Comments on: Murray Teitel

By: john b

john b — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:51:54 +0000

@11, if it wasn’t for the fact that I was correct, then perhaps you’d have a point. The skills required to evaluate mathematical logic simply *don’t* translate to verbal argument.

There is a useful crossover between the disciplines, and the occasional Bertrand Russell type who’s a genius at both can contribute immensely by cross-pollination – but maths tells you nothing about evaluation of sources or about resolving linguistic ambiguity, which are the main skills required for actual debate.

By: Luis Enrique

Luis Enrique — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:06:42 +0000

I get the bit about the problems arising from financial transactions becoming an end in themselves (i.e. speculation) but I don’t really see what’s meant by goods and services existing only to enable financial transactions.. what does that refer to?

N.B. you can make the argument that speculation reveals information that is helpful to the real economy, which does not preclude it also cocking things up.

By: Nick

Nick — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:46:37 +0000

The history of Western philosophy can almost be summed up as a series of attempts to measure up to the standard of mathematical logic. And failing miserably. I don’t think they’ve really moved on since Wittgenstein tried, then gave up.

Not that isn’t a useful technique for evaluating textual arguments.

By: ChrisM

ChrisM — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:56:51 +0000

“Logical argument and mathematical logic have absolutely piss-all to do with each other, as any honest mathmo would admit. ”
“The study of philosophy – unlike, say, maths, business studies or engineering – requires one to demonstrate that one isn’t a complete and utter fuckwit incapable of making or understanding a logical argument.”

Sometimes, the incorrectness of your statements is surpassed only by the confidence with which you make them. Not only are you as often as not wrong, but you are more often than not rude and smug about it too.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:09:49 +0000

The second paragraph quoted is a paraphrase of one of the most famous passages in Keynes, you almighty fool.

Tim adds: Well, there’s me with egg on my face then. Glad I used the example of commodity futures….Keynes being an enthusiastic dabbler in them and thus they presumably not just financial transactions for the sake of them.

By: Peter Risdon

Peter Risdon — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 06:15:31 +0000

John’s sometimes good on economic points, but I have just understood what the problem is with his other arguments: a failure to understand the difference between logic, which is identical wherever it is encountered, and sophistry, which is only found in philosophy.

By: Anton

Anton — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 18:44:06 +0000

I know that I should not feed the troll, and yet…
As a PhD in mathematical logic, I can testify that “being able to understand a logical argument” is the bare minimum prerequisite for doing mathematics.

On the other hand, it is a self-evident truth that a sound knowledge of the proofs of the existence of god is one of the most valuable assets on dealing with practical questions.

By: john b

john b — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:52:34 +0000

Logical argument and mathematical logic have absolutely piss-all to do with each other, as any honest mathmo would admit. Or at least, no more than astronomy and astrophysics – both worthy, both vaguely related, but no crossover in required skills.

By: View from the Solent

View from the Solent — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:19:39 +0000

“Let no one ignorant of geometry enter”
Legend has it that this motto was inscribed over the door of Plato’s Academy.
Us mathematicians would have been allowed in. Doesn’t sound like Murray Teitel would have been very welcome.

By: Kay Tie

Kay Tie — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:10:23 +0000

“Yeah, those mathematicians always have a blind spot as far as logic is concerned.”

(sound of me tearing up my course notes on deontic logic)

By: Tim Almond

Tim Almond — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 14:00:41 +0000

john b,

Yeah, those mathematicians always have a blind spot as far as logic is concerned.

By: john b

john b — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:50:40 +0000

The study of philosophy – unlike, say, maths, business studies or engineering – requires one to demonstrate that one isn’t a complete and utter fuckwit incapable of making or understanding a logical argument.

By: Ian B

Ian B — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 13:42:35 +0000

The dialectics of Hegel are extremely useful if you want to prosper at the expense of others by joining the class of twats who read the Guardian and, as a class, run western countries. It’s the equivalent of the older presumption that a person must be suitable to wield power because they can read Homer in the original Greek.

By: Kay Tie

Kay Tie — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:10:04 +0000

The dialectics of Hegel and the medieval proofs of the existence of God are more relevant to real life than whether you can get a mortgage or not?

Twat.