Philosophy of BS
On Bullshit Harry G. Frankfurt
FROM THE PUBLISHER
One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern. We have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what functions it serves. And we lack a conscientiously developed appreciation of what it means to us. In other words, as Harry Frankfurt writes, "we have no theory."Frankfurt, one of the world's most influential moral philosophers, attempts to build such a theory here. With his characteristic combination of philosophical acuity, psychological insight, and wry humor, Frankfurt proceeds by exploring how bullshit and the related concept of humbug are distinct from lying. He argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.
Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner's capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth thanlies are.
Seems like a book that I would've loved to write. Cause I know so much about the topic in question :)
posted by fahd | 2:49 AM
5 Comments:
OK you don't know me, I got to your blog through Faraz's. This comment is about the post before about sys design having fewer high school applicants. You seem to imply that your program is about or related to designing large scale engineering projects involving many types of engineering.
I'm sorry if this is presumptious, and this isn't meant to be offensive, but you guys (08sys) seem to always come up with abstract huge glorified ideas on what systems design is. I know, you're like "what does this stupid CS loser know about my program". But I know what most of the subjects you learn are, and looking at your curriculum, this is my interpretation of it:
- A core of alot of applied math and physics
- Some more math (stat, prob, linear systems etc)
- An assortment of other extremely varied stuff (first year CS, a bit of ECE, human factors, some drawing thing, 1 chem)
- 2 more courses: engineering optimization and intro to design
the rest is up to you. So where do you get these craaazy abstract explainations of what your program is? To me, it seems like applied math with a some stuff sprinkled on, then you choose whatever the hell you want. I mean... comoooon... you guys glorify it SOoooooo much, like "we use high level systems approach to problem solving and design, where a system is anything and the systems approach to design is essential to society and societal and human engineering" etc. when really all you have to do is look at the curriculum and see that it's an assortment of technical areas with a heavy core of math and physics. If someone asked ME what it is, that's what I would say "an assortment of technical areas with a heavy core of math and physics, and flexibility in upper years". But anyways... good talking to you.. LOL
-Andrew
Hm...hold on there Andrew
Firstly the heavy math that you refer to does form an integral part of systems. The following are some of the more mathie courses:
SYDE 252
Linear Systems and Signals
SYDE 351
Systems Models 1
SYDE 312
Numerical Methods
SYDE 511
Optimization Methods for Stochastic Systems
SYDE 513
Linear Graph Theory and Applications
SYDE 551
Advanced Graph Theoretical Methods
SYDE 555
Modelling of Continuum Systems
SYDE 554
Systems Models 2
Pretty obvious that these courses are exactly what syssies would take.
I don't see the disconnect here between these courses and Fahd's original assertion that we are trained to look at large scale problems and find overarching solutions. That's what these math courses are for!
If you look at the other courses besides the ones I just listed, there is a heavy dose of design analysis and methodology.
So on top of these two main areas, we then take other courses to shape our focus - the idea is to take enough to gain a good understanding of the application, so that you are able to integrate it into a large scale project.
So at the end of the day, the core of what we learn is systems analysis and design. We take supplementary courses to sharpen the focus to areas that appeal to us individually. So what do you end up with? Someone with high level systems analysis and design skills with a technical focus on a specific area. Kinda what Fahd said.
An majority of syssies work as project managers,enterpreuners and such because that's what we're suited and trained for.
There is no single career that graduates choose - everything from finance to marine research. An illustration of the universal applicability of our core skills.
Your comment basically asserts that all we do is take some math and physics courses and random electives. But a closer look reveals what kind of math we're taking (systems modelling), and the fact that we take design courses as well, which you seemed to ignore - 3 design courses, and 3 design projects (which have an enormous amount of learning experience packed in them). Together with the technical electives these make the systems design engineer.
And we do pride ourselves in having a worldview in our careers. That's the nature of our program. We see technology as it applies to society. We get involved in initiatives that bring new applications of technology to light. We take active interest in participating in leadership activities. It's more than the courses that make the program.
I don't want you to think this massive reply is just for your comment .. I've been looking to sharpen my thoughts on this for a writeup and you've given me a chance here to do some of this :)
-
P.s. Nobody's calling you a "Stupid CS loser" - being in one of the top math and cs departments in the world hardly qualifies you as a loser.
I was just kidding about the loser thing, but yeah I see where you're coming from with the design courses and stuff..
Hey Andrew,
Taneem answered most of the points quite well. But just wanted to let you know that us sysies are open to criticism and we realize our program is very abstract and not very audience friendly (in terms of understanding it). Just ask my parents :)
Post a Comment
<< Home