Probability theory etc

The Philosophy of Religion was one of my A levels

You've heard / read the transcript of Copleston and Bertrand Russell ??? V. Interesting

Mr Gecko,

I haven't. Please provide a reference. I suspect it's a dispute between a believer (Copleston) and an aetheist (Russell).

Russel's History of Western Philosophy is one of my favourite books but beyond this his positions on christianity and what he regards as the social ills and injustices of the 20th century are not particularly illuminating; actually, pretty dull.

Can't find a "pink elephant" reference in the work cited. Probably in another of his works.

Grant.

Transcript of the Russell/Copleston radio debate

This particular discussion centres on the Cosmological argument.

IIRC Copleston's "Pink elephant" comments were made rather candidly during a conversation between Peter (either Vardy or Singer, I forget) about the Ontological ("That which nothing greater can be conceived"... "Desert Island" argument is how I remember it. It is probably my favourite).

Grant,

thanks for stimulating reply. I am glad we have Taleb behind us now and can discuss more interesting matters.

In my understanding, Popper was highly critical of the core tenets of the Vienna Circle and he considered them epistemological idealists – a characterisation they didn’t like - and his famous disagreement with Wittgenstein based on Wittgenstein’s view that there are no genuine problems in philosophy, only linguistic puzzles – something that Popper considered rubbish and wasn’t afraid to say.

Logik der Forschung was his first published work that he translated to English in the 50’s. The Postscript was further work intended for a companion volume, but only part of it was published in 1959 and the rest in the 80’s. Now available in three volumes.

Fine. I would consider him an epistemologist as well rather than philosopher of science. But let’s not forget that he spent considerable effort on science, in particular probability and physics, e.g. providing his own interpretation of quantum mechanics and devising an experiment to disprove the Copenhagen interpretation. The experiment may be flawed, but the interpretation is still relevant. So I think it is unfair to consider him as a social/political philosopher first and foremost. Those were perhaps the aspects of his philosophy that attracted most attention in the UK in the 60’s and 70’s, which may account for the misprepresentation.

Like being eaten by worms before you’re dead…

Coincidentally, I had a couple of drinks Friday with a fellow Taleb basher who mentioned a book that was described as the opposite of Taleb. Might be of interest to some:

Amazon.co.uk: Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers Is the New Way to Be Smart: Ian Ayres: Books

RW

This appeared in the Times just as we were on the subject:

Nassim Nicholas Taleb: the prophet of boom and doom - Times Online