the best of us

[barbarianhorde]

Whoala, Wendy Darling has taken the lead!
We might be looking at a big upset folks.

[encode_decode]

The question from the poll: WHO IS ILOVEPHILOSOPHY.COMS MOST FEROCIOUS & OUTSTANDING MEMBER?

One that is outstanding as a philosopher in my opinion is Fixed Cross.

Yes and I feel the need to point something out . . .

It is time. Tonight is the night, when all of us will know, who is the top dog of this place.

well tonight, the vote begins.

It is clear that we are not necessarily looking for the most outstanding philosopher on ILP but rather the most ferocious and outstanding member or otherwise "top dog of this place".

Just saying

[Arcturus Descending]

Top dog of this place...

It seems to me that that may vary at different times. Does it necessarily have to be written in stone? We are all like rivers ~ we ebb and we flow...but I may be wrong.

I remember a time when you, encode-decode, may have been considered to be the top dog, at least by me. We have our lives, our lives change, our jobs keep us busy.

This is all really subjective thinking anyway. But you, encode-decode, are brilliant.

I do not know why Fixed Cross and yourself were not on that list.

I do not know why I was. LOL

[encode_decode]

Top dog of this place...

It seems to me that that may vary at different times. Does it necessarily have to be written in stone? We are all like rivers ~ we ebb and we flow...but I may be wrong.

I remember a time when you, encode-decode, may have been considered to be the top dog, at least by me. We have our lives, our lives change, our jobs keep us busy.

This is all really subjective thinking anyway. But you, encode-decode, are brilliant.

Gee, you know how to make a man blush don't you? Yes top dog of this place does vary from what I have noticed and no it does not have to be written in stone but as someone pointed out it is a fun diversion from the norm. No you are not wrong, we do ebb and flow. I do like this diversion that barbarian has presented.

I do not know why Fixed Cross and yourself were not on that list.

I do not know why I was. LOL

It is easy for us to dismiss ourselves Arc. I think you are one of the best of us.

Wendy is awesome too then again - I like all the listed people and a number of unlisted people.

[barbarianhorde]

Rengel in politics, Serendipper in science: my 2 favourite posters.
Dippers deconstruction of infinity, Rengels views on geopolitics send out sparks straight from the forge.

If only these fellows could stop believing in the merit of consensus everywhere, and not just in the field they happen to be genius at, they could be real philosophers.

Will be. Might be.
Brilliant men even if still superstitious outside of their specialties.

Consensus is truly only for women. And only for cheap women.

Netwon had to invent differentiation and integration math in order to even express his insight so that rubbernecks could bend their heads over it and purrhups give it their precious consent.

Fuck rubbernecks, and fuck consensus.

Its only about power, the power to not be a rubberneck, to wield the fucking hammer and forge some iron steels.

[Carleas]

It remains true that almost everyone who bucks the consensus is wrong. Lots of people can and do reject the consensus. The people that get remembered are the ones who identify where the consensus is wrong, and those people stand out precisely because the consensus is so generally right.

[barbarianhorde]

If never is most of the time then maybe.

Because not ever has a single scientific theory been attained by consensus.

The very essence of scientific conception is BREAKTHROUGH.

[Carleas]

Because not ever has a single scientific theory been attained by consensus.

This is a caricature of how science works. There are pioneering papers published every year that have literally thousands of authors.

[Peter Kropotkin]

If never is most of the time then maybe.

Because not ever has a single scientific theory been attained by consensus.

The very essence of scientific conception is BREAKTHROUGH.

K: and how do we achieve this BREAKTHROUGH? Science is not done
as an isolated pursuit... Newton for example said about his work,

"If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants"

And Einstein stated he could not have done his work without
the current work going on in math and physics for example the work
of David Hilbert and Max Plank and Hendrik Lorentz..... so you are
simply wrong... ALL science is done by consensus and working together...

Kropotkin

[Karpel Tunnel]

It remains true that almost everyone who bucks the consensus is wrong. Lots of people can and do reject the consensus. The people that get remembered are the ones who identify where the consensus is wrong, and those people stand out precisely because the consensus is so generally right.

Nicely put, and I suppose I agree. One trick is, it is hard to falsify. Now, while I think that even if we somehow could count all the times people went against consensus and were right and this has not been recorded - cause they killed them, cause they were ignored, etc. - it still would be a minority. That's my intuitive guess. My intuitive guess is also that not well recorded instances are much more numerous than we realize. That people are getting shut down with great regularity on political, paradigmatic and personal grounds. And how many backed off in the face of consensus, most without even knowing it. Perhaps our knowledge and perception have been evolving at a snail's pace.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Because not ever has a single scientific theory been attained by consensus.

This is a caricature of how science works. There are pioneering papers published every year that have literally thousands of authors.

And I suppose some of them present theories, though generally on a small scale, filling in the gaps in already consensus-believed in models. Theories that change the way we view things probably are based on a few people strugging against current models.

[barbarianhorde]

Because not ever has a single scientific theory been attained by consensus.

This is a caricature of how science works. There are pioneering papers published every year that have literally thousands of authors.

And I suppose some of them present theories, though generally on a small scale, filling in the gaps in already consensus-believed in models. Theories that change the way we view things probably are based on a few people strugging against current models.

Yes, obviously. We know this for a fact.

It is extremely offensive to me that people actually believe this consensus shit. What a stupid joke modern man is.

Democracy is a political system. If the Greeks knew people would go and try to claim science with it I doubt they'd have risked it.

[barbarianhorde]

Newton, Keppler, Galilei, what a caricatures of what science is. How dare they stand in the way of our thousand authored articles. Pah. They're like, Sooo irrelevant, losers. Our Commission knows best because we Agree with each other.

It's so warm we are all hugging. Newton, Copernicus, theyre just bums. We are Science. We voted and: we agree.

[Carleas]

It is extremely offensive to me that people actually believe this consensus shit. What a stupid joke modern man is.

It sounds like you wish there were a consensus around how much shit consensus is. That's weird.

Newton, Keppler, Galilei, what a caricatures of what science is.

OK, you've named three people in the history of science. Let's go ahead and round up to say there have been 1000 Einsteins.

Compare that with the roughly 10 million scientists operating today, and you can see that most of science is not the lone genius shifting paradigms.

Moreover, as Peter points out, even the Einsteins weren't operating in a vacuum. There was already a scientific consensus at the time of Einstein that luminiferous ether theory didn't match observation. Einstein's contribution was within that consensus, providing a theoretical model for the consensus about what we'd observed, and drawing on theoretical advances provided by others.

[Meno_]

It is extremely offensive to me that people actually believe this consensus shit. What a stupid joke modern man is.

It sounds like you wish there were a consensus around how much shit consensus is. That's weird.

Newton, Keppler, Galilei, what a caricatures of what science is.

OK, you've named three people in the history of science. Let's go ahead and round up to say there have been 1000 Einsteins.

Compare that with the roughly 10 million scientists operating today, and you can see that most of science is not the lone genius shifting paradigms.

Moreover, as Peter points out, even the Einsteins weren't operating in a vacuum. There was already a scientific consensus at the time of Einstein that luminiferous ether theory didn't match observation. Einstein's contribution was within that consensus, providing a theoretical model for the consensus about what we'd observed, and drawing on theoretical advances provided by others.

Yes, another hypothetical , that if not for that 1 Einstein , there may not have been another, nor thousands more.

[Ierrellus]

Karpel!

[MagsJ]

All active posters should be up for nomination, as all active posters make these boards what they are.. even Guide ; )

[Jakob]

That's how you know someone is useless, empty. When they suggest that the exceptional were just "first in line".

Why socialism will never produce genius.

[MagsJ]

That's how you know someone is useless, empty. When they suggest that the exceptional were just "first in line".

Why socialism will never produce genius.

Thanks

[Peter Kropotkin]

That's how you know someone is useless, empty. When they suggest that the exceptional were just "first in line".

Why socialism will never produce genius.

K: ummmm, listed is three winners of the Nobel prize for literature,
all of them Russians during the communist years,
Boris Pasternak, Mikhail Sholokhov and of course Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn....

of course, no genius there...…

Kropotkin

[Karpel Tunnel]

That's how you know someone is useless, empty. When they suggest that the exceptional were just "first in line".

Why socialism will never produce genius.

K: ummmm, listed is three winners of the Nobel prize for literature,
all of them Russians during the communist years,
Boris Pasternak, Mikhail Sholokhov and of course Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn....

of course, no genius there...…

Kropotkin

I don't think Pasternak was a socialist and he was born in 1890 and seems to have been pretty cranky in conforming to what communist, not socialist leaders wanted. Solzhenitsyn was an outspoken critic of communism, he was raised in the Orthodox Church by his mother, his family's land was taken and made communal, and he had to hide his father's wealthy past. Mikhail Sholokhov sort of works, though again, here we are dealing with communism, not socialism, and large scale communism

I suppose if one is arguing that som geniuses might be created by communism if they hate and rebel against it, the other two might be good examples.

Better examples might come from, say, Scandanavia.

[Meno_]

You guys are unforgivable for leaving off Dostoevski.

[Jakob]

That's how you know someone is useless, empty. When they suggest that the exceptional were just "first in line".

Why socialism will never produce genius.

K: ummmm, listed is three winners of the Nobel prize for literature,
all of them Russians during the communist years,
Boris Pasternak, Mikhail Sholokhov and of course Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn....

of course, no genius there...…

Kropotkin

I don't think Pasternak was a socialist and he was born in 1890 and seems to have been pretty cranky in conforming to what communist, not socialist leaders wanted. Solzhenitsyn was an outspoken critic of communism, he was raised in the Orthodox Church by his mother, his family's land was taken and made communal, and he had to hide his father's wealthy past. Mikhail Sholokhov sort of works, though again, here we are dealing with communism, not socialism, and large scale communism

I suppose if one is arguing that som geniuses might be created by communism if they hate and rebel against it, the other two might be good examples.

Better examples might come from, say, Scandanavia.

But Scandinavia never abandoned capitalism.

Good repudiation of Peter.

[Jakob]

You guys are unforgivable for leaving off Dostoevski.

HAHAHA HA
Fjodor a Socialist...

If you'd read any of his work you'd see the humour in such a remark.

Funny.

[Karpel Tunnel]

But Scandinavia never abandoned capitalism.

Good repudiation of Peter.

Thanks, but if you consider Scandanavia capitalist, with free health care, free education, free dental for kids, an extensive social support system, extremely high taxes rates capitalist,
then most of US liberals you classify as socialists are extreme capitalists by comparison.