Rationality Quotes February 2012
Here's the new thread for posting quotes, with the usual rules:
- Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)
- Do not quote yourself.
- Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB.
- No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.
Loading…
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (401)
Kurt Vonnegut, Breakfast of Champions
The most beautiful explanation of Hansonian signalling I've seen.
With all due respect to Robin, this very thread supplies prior art for this idea :).
Having an inkling about the existence of gravity is different from figuring out the motions of all the planets. Hanson actually built the idea into useful models. He gets the name. :D
--Heretics, G. K. Chesterton
I was interested in the context here. Chesterton was referencing Wells' original belief that the classes would differentiate until the upper class ate the lower class. Wells changed his mind to believe the classes would merge.
The entire book is free on Google Books.
At the point where those are the two hypothesises being considered there may be larger problems.
I think you've got problems at the point where you're using that language to write your hypotheses.
In the Time Machine, it's the other way round.
– Bertrand Russell
-Voltaire (usually presented as, "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.")
"Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" by Venkat Rao
It's also a good introduction to Nietzsche. (I find that most introductions to Nietzsche are good as long as they are humorous and informal enough that they wouldn't be used in philosophy class.)
-- Paul Graham
Being well-calibrated is great, but it sounds like rtm isn't even wrong in retrospect. I much prefer to say wrong things very loudly so that I will discover when I am in error.
Jonathan Bernstein
Working in market research, I have to resist the impulse to point this out practically every day.
Scott Aaronson
--Jane Espenson
That is brilliant, I'm taking that one. It's refreshing to see an alternative to the typical belligerently optimistic 'motivational' quotes that deny the rather significant influence of chance.
-- Richard Carrier
Richard Feynman, in Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman, chapter entitled "Mixing Paints".
-E.H. Gombrich
Judea Pearl (Causality)
Gary Drescher (Good and Real)
Awesome.
I think this is also how the best standup comedians work.
H. Jackson Brown
(The second-last paragraph of The Power of Agency by Lukeprog reminded me of it.)
Joel Stickley, How To Write Badly Well
-William M. Briggs
Voted up for the link, but the meaning of the quote isn't very clear out of context.
--Bertrand Russell, pg 178 Last philosophical testament: 1943-68
-Greg Egan, Distress
Alain de Botton
Is this true? Naive Googling yields this, which suggests (non-authoritatively) that blood sugar and moods are indeed linked (in diabetics, but it's presumably true in the general population). However, despair is not noted and the effects generally seem milder than that (true despair is a rather powerful emotion!)
Blood sugar is very closely linked to self-control, including suppression of emotion. While this may appear to be a different thing, it isn't: when you include feedback loops and association spirals, a transient, weak emotional distraction can become deep and overwhelming if normal modes of suppression fail.
See here, here and here.
Anecdotally: I'm not diabetic that I know of, but my mood is highly dependent on how well and how recently I've eaten. I get very irritable and can break down into tears easily if I'm more than four hours past due.
Low moods and despair are both made of atoms. The quality of atomness doesn't vanish as bad feelings get worse. The quote is suggesting that keeping this fact in mind may be therapeutically valuable -- you're probably less likely to despair if you understand that your despair has a knowable, physical, potentially correctable basis.
--Alain de Botton
Leonardo da Vinci
David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity
Dara O'Briain
Dara O'Briain
He also paraphrases what I've seen described as "the Minchin Principle" a few sentences later.
Saint Augustine of Hippo, Confessions
George Bernard Shaw
In my experience I've noticed the reverse, but I could be persuaded otherwise with statistics.
I may say that this is the greatest factor—the way in which the expedition is equipped—the way in which every difficulty is foreseen, and precautions taken for meeting or avoiding it. Victory awaits him who has everything in order — luck, people call it. Defeat is certain for him who has neglected to take the necessary precautions in time; this is called bad luck.
Yeah, but that's not very useful to tell when you're taking sensible precautions and when you're just packing cans of shark repellent.
Not necessarily. Note that you take precautions because you foresee difficulties. If you intend to go diving in shark-infested waters... or, indeed, any body of water that might conceivably host sharks... then considering that fact in advance, purchasing shark repellent, and having it on-hand during the dive is totally sensible. If you're going to the South Pole instead, then shark repellent is worse then useless; it's presence will serve merely as additional weight to hinder your progress. The difference is, as the quote suggests, a question of whether you're preparing because you've carefully considered the situation in advance, and determined that the preparation in question is necessary to your task... or whether you don't really have a solid idea of why you'd need to do a given thing, but it seems like something that might be useful for a reason you haven't considered carefully enough to describe in words.
A poem about decision trees:
Michael Rothkopf
Rationality promotion:
-- Nate Silver, today's 538 blog
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/g-o-p-race-has-hallmarks-of-prolonged-battle/
The original even linked to the wikipedia entry on "Bayesian".
--Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
Terence Tao
-- Steven Kaas
E. W. Dijkstra
Space-time is like this set of equations, for which any analogy must be an approximation.
That's certainly a mistake that many people make, but we shouldn't consciously correct for it unless it's a bias with predictable direction. Does excessive belief in common-sense analogies really cause more problems than excessive belief in new shiny ideas? How do you tell?
I don't think the quote is about favoring common sense over new shiny ideas. I think it's about how we tend to be lazy with words as long as we can get away with it -- until the words are completely wrong.
Dijkstra doesn't propose that novelty is avoidable. He admonishes us for describing it poorly.
Daniel Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow
Daniel Dennett, Elbow Room, (Control and Self-Control)
Geoffrey Warnock
Charles S. Peirce
George Orwell
He's mistaken about math and physics, possibly because he didn't expect his ideas on the subjects to be tested against solid reality....
John Leslie, The End of the World, p. 242 (paperback)
(He is not talking about about trials in the "randomized controlled trial" sense but rather in the sampling sense.)
On the Outside View:
--Steven Kaas
What lessons? The WP link was interesting, but I didn't catch anything other than "defunct empire".
To explain: the Outside View is a powerful tool, but one sometime should reject it based on even more powerful factors from the Inside View, where one can be sure that one is in a new (or at least, different) reference class from the one being used in the Outside View. Of course, one may want to reject it based just on one like one's views...
This sometimes leads to a back-and-forth series of arguments over burdens of proof dubbed 'reference class tennis' where the two sides argue over what is the correct reference class which will either support or undermine a particular claim (is AGI in the reference class of "additional incremental innovation", which would undermine claims of significant danger/reward, or entire "regime changes", which would support the same claims? This is the game of reference class tennis which Eliezer and Hanson are arguing their way through in the link and related links).
Kaas is humorously parodying a side using an Outside View involving the Neo-Sumerian Empire, replying to the other side making the commonsense position - yours too ('what lessons?') - that the quasi-literate agricultural Neo-Sumerian Empire from 3000 years ago is not in any reference class that matters to us, and implying that the speaker is writing the other side off as rationalizing and excuse-seeking. The parody works because we agree that in this case, the Outside View is not applicable or its weak evidence is overwhelmed by Inside View evidence about how different the Neo-Sumerian Empire is from any contemporary societies or organizations or processes, and this reminds us that often Outside View arguments simply may not work (eg. arguments from evolutionary psychology, which draw from time periods and societies even more distant from and less like our own than the Neo-Sumerian Empire).
And now that I've explained it entirely, I can no longer find it funny. I hope you're happy.
Thanks. The statement you quoted was meant as a continuation of this, in case that makes it less confusing. I should probably have made that explicit.
--Razib Khan, here
--W. V. O. Quine
--Madonna
-Vi Hart, Doodling in Math: Spirals, Fibonacci, and Being a Plant- Part 3 of 3
Neal Stephenson, Quicksilver.
I was pondering whether to cut the quote at this point, or to include the rest of the dialogue between natural philosopher Daniel Waterhouse and alchemist Enoch Root. I decided to cut the quote here firstly because otherwise it would be too long, and secondly because the rest of the dialogue does not have the same stirring, "yay science!", "yay modernity!" feeling of Daniel's tirade. But it is thought-provoking, so I include it below, with some reflections after it:
How do you interpret this? The best interpretation I can make for what Root is saying is that when you describe Nature in abstract, mathematical/geometrical ways, you will end up confusing your abstraction for reality -- and then anything which does not fit with your abstraction (like the pole does not fit in the Cartesian grid) will seem inherently mysterious, even though its mystery is an illusion of your abstract description and it is not more inherently mysterious than the pole is inherently different from other points on Earth.
This resonates with the view some philosophers have on the hard problem of consciousness and how to dissolve it: the idea goes that modern science describes nature in quantitative terms and pushes everything qualitative to the subjective realm (e.g., light is "in reality" electromagnetic waves defined as such and such equations, and color is the subjective perception of it and exists only "in the mind") and then qualia seem inherently mysterious and not-fitting with the rest of nature, but this is only because we have confused our abstractions for reality. The more recent Putnam has said things along these lines, as well as several "neo-Aristotelian" philosophers. But I wouldn't have associated Stephenson with such views, and yet Root seems to be speaking for him here, so I am a bit confused.
Hunh? It's just an allusion to non-Euclidean geometry and the Gauss-Bonnet theorem, which prevents any Cartesian grid system from working on the sphere.
Yes, that is the surface meaning, but it seems to me there must be a secondary one. Daniel's tirade in the previous comment is not just saying "we will be able to draw accurate maps using a Cartesian grid" (otherwise, why say "that will be the end of Alchemy"? what does that literal meaning have to do with alchemy?). Notice that he is responding there to Root's assertion that there is little contrast between alchemy and "the younger and more vigorous order of knowledge that is associated with your club", i.e. modern science (the club is the Royal Society). So I take him to mean that the new scientific method, which relies on precise, mathematical thinking as opposed to the qualitative, semi-mystical thinking in alchemy (this is what "Cartesian grid vs dragons" stands for), will carry the day and eliminate alchemy. So I think that Root's reply that "you will leave out the poles" must have a hidden interpretation that fits in this broader argument, besides the surface one you point out.
That there must be a second meaning is also supported by Daniel saying with a sigh "Very well, perhaps we'll get back to Alchemy in the end" -- you wouldn't need alchemy to draw a map with a different projection that includes the pole!
Well, it's been pointed out on occasion that modern physics did get back to alchemy - in the sense of transmuting elements (radioactivity). Personally, I took Root as referring to what the alchemists did achieve: apparent immortality, given his presence in Cryptonomicon. The younger order achieved a great deal, but just as map projections always have difficulties caused by mapping 3D to 2D, the younger order has difficulties with a few singular parts of the territory, if you will.
Ah, nothing like a good old-fashioned book-burning.
--Burning Man organizers
From the blog post:
It seems pretty easy to solve: auction off all the tickets.
The Market Economics Fairy is pleased with you! She blesses you with sparkles from her wand!
What profit does she get from dispensing sparkles?
It improves the chance that further Market Economics will happen by rewarding people who produce it. It goes without saying that Market Economics is a terminal value to the Market Economics Fairy. If she was just interested in profit, she'd be starting a hedge fund instead of going around telling people about Market Economics.
Market Economics fairy should consider starting a hedge fund anyway and investing that money into a lobby group or other means of promoting Market Economics. I sincerely doubt emitting sparkles from her wand is where her comparative advantage lies.
What do you mean? The Market Economics Fairy is way better at emitting sparkles from her wand than anyone else, and has no special talent for managing hedge funds.
Maybe, but I'm pretty sure there are substitutes: both for the role of sparkles, and manual production of them using a wand.
Well now you've proved that the Market Economics Fairy should quit her job and found a startup aimed at roboticizing sparkle production. I hope you're happy.
Very. :D
Just how much better than everyone else is she? Perhaps her comparative advantage is in creating a power company. Spend early revenue on recursively improving (ie. research that is money limited) sparkle -> electricity conversion then spend later revenue on hiring people to do FAI<Market Economics Fairy> research so she can maintain and consolidate her overall advantage as technology makes sparkle power obsolete.
Unfortunately for the rest of us the FAI<MEF> creates an environment that degenerates into a Hansonian Hell (then further into mere cosmic commons burning). If it behaved like a FAI<humanity> and did the smart thing and became a singleton the market economics fairy would disintegrate into a puff of vapor - presumably not part of her extrapolated volition. Once someone has won (secured control via overwhelming intelligence advantage) 'Market Economics' becomes nothing more than a charade. Yet maintaining an environment where market economics hold sway ensures a steady evolution towards more efficient competition which will tend toward one of two obvious local minima (burn the earth or, more likely, burn the light cone, depending on whether the leap to interstellar is viable for anyone at any point in the economic competition.)
The Market Economics Fairy must (eventually) die or we will!
(Pardon the Newsomlike tangential stream. It seems relevant/interesting/important to me at least!)
Who do you think is behind Ayn Rand?
You're missing the unstated corollary to this, or any other discussion of scalpers: 'and prices have to be "reasonable" for whatever demographic we claim to serve or would prefer to serve'.
Hence, you get discussions of young girl singers unhappy that all these icky old men are paying hundreds of dollars for the tickets to her concert, even though the market doesn't clear at the $40 or $60 her preteen fans can spare. (And if an organization does let the price float to its natural level of hundreds of dollars, then you get shocked articles in the newspaper on 'ticket inflation' and angry letters to the editor about how in their day you could get in for a nickel...)
I agree that ticketing is a difficult problem, but getting rid of scalping is easy if that's your primary objective. Pricing the externalities of event-goers is tough, especially when anti-discrimination legislation means you generally can't be upfront about it.
So there is the problem: The ideal of non-discrimination is not compatible with cases where the demographics of event-goers is itself a strong influence on the quality of the event for everyone involved.
Latest news: Burning Man blames game theory for their failure to understand basic supply and demand, hugely underprices tickets, 2/3 of buyers left in cold, Market Economics Fairy cries.
That's not a fair assessment of the organizers' skill level.
They seem to have a nice firm grip on the effect of fixed supply, fixed price, and increasing demand:
What they didn't predict was that the expectation of scarcity would further increase demand, creating a positive feedback loop. In their words:
So, they understand supply and demand (they just made a bad factual estimate of demand), and they didn't really understand game theory - but after they made their mistake they publicly admitted it, asked around to see what they did wrong, and proposed strategies for mitigating the mistake.
Why are we mocking them again?
I gather they didn't know how huge the demand would be this year.
Burning Man's problem might be a good topic for LW to kick around. Suppose you have pretty good abundance, how do you ration access to excellent social venues without having barriers that do damage to the venues? Is this even possible?
In this particular case, not all attendees appear to be equally valuable to the event/other attendees. Giving priority to people who've organized cool things in the last few years may make sense.
Yes, this was my reaction - 'let the price float, and give transferrable vouchers to the people who do the most awesome stuff; if they object, well, that's why the vouchers are transferrable'. It's not much different from what they're already suggesting, telling the lucky ones to distribute excess tickets among people they like.
I don't understand, won't pricing the tickets higher just cause people to be disappointed that the tickets were too expensive for them, instead of there not being enough?
It'd probably lead to a roughly equal amount of personal disappointment once the dust settles, but less disruption to the community. Major projects, the kind that the newsletter's alluding to when it talks about collaborations, aren't cheap; members of the camps that put them on usually spend at least their ticket price on supplies, to say nothing of labor. That implies that there's enough loose money floating around those projects that an increase in ticket prices wouldn't be an insurmountable hurdle.
Of course, it may very well be such a hurdle for those burners who've joined the event as spectators; principle of inclusion aside, though, those participants aren't as valuable to the organization or to each other as more committed folks. If there's concern over raising the bar too high for marginal theme camps to participate, the organizers could divert some of the excess funds into grants or reduced-price tickets for that demographic.
I get the impression that this line of thinking looks too cold-blooded for the Burning Man organizers to take to heart, though. Hence the rather strained attempt at casting the problem in terms of "Civic Responsibility" and "Communal Effort".
It will allow people that were willing to pay the market price actually buy the tickets. If there is sufficient demand then maybe a Burning Man 2 festival makes economic sense, or increasing the supply of tickets for Burning Man itself.
We live in a world of limited resources not of good wishes. Good wishes lead to dead weight losses. I don't see a possible scenario where price control is a good idea - LAW of supply and demand.
If there is some societal interest that the market fails to protect here (is Burning Man a fundamental right applicable to a certain type of person?) If so, then we should have a BMPA (like the EPA) formed to regulate the event.
Intellectual freedom cannot exist without political freedom; political freedom cannot exist without economic freedom; a free mind and a free market are corollaries. - Ayn Rand
The human understanding is no dry light, but receives an infusion from the will and affections; whence proceed sciences which may be called "sciences as one would." For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes. Therefore he rejects difficult things from impatience of research; sober things, because they narrow hope; the deeper things of nature, from superstition; the light of experience, from arrogance and pride, lest his mind should seem to be occupied with things mean and transitory; things not commonly believed, out of deference to the opinion of the vulgar. Numberless, in short, are the ways, and sometimes imperceptible, in which the affections color and infect the understanding.
-- Francis Bacon, Novum Organum (Aphorism XLIX), 1620. (1863 translation by Spedding, Ellis and Heath. You should read the whole thing, it's all this good.)
--Ben O'Neill, here
Considering the above quote can be used to criticize nearly any popular political position I don't think it is inherently mind-killing. Also since we all agree democracy is a good thing this isn't even very political. The original article and context obviously does make it somewhat political.
I don't think everyone here would agree that democracy is a good thing.
Obviously you are right on that. I should have said:
What I really meant by this is that Democracy is something very well entrenched and accepted in Western society and even LessWrong. Dissent from democracy isn't threatening heresy it is the mark of an eccentric.
Paul Graham has written quite extensively of why some things are considered "threatening heresy", and other things mere eccentricity. Ultimately, he concludes that in order for something to be tabooed, it must be threatening to some group that is powerful enough to enforce the taboo, but not powerful enough that the can safely ignore what their critics say about them. Democracy is currently so entrenched in western civilization that it doesn't have to give a fuck if a few people here and there criticize it occasionally.
The same is true of people who call for a dictatorship or any non-democratic form of government. They also always imagine it will be governed by "the right people", and imagine all the things "the right people" could accomplish if freed from the need to listen to the "ignorant mob".
Yes I fully agree. But it shouldn't be underestimated that when it comes to non-democratic forms of government what kind of people are in power genuinely does have a big impact on how the country is run.
Wanting a philosopher king isn't a bad idea if you aren't mistaken about the philosopher king in question.
Do we agree on that? I think there are quite a few on LessWrong who are no more in favour of democracy than Ben O'Neill. Or by linking "democracy" to the Sequences post on applause lights, do you mean to imply you mean the opposite of that sentence? Yet it is embedded between two others apparently intended straightforwardly.
That democracy can reliably be used as an applause light is a sign that we as a society agree it is indeed a good thing.
Or, if I model human behavior correctly, it could also have been as sign that we as a society at one point agreed that it is a good thing but now agree that we agree that it is a reliable applause light. (But I don't think democracy-approval has devolved to that level yet. We actually do seem to think it is a good idea.)
But not a sign that it is indeed a good thing.
Daniel Abraham, The Dragon's Path
-a kid named Noah. (Hat-tip to Yvain.)
--Thomas Sowell
(On a related theme:) Intelligent folk may be better at processing evidence and drawing correct conclusions, but this is to some extent counteracted by the massive selection effects on what evidence they actually encounter.
Other than various social effects ("everyone knows about the Pythagorean Theorem"), in what areas do you think intelligent people generally have worse information than their "normal" peers?
Neal Stephenson, The Confusion
-Andrew W. Mathis
Or potentially good luck if the combination of your instincts and the (irrationally justified) memes you inherited from tradition are better than your abstract decision making.
David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity
tries
Yes, but it's also logically impossible.
Cracked, 4 Reasons Humans Will Never Understand Each Other
I had already read about the ideas of that Cracked in the sequences (http://lesswrong.com/lw/i7/belief_as_attire/, http://lesswrong.com/lw/9v/beware_of_otheroptimizing/, http://lesswrong.com/lw/i0/are_your_enemies_innately_evil/), but I still found it awesome.
Reddit user sciencecomic, in response to a headline reading "'Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not'. Emory philosopher Robert McCauley suggests that science is more fragile than we think while religion more resilient – all for reasons coming back to humans' cognitive processes."
You should include a link.
— Arkady and Boris Strugatsky
-- Scott Aaronson, in this blog post, reaching out to the pointy-haired bosses of the quantum computing world.
Dindo Capello, as quoted in Truth in 24 (2009 film).
-- .Helmuth von Moltke the Elder (1800-1891) (paraphrased)
Probably a duplicate, but I can't find a previous version:
H. L. Mencken
It's in the wiki:
(but it's good enough that it can be repeated now and then...)
-Bengali proverb
– Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy p. 98
Bertie is a goldmine of rationality quotes.
Also don't confuse "logically coherent" with "true".
You keep saying things I was gonna say. Dost thou haveth a blog perchance?
Thanks. Sorry, I don't have a blog.
Downvoted for incorrect subject-verb agreement.
It was purposeful. It's like "can i haz cheezburger?" but olde schoole.
Un-downvoted. Sorry.
But it's "i can haz cheesburger?" btw. ;)
You can't get ye flask.
Humanity becomes more and more of an accessory every day; with increasing power comes increasing responsibility.
-- Ronald E. Merrill
(The brackets around "vertebrates" are just for a spelling correction.)
This sounds radical but is if anything far too conservative.
Intelligence and tool using has for millennia allowed us to apply selection pressures which are much more focused than natural selection, and now also allows us to directly edit genetic material in ways which would be slower or even impossible via random mutation alone. Intelligence also allows for the generation, mutation, and replication of ideas, which end up having a much greater, much more rapidly changing impact on ourselves and our environment than the variation in our genes alone.
Those aren't changes comparable to the difference between breathing water and breathing air; they're changes comparable to the difference between non-life and life. The very idea of biological clades becomes more and more fuzzy when we make horizontal gene transfer a regular fact of life for even complex organisms, intermixing DNA from species that haven't had a common ancestor in a billion years.
Mencius Moldbug
Everything after "If so - definitely, keep it. If not..." is (a) context-dependent and (b) debatable.
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War
quoted from here in that particular form
--Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan
Theodore Dalrymple
What a cliffhanger.
-- Attributed to Gregory Cochran
On intellectual hipsters.
I would be very interested if anyone has good examples of this phenomenon.
There are a few "triads" mentioned in the intellectual hipster article, but the only one that really seems to me like a good example of this phenomenon is the "don't care about Africa / give aid to Africa / don't give aid to Africa" triad.
~ Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib, Irulan, Herbert elder
Is this a recommendation or a warning?
I've never been able to make sense out of that. It sounds very tough and definite, but what does it mean?
This is sort of what I say to remind myself that having read some of something isn't a sufficient reason to finish it.
I pasted it into Google just now and found this article quoting it in a similar context.
I agree. It's not... quite.... complete.
Let's chop it off. (Let's keep it at 0 points).
There, now it's complete.
Upvoted because I actually think this phrase as my reminder-keyword on appropriate occasions. E.g. publishing an MOR chapter.
Douglas Murray describing advice from a Holocaust survivor.
Perhaps this should be checked by comparing the number of people who say they want to annihilate a group to the number of attempts at annihilation.
True, but you should first assign appropriate weights to the two categories you mention based on the expected cost of having an incorrect belief.
Just for fun: similar advice based on British folk ballads.
— Will Durant, Life, Oct. 18, 1963
Bertrand Russell
That advice seems to be predicated on poor reasoning. Not only are most eccentric opinions that have been held not accepted, those that gain the benefit of the eccentric opinions on their way to being accepted are not necessarily those that first hold them.
It's bad advice if the advice is supposed to help a particular person get ahead. If you want a new good opinion to be generated, give that advice to ten thousand people.
~ Pat Wagner
Which occasions? If this were a rationality kata I would immediately ask, "What trigger condition does the person need to recognize that chains into using this technique?"
We will have to make the web better, then.
Who cares about "sometimes" when making a decision? What counts is the expectation, what happens on average.
Yes, sometimes investing all your savings in a single high-risk stock picked at random while drunk works better than listening to various experts, researching the relevant literature and diversifying your investments. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.
This quote seems to be losing its relevance, since even when I was a college senior you could get help from research librarians via web chat.
Radiohead
Marcus Aurelius, Meditations.
-- Nicholas Gurewitch (creator of Perry Bible Fellowship)
--William James, The Will to Believe II
-Retsupurae
That's exactly how the character "The Sphinx" in the film "Mystery Men" delivered all his wise-sounding lines. Eventually it becomes a bit predictable to the D-list "superhero" characters that he's trying to serve as a mentor to.
Edit: See DSimon's reply for the dialogue.
[...]
[...]
[...]
Tony Dye
From your link:
"Bit meters per second" or "megabyte kilometers per hour" would be a better measure than just "bits per second".
Are there useful generalizations which can be derived from this?
"Shut up and multiply" works for practical purposes too.
(One of my favorite shut-up-and-multiply results: automatic dishwashers cost less than 2 euro per hour saved, so everyone should have one.)
I live on a fixed income, so hourly wage isn't a very relevant metric. It wouldn't even fit in my place. I couldn't take it with me when I move, and I move a lot.
--Albert Einstein
Mandatory for science, generally advisable for anything else.
This advice is worse than useless. But coming from someone who was instrumental in the "Physicists have figured a way to efficiently eradicate humanity; let's tell the politicians so they may facilitate!" movement, it's not surprising.
Protip: the maxim "That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" does not mean we should publish secrets that have a chance of ending global civilization.
"Seek truth from facts"
--Chinese saying
Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Occasions
Arthur Schopenhauer, Counsels and Maxims
A few from M:TG flavour text.
When nothing remains, everything is equally possible. ~One with Nothing
"Believe in the ideal, not the idol." -Serra ~Worship
"War glides on the simplest updrafts while peace struggles against hurricane winds. It is the way of the world. It must change." ~Commander Eesha
To a large extent it already has. Humans are much more peaceful now than they have been in the past. This is part of a large set of broad trends. See Pinker's excellent "The Better Angels of Our Nature". At this point, I'm not sure this quote is really accurate.
I must admit that one of my favorite quotes from M:tG is one of the less rational ones:
-- Sizzle
-- Fodder Cannon
The card art of Browse gives this gem, which I think I may have posted before:
But the best flavor text ever is still Martyrs' Tomb.
True in the sense that 0=0.
I understood it as advocating a maximum ignorance prior. In hindsight, it's an MT:G card, so probably not.
Also I don't recommend throwing out what you know to have a maximum ignorance prior.
Incidentally, the card itself is notorious for being among the most useless cards ever printed and routinely shows up on "worst card ever" lists.
--Joyce Cary
Relevant.