Hacker News Reader

Comment by tuyjrtkfeldc | Hacker News Reader

No man, the texts are available, go read them. It takes time, effort and respect towards the perspectives of others to actually understand how complex things work, such as theories about human mind and social order.

Would you encourage someone with no experience in chemistry to start mixing chemicals without understanding potentially dangerous effects? Would you encourage someone who is not an engineer to construct a bridge without adequate preparation and planning? Experts can be authoritative because their experience grants them the ability to know better than non-experts in their respective fields.

View on HN

Are you saying I should refrain from atheism until I have read Summa Theologica?

No, I'm saying that you're conflating atheism with being an arrogant moron.

John Searle makes sense when wiriting on the mind. Jacques Derrida, who I have read, does not. The post-modernists are obscurantist charlatans who en masse form an institution that demands attention rather than the quick dismissal like one would give a rambling bum on the street. Similar to religious apologists they have created an enormous enterprise of bullshit. You are confusing its nebulousness for profundity.

> The post-modernists are obscurantist charlatans who en masse form an institution that demands attention rather than the quick dismissal like one would give a rambling bum on the street.

Yes, like any legitimate discipline of proper research.

> You are confusing its nebulousness for profundity.

Where you see a nebulous blob, experts see an ordered set of ideas. Similar to when an engineer sees a bridge as a series of forces and structures designed to mitigate them, or as when a chemist understands complex chemical formulas while a layperson may see a somewhat disordered series of letters and numbers.

Something isn't wrong just because you don't understand it.

Are you one of those who thought Sokal made good points in his submitted paper.

Lol Sokal is a moron who doesn't actually know what postmodernism is. Are you someone who believes that his work is actually legitimate research?

I mean, did the post-modernists who read his paper know what post-modernism was?

Why did Nature publish a proof that is widely considered to be fatally flawed, i.e. not a proof? https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11709

How did the Bogdanoff affair happen?

The fact that bullshit is hard to separate from "the truth" is a very good starting point for postmodern investigation.

Your dismissal of Scientology is baseless without first having gone clear.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com