Show Posts
1
General Misc. / Explaining Bakker
« on: April 21, 2013, 01:17:13 am »
Don't ask me how, but I got hold of a couple of neurolinguistics researchers, and attempted to present some of Bakker's work to them.
One I had read Notes Toward A Post-Normative Philosophy.
He replied by email:
Another I read (in person) some excerpts from Bakker's old lecture Semantic Apocalypse, as well as some TPB posts for supplement and clarification.
To paraphrase:
Well, Bakker loves to go on about how he's actually arguing with his writing, putting across important ideas to unlike-minded audiences, and so on.
And yet, if no one understands what the fuck he's talking about... Perhaps he should tone down the diction?
I myself must admit that I understand little of Bakker's posts and essays beyond their main point, especially his writings of the past year-and-a-half. I'm often mystified by his terminology, analogies, and thought process. I used to attribute this to my own stupidity, but these guys quoted above are legitimate scientists...
Thoughts? Does Bakker just make perfect sense to you all?
If not, perhaps we could collectively back a strongly-worded email advising him to tone down his obscurantist language if he actually wants to promulgate his ideas beyond like, a thousand fans and fellow crackpots?
One I had read Notes Toward A Post-Normative Philosophy.
He replied by email:
Quote
I don't understand it myself. None of the terms Bakker uses are familiar to me from the literature, and his writing is extremely dense and confusing. He presents no clear cognitive model, no contrasting hypotheses and no ways of testing them. This just doesn't look like good science to me, and while I'm open to new ideas they must be conveyed in a way I can understand. If Bakker is a scientist he should write like one: clearly and succinctly. If he is not, then he should make an effort to talk to scientists in their own language so long as he wishes to be understood.
Another I read (in person) some excerpts from Bakker's old lecture Semantic Apocalypse, as well as some TPB posts for supplement and clarification.
To paraphrase:
Quote
She: This is so amazing!
I: *sub rosa fist-pump*
She: None of this makes any sense!
I: Well, he is a philosopher.
She: Usually, when I read philosophy I can understand it.
...
I: *explaining the gist of the Blind-Brain Hypothesis.*
She: He's not even a scientist. Does he have any evidence for this?
I: Well, if you would just read these essays...
She:
I: Alright, how about this blog post...
...
She: This Bakker guy seems to be taking the obvious and coming to really weird conclusions from it.
She: I don't think I'm his part of his target audience.
Well, Bakker loves to go on about how he's actually arguing with his writing, putting across important ideas to unlike-minded audiences, and so on.
And yet, if no one understands what the fuck he's talking about... Perhaps he should tone down the diction?
I myself must admit that I understand little of Bakker's posts and essays beyond their main point, especially his writings of the past year-and-a-half. I'm often mystified by his terminology, analogies, and thought process. I used to attribute this to my own stupidity, but these guys quoted above are legitimate scientists...
Thoughts? Does Bakker just make perfect sense to you all?
If not, perhaps we could collectively back a strongly-worded email advising him to tone down his obscurantist language if he actually wants to promulgate his ideas beyond like, a thousand fans and fellow crackpots?
