Book Review: Intuition Pumps As Well As Other Tools For Thinking
The championship of this majority grabbed my attending immediately. Intuition pumps is a really visual term, in addition to who doesn't similar to acquire almost tools for thinking. The premise of the majority is given inwards the showtime quote:
The majority is yesteryear Philosopher Daniel Dennett. The majority is surprisingly readable for a philosophy book, which are sum of jargon in addition to big words. Dennett took exceptional attention inwards writing inwards a uncomplicated an ready clean way. For this, he recruited assist from undergraduate students inwards his university, Tufts. The majority content was discussed at an undergraduate seminar Dennett offered, in addition to he in addition to then got assist from these students review the book. This is later on revealed equally 1 of Dennett's thinking tools: "Explain to nonexperts: purpose a decoy audience". I think that worked: the majority is accessible to an undergraduate, simply a motivated one.
The showtime chapter explained almost intuition pumps in addition to thinking tools. An intuition see is a uncomplicated heed tool. Dennett mentions Galileo's thought experiment that concluded modest in addition to big things autumn amongst the same speed equally an intuition pump. (Galileo thought almost tying a lite stone to a heavy rock. If you lot convey the faulty premise, since the combined organisation is to a greater extent than heavy it should autumn faster, simply on the other hand, since the lite stone is supposed to autumn slower, shouldn't it hold out slowing downwards the heavy stone it is tied to. Contradiction.)
A goodness story/narrative, such equally "Sour grapes yesteryear Aesop", qualifies equally an intuition see for thinking almost to a greater extent than or less behavioral motivations. Dennett says scientists oftentimes underestimate the purpose of informal tools of prose & poesy equally intuition pumps. But this is likely rightly so, because to a greater extent than or less intuition pumps are misleading. Dennett calls these "Boom Crutch" (he has a catchy bespeak everything), in addition to uses those to supplant the technical jargon.
Chapter two is almost full general thinking tools. Dennett says "History of philosophy is smart men making tempting mistakes". But he is of course of report non proverb that equally a negative. He later on continues to tell the following. Making mistakes is the primal to making progress. In contrast to animals, humans tin retrieve their previous thinking, in addition to reverberate on their previous thinking in addition to learn. For writing, blurt it out, in addition to then you lot receive got something to travel with. You ask to brand mistakes to honour the correct questions. Philosophy is what you lot produce to figure out the correct questions.
To give examples of thinking tools, Dennett talks almost reductio promotion absurdum ("argument to absurdity"). He talks almost Occam's razor: "Don't add together unnecessary parameters to overfit the data". He also talks almost the dual of Occam's razor: Occam's broom amongst which 1 whisks away data/facts that doesn't tally the theory. This commits the omission fallacy, in addition to is an event of a Boom crutch. He also mentions other Boom crutches, "rathering" in addition to "surely" which are used for dictating a faux dichotomy. Finally, Dennett talks almost "Jumping out of the system", a.k.a. Jootsing (he has a brusque funny bespeak everything). He says that for at that spot to hold out creativity, at that spot needs to hold out rules to rebel to.
I stopped reading at Chapter 3: Thinking tools for pregnant or context. This is a big majority at 460 pages. Although it is readable, I wasn't motivated plenty equally the thinking tools mentioned became to a greater extent than specialized for philosophy. The majority talks to a greater extent than oftentimes than non almost philosophers' toolkit, in addition to these tools are non equally useful for nonphilosophers.
After reading the book, I got a pretty goodness thought almost how the philosophers work. A friend 1 time mentioned me a quote "Philosophy is a race to come across who tin think the slowest". It is said inwards jest of course, in addition to likely a improve style of putting "slowest" is "deepest/most exhaustively".
For us the nonphilosophers, the practical minded, the enquiry should be: what are the thinking tools that tin brand our lives better?
I think to a greater extent than or less thinking tools bear across domains, simply most are not. That is why nosotros specialize inwards domains, in addition to acquire thinking tools that apply for those domains. And oftentimes our minds are shaped for goodness or bad yesteryear these tools. My heed is shaped yesteryear computational thinking, a psychologists heed is shaped yesteryear behavioral thinking, etc. I was surprised the showtime fourth dimension I saw this inwards action: For the same work of making a toy motorcar follow a round out trace, my Electronics Engineer friend had devised a differential formula in addition to command theory solution, whereas I had an algorithmic/programmatic solution. I guess at nowadays the trending image is to devise a machine learning solution. (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis anyone?)
The thinking tools may non necessarily hold out internal to our brains, they could hold out prosthetics. A uncomplicated simply powerful prosthetics is writing. A goodness event is checklists, equally Atul Gawande pointed out. As a to a greater extent than complicated prosthetics, Steve Jobs 1 time called the Mac equally a bike for the mind. A thought amplifier.
"You can't produce much carpentry amongst your bare hands in addition to you lot can't produce much thinking amongst your bare brain." -- Bo Dahlbom.
The majority is yesteryear Philosopher Daniel Dennett. The majority is surprisingly readable for a philosophy book, which are sum of jargon in addition to big words. Dennett took exceptional attention inwards writing inwards a uncomplicated an ready clean way. For this, he recruited assist from undergraduate students inwards his university, Tufts. The majority content was discussed at an undergraduate seminar Dennett offered, in addition to he in addition to then got assist from these students review the book. This is later on revealed equally 1 of Dennett's thinking tools: "Explain to nonexperts: purpose a decoy audience". I think that worked: the majority is accessible to an undergraduate, simply a motivated one.
The showtime chapter explained almost intuition pumps in addition to thinking tools. An intuition see is a uncomplicated heed tool. Dennett mentions Galileo's thought experiment that concluded modest in addition to big things autumn amongst the same speed equally an intuition pump. (Galileo thought almost tying a lite stone to a heavy rock. If you lot convey the faulty premise, since the combined organisation is to a greater extent than heavy it should autumn faster, simply on the other hand, since the lite stone is supposed to autumn slower, shouldn't it hold out slowing downwards the heavy stone it is tied to. Contradiction.)
A goodness story/narrative, such equally "Sour grapes yesteryear Aesop", qualifies equally an intuition see for thinking almost to a greater extent than or less behavioral motivations. Dennett says scientists oftentimes underestimate the purpose of informal tools of prose & poesy equally intuition pumps. But this is likely rightly so, because to a greater extent than or less intuition pumps are misleading. Dennett calls these "Boom Crutch" (he has a catchy bespeak everything), in addition to uses those to supplant the technical jargon.
Chapter two is almost full general thinking tools. Dennett says "History of philosophy is smart men making tempting mistakes". But he is of course of report non proverb that equally a negative. He later on continues to tell the following. Making mistakes is the primal to making progress. In contrast to animals, humans tin retrieve their previous thinking, in addition to reverberate on their previous thinking in addition to learn. For writing, blurt it out, in addition to then you lot receive got something to travel with. You ask to brand mistakes to honour the correct questions. Philosophy is what you lot produce to figure out the correct questions.
To give examples of thinking tools, Dennett talks almost reductio promotion absurdum ("argument to absurdity"). He talks almost Occam's razor: "Don't add together unnecessary parameters to overfit the data". He also talks almost the dual of Occam's razor: Occam's broom amongst which 1 whisks away data/facts that doesn't tally the theory. This commits the omission fallacy, in addition to is an event of a Boom crutch. He also mentions other Boom crutches, "rathering" in addition to "surely" which are used for dictating a faux dichotomy. Finally, Dennett talks almost "Jumping out of the system", a.k.a. Jootsing (he has a brusque funny bespeak everything). He says that for at that spot to hold out creativity, at that spot needs to hold out rules to rebel to.
I stopped reading at Chapter 3: Thinking tools for pregnant or context. This is a big majority at 460 pages. Although it is readable, I wasn't motivated plenty equally the thinking tools mentioned became to a greater extent than specialized for philosophy. The majority talks to a greater extent than oftentimes than non almost philosophers' toolkit, in addition to these tools are non equally useful for nonphilosophers.
After reading the book, I got a pretty goodness thought almost how the philosophers work. A friend 1 time mentioned me a quote "Philosophy is a race to come across who tin think the slowest". It is said inwards jest of course, in addition to likely a improve style of putting "slowest" is "deepest/most exhaustively".
For us the nonphilosophers, the practical minded, the enquiry should be: what are the thinking tools that tin brand our lives better?
I think to a greater extent than or less thinking tools bear across domains, simply most are not. That is why nosotros specialize inwards domains, in addition to acquire thinking tools that apply for those domains. And oftentimes our minds are shaped for goodness or bad yesteryear these tools. My heed is shaped yesteryear computational thinking, a psychologists heed is shaped yesteryear behavioral thinking, etc. I was surprised the showtime fourth dimension I saw this inwards action: For the same work of making a toy motorcar follow a round out trace, my Electronics Engineer friend had devised a differential formula in addition to command theory solution, whereas I had an algorithmic/programmatic solution. I guess at nowadays the trending image is to devise a machine learning solution. (Sapir-Whorf hypothesis anyone?)
The thinking tools may non necessarily hold out internal to our brains, they could hold out prosthetics. A uncomplicated simply powerful prosthetics is writing. A goodness event is checklists, equally Atul Gawande pointed out. As a to a greater extent than complicated prosthetics, Steve Jobs 1 time called the Mac equally a bike for the mind. A thought amplifier.
"I think 1 of the things that actually separates us from the high primates is that we’re tool builders. I read a report that measured the efficiency of locomotion for diverse species on the planet. The condor used the to the lowest degree publish energy to displace a kilometer. And, humans came inwards amongst a rather unimpressive showing, almost a 3rd of the style downwards the list. It was non besides proud a showing for the crown of creation. So, that didn’t hold off thence good. But, in addition to then someone at Scientific American had the insight to bear witness the efficiency of locomotion for a human being on a bicycle. And, a human being on a bicycle, a human on a bicycle, blew the condor away, completely off the altitude of the charts.
And that’s what a figurer is to me. What a figurer is to me is it’s the most remarkable tool that we’ve e'er come upwards up with, in addition to it’s the equivalent of a bike for our minds.” -- Steve Jobs
0 Response to "Book Review: Intuition Pumps As Well As Other Tools For Thinking"
Post a Comment