guy with doctorate in physics, as "Yes the universe exists. I will prove it by chucking this rock at your head, and you will feel pain!" Which was the debate. Yes philosophy and what is meaning, ok. But that should, hopefully, be separated out from "what do we know, to the best of our ability, about predicting physical outcomes in our observed universe?"

 

Or as Terry Pratchett put it "The world's edge exists. You can go out there and see it for yourself. And it will continue to exist whether you believe in it or not. But does that make it the truth?" Thus, I hope, neatly separating philosophy from science so we can all go about our business happily and separately.

 

Bonus SMBC comic:

 

[Gormongous]

Not really. I don't mean to insult anyone, I don't mean to bag on anyone's "thing". But science isn't a "philosphy" or a "belief" like most people understand and categorize as such. It simply the act of attempting to determine what happens when. That's it, that's all it's "trying" to do. To say "oh yes, objects attract each other. This happens, ok." No meaning or lack of meaning is ever tied to it, other than determining how objects in the universe appear to work to the best of the observers ability.

 

I don't mean to insult you either, Pony, but you don't seem to have read much on the history or philosophy of science. Science is not the impartial observation of nature. Even before quantum mechanics compromised it technically, it was known to be suspect epistemologically. Science, whether medicine or physics or whatever, is as conjectural and interpretive as any other area of human knowledge, hence inextricable from the humans doing it. It is a belief system as much as any religion is a belief system, being "the act of attempting to determine what happens when," albeit one that is more right if your definition of "right" involves predictability and falsifiability and other concepts science has developed to distinguish itself from other belief systems. The fact that many scientists (and laymen like you, too) still present science as a gradual and orderly accumulation of objective information about reality over the centuries is a frequently discussed and critiqued failing of the STEM disciplines that goes back to historical roots in the Enlightenment and otherwise outmoded methods of positivist cultural thought.

 

Sorry, I'm just a little disappointed that you read what I posted about Cosmos and concluded that I just hadn't applied Occam's Razor. If you are interested in where I'm coming from, you should read Thomas Kuhn or Karl Popper, both of whom have written enormously influential works on the philosophy of science in the twentieth century and, if either were still alive, would probably have some problems with the show, too.

[Frenetic Pony]

I don't mean to insult you either, Pony, but you don't seem to have read much on the history or philosophy of science. Science is not the impartial observation of nature. Even before quantum mechanics compromised it technically, it was known to be suspect epistemologically. Science, whether medicine or physics or whatever, is as conjectural and interpretive as any other area of human knowledge, hence inextricable from the humans doing it. It is a belief system as much as any religion is a belief system, being "the act of attempting to determine what happens when," albeit one that is more right if your definition of "right" involves predictability and falsifiability and other concepts science has developed to distinguish itself from other belief systems. The fact that many scientists (and laymen like you, too) still present science as a gradual and orderly accumulation of objective information about reality over the centuries is a frequently discussed and critiqued failing of the STEM disciplines that goes back to historical roots in the Enlightenment and otherwise outmoded methods of positivist cultural thought.

 

Sorry, I'm just a little disappointed that you read what I posted about Cosmos and concluded that I just hadn't applied Occam's Razor. If you are interested in where I'm coming from, you should read Thomas Kuhn or Karl Popper, both of whom have written enormously influential works on the philosophy of science in the twentieth century and, if either were still alive, would probably have some problems with the show, too.

 

Science is the impartial observation of nature.

 

That's it. Anyone telling you someone different doesn't know what it is, because the two are literally interchangeable terms. "The impartial observation of nature" is the actual definition of the term in most every dictionary. It doesn't mean we humans are perfect at applying it in reality, but it is the literal and ideal definition.

[Gormongous]

Science is the impartial observation of nature.

That's it. Anyone telling you someone different doesn't know what it is, because the two are literally interchangeable terms. "The impartial observation of nature" is the actual definition of the term in most every dictionary. It doesn't mean we humans are perfect at applying it in reality, but it is the literal and ideal definition.

I'm glad we had this talk. Nothing is more pleasant than talking to someone with interesting ideas and an openness towards those of others.

In all seriousness, you're saying that some of the greatest minds of the past century don't know what science is, but you do, because it's so simple and straightforward. Did you even look up Karl Popper or his writings before dismissing him?

This is why I don't usually like engaging with you, Pony. You make authoritative claims about stuff you don't really know, then employ reductive tactics to make people who disagree with you, often through greater knowledge or experience, look like idiots and sophists. A dictionary definition? I give my students Cs and Ds for basing their arguments on what's in Websters. No field of study, no part of human experience, functions as simply or straightforwardly as the dictionary says. You might as well quote back to me the definition of "history" when I ask why a given book on world history is so Eurocentric.

[Nappi]

"The impartial observation of nature" is the actual definition of the term in most every dictionary.

 

Ugh.. I really hope that this is not true, because that is such a disappointing definition. First, science is not just about observing things. Second, what the hell is "impartial observation"?

 

Edit: sorry to keep this off-topic. I don't think this should be continued here.

[Gormongous]

sorry to keep this off-topic. I don't think this should be continued here.

I agree. I'd rather just let it drop. I came here to express frustrations with the current presentation of Cosmos, not to debate the existence and validity of postpositivism.

[Justin Leego]

Perhaps it'd be better to distinguish two ways in which the word "science" can be used in these sorts of discussions

• the scientific method as used in order to move closer to an impartial observation of nature
• a materialistic and atheistic worldview

Does that seem fair?

 

edit:

 

Ugh.. I really hope that this is not true, because that is such a disappointing definition. First, science is not just about observing things. Second, what the hell is "impartial observation"?

 

Edit: sorry to keep this off-topic. I don't think this should be continued here.

 

I agree. I'd rather just let it drop. I came here to express frustrations with the current presentation of Cosmos, not to debate the existence and validity of postpositivism.

 

Sure, fair enough.

[Merus]

I don't have much to put forward here, except that the core of science is the scientific method, which is pretty clearly a system of thought. It's not unreasonable to refer to that as a 'philosophy', and that's exactly what early scientists did: they called it 'natural philosophy'.

 

The other thing I can bring to the table is my ability to do a fucking Google search before I assert that literally every dictionary defines science in a way that supports my argument. Using how a word is defined in the dictionary as your argument is one of the least useful forms of debate - it's not much better than argument from authority - and I feel like if you can't even get that right, you should take a long, hard look at yourself before you open your goddamn fool mouth again.

 

Long. And hard.

[TychoCelchuuu]

I don't have much to put forward here, except that the core of science is the scientific method, which is pretty clearly a system of thought. It's not unreasonable to refer to that as a 'philosophy', and that's exactly what early scientists did: they called it 'natural philosophy'.

I don't think it's a very good characterization of science to say that the core of it is the scientific method. If you study how actual scientists produce the actual results that actually get published in actual science journals, you'll notice that many of them don't conform to the "method" of science that we make high schoolers memorize (search #overlyhonestmethods for instance).

[toblix]

SO two new episodes of both 24 and Louie in one night? Amazing!

[Stuart]

Am I insane in saying that Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong is really awesome? Specially the three hour extended version with the triceratops and swamp monster scene?

[TheLastBaron]

Am I insane in saying that Peter Jackson's remake of King Kong is really awesome? Specially the three hour extended version with the triceratops and swamp monster scene?

I really liked it, but I saw it in theaters and that means I would have been 14.  I don't actually remember much about it, but I think I actually thought it was good rather than I thought it was cool so I should probably rewatch it. 

[Professor Video Games]

If we're considering all the items from Ben's list of "ensemble socio-political dramas with no dragons", then I can't recommend Deadwood enough. It's about the micro-politics of a frontier community and almost every bit of drama in the show comes from the intersection between two different characters, if that makes any sense.

 

Seriously Deadwood is so good. Great writing, (mostly) great characters, and an interesting setting. It can take some time to get comfortable with its style of prose, but it's worth it. I'll never forgive those limber-dicked cocksuckers at HBO for cancelling it.

[tegan]

I finally got around to watching Trick 'r Treat. That movie is destined to become a classic. It's so perfectly timeless and works so incredibly well. My only complaint is that

Sam looks really silly without his burlap mask, but that might have been an intentional thing given how dedicated the movie is to its eighties practical effects look.

[Codicier]

I've been watching a lot of Castle as my relaxing tv show of choice recently. For a unpretentiously crime procedural it does a lot of stuf surprisingly well. The lead pairing are very likeable and it's still really quite nice to have a emotional, mildly incompetent, slightly childish, and family centred male, paired with competent logical, career minded, and mature woman. Almost a Mulder & Scully v2.0

[TheLastBaron]

I just watched Zelig for the second time and I still have no idea how I feel about it. I'm pretty sure I like it, and it's good, but I think I might need to see it a third time to fully get it.

[tegan]

H.R. Giger died. Guess I'm watching Alien today.

[pabosher]

Fargo, the TV series, it soo good.

 

I've only watched Episode 1, and not seen the movie. I have two thoughts:

 

1) What the fuck

2) Is it just me, or is Martin Freeman just working on his best Matthew Broderick impression?

[Roderick]

BOW BOW, CHICK, CHICKA-CHICKAAA

[Stuart]

H.R. Giger died. Guess I'm watching Alien today.

 

RIP.

[elmuerte]

damn... H.R. Giger was awesome

[Twig]

A thought just occurred to me, so I will share it.

 

The worst part about Once Upon a Time, and a lot of trashy television shows, is that they'd be so much fun if not for a select few MAIN CHARACTERS that are just so irritating beyond belief. Heroes suffered the same thing. I would've tolerated the dumb story if I didn't have to deal with the cheerleader in every episode. This stupid kid in Once Upon a Time hurts his show in the exact same way. So disappointing. I'm not asking for Game of Thrones or The Wire or Farscape. I'd be happy with Warehouse 13! But the CHARACTERS, man! The characters.

[clyde]

This cyberpunk movie is so good that I feel like I'm going to get creased for watching it.

I love the rubix-cube part.