Stupid and wise are the two faces of the same coin.
chigau (違う)says
good one
unclefrogysays
the fact that the trivial and obvious are so often overlooked and even sometimes turnout to be significant might contribute to the phenomenon.
reason is a powerful tool but we are not always able to use it without error.
uncle frogy
Owlmirrorsays
One the one hand, Niels Bohr: “Two sorts of truth: profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd.” [Unsourced variant: The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.]
On the other hand, Daniel Dennett: Generally, a deepity has (at least) two meanings: one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false or meaningless and would be “earth-shattering” if true. To the extent that it’s true, it doesn’t matter. To the extent that it matters, it isn’t true. [This appears to not be an exact quote, but a paraphrase of things he has said; here and here, for example]
On the other other hand, Wolfgang Pauli: “That is not only not right, it is not even wrong.” [Ooh, and also: “What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not.”]
Scott Simmonssays
Man, that third panel sure reminds me of The Sphinx from the movie Mystery Men.
Mr. Furious: “Okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bit formulaic? ‘If you want to push something down, you have to pull it up. If you want to go left, you have to go right.’ It’s…”
The Sphinx: “Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn to master your rage…”
Mr. Furious: “…your rage will become your master? That’s what you were going to say. Right? Right?”
The Sphinx: “Not necessarily.”
Igneous Ricksays
A platitude is something that is trite, but true. It is orthogonal to a plongitude, which is something that is profound, but false.
gijoelsays
@5. Came here to say just that.
John Moralessays
Q: “What is depth but the magnification of shallowness”?
A: Semantically, It’s the converse of it. Pedantically, depth is the dimension and shallowness indicates a small degree of extent within that dimension, whereas depth indicates a great degree of extent therein.
(Magnified shallowness is ever more shallow!)
leerudolphsays
A platitude is something that is trite, but true. It is orthogonal to a plongitude, which is something that is profound, but false.
Two distinct, non-trivial platitudes are parables of each other. There are exactly two distinct trivial platitudes, each consisting of a single point; no plongitude is trivial, but every plongitude contains both trivial platitudes, and those are the only points common to any two distinct plongitudes.
Igneous Ricksays
Two distinct, non-trivial platitudes are parables of each other. There are exactly two distinct trivial platitudes, each consisting of a single point; no plongitude is trivial, but every plongitude contains both trivial platitudes, and those are the only points common to any two distinct plongitudes.
Caution: platitudes and plongitudes may vary depending on the reference datum.
(Now, what about the UTM equivalent of peasting and pnorthing?)
chigau (違う)says
re: UTM
Do they use westing and southing in the southern hemisphere?
John Moralessays
Igneous Rick, orthogonals necessarily intersect unless, unless their extent is limited.
(Even then they may intersect; if so, their intersectionality is their locus of intersection)
Rob Grigjanissays
John @12:
orthogonals necessarily intersect unless, unless their extent is limited.
What about the lines in 3D defined by
(a) y=z=0 (i.e. the x-axis)
(b) x=0, z=1
They never intersect, and are not limited in extent. How are they not orthogonal?
John Moralessays
Rog, they’re not orthogonal in the same plane.
newenlightenmentsays
Two sorts of truth: profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd.” I remember a similar variant of this somewhere, ‘any political statement to which the opposite is absurd is not worth making.
“Generally, a deepity has (at least) two meanings: one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false or meaningless and would be “earth-shattering” if true. To the extent that it’s true, it doesn’t matter. To the extent that it matters, it isn’t true.”
Its fun to come up with comebacks to deepities, for instance: ‘There is no I in team’ ‘but there is an m and a e‘ a degree is just a piece of paper’ ‘so are banknotes, but that doesn’t seem to diminish their popularity’
johnhodgessays
I recall the Sphinx saying “The more you doubt your powers, the more you give power to your doubts.” Cum See, Cum Saw, as my Dad would say.
Stupid and wise are the two faces of the same coin.
good one
the fact that the trivial and obvious are so often overlooked and even sometimes turnout to be significant might contribute to the phenomenon.
reason is a powerful tool but we are not always able to use it without error.
uncle frogy
One the one hand, Niels Bohr: “Two sorts of truth: profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd.” [Unsourced variant: The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.]
On the other hand, Daniel Dennett: Generally, a deepity has (at least) two meanings: one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false or meaningless and would be “earth-shattering” if true. To the extent that it’s true, it doesn’t matter. To the extent that it matters, it isn’t true. [This appears to not be an exact quote, but a paraphrase of things he has said; here and here, for example]
On the other other hand, Wolfgang Pauli: “That is not only not right, it is not even wrong.” [Ooh, and also: “What you said was so confused that one could not tell whether it was nonsense or not.”]
Man, that third panel sure reminds me of The Sphinx from the movie Mystery Men.
Mr. Furious: “Okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bit formulaic? ‘If you want to push something down, you have to pull it up. If you want to go left, you have to go right.’ It’s…”
The Sphinx: “Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn to master your rage…”
Mr. Furious: “…your rage will become your master? That’s what you were going to say. Right? Right?”
The Sphinx: “Not necessarily.”
A platitude is something that is trite, but true. It is orthogonal to a plongitude, which is something that is profound, but false.
@5. Came here to say just that.
Q: “What is depth but the magnification of shallowness”?
A: Semantically, It’s the converse of it. Pedantically, depth is the dimension and shallowness indicates a small degree of extent within that dimension, whereas depth indicates a great degree of extent therein.
(Magnified shallowness is ever more shallow!)
Two distinct, non-trivial platitudes are parables of each other. There are exactly two distinct trivial platitudes, each consisting of a single point; no plongitude is trivial, but every plongitude contains both trivial platitudes, and those are the only points common to any two distinct plongitudes.
Two distinct, non-trivial platitudes are parables of each other. There are exactly two distinct trivial platitudes, each consisting of a single point; no plongitude is trivial, but every plongitude contains both trivial platitudes, and those are the only points common to any two distinct plongitudes.
Caution: platitudes and plongitudes may vary depending on the reference datum.
(Now, what about the UTM equivalent of peasting and pnorthing?)
re: UTM
Do they use westing and southing in the southern hemisphere?
Igneous Rick, orthogonals necessarily intersect unless, unless their extent is limited.
(Even then they may intersect; if so, their intersectionality is their locus of intersection)
John @12:
What about the lines in 3D defined by
(a) y=z=0 (i.e. the x-axis)
(b) x=0, z=1
They never intersect, and are not limited in extent. How are they not orthogonal?
Rog, they’re not orthogonal in the same plane.
Two sorts of truth: profound truths recognized by the fact that the opposite is also a profound truth, in contrast to trivialities where opposites are obviously absurd.” I remember a similar variant of this somewhere, ‘any political statement to which the opposite is absurd is not worth making.
“Generally, a deepity has (at least) two meanings: one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false or meaningless and would be “earth-shattering” if true. To the extent that it’s true, it doesn’t matter. To the extent that it matters, it isn’t true.”
Its fun to come up with comebacks to deepities, for instance: ‘There is no I in team’ ‘but there is an m and a e‘ a degree is just a piece of paper’ ‘so are banknotes, but that doesn’t seem to diminish their popularity’
I recall the Sphinx saying “The more you doubt your powers, the more you give power to your doubts.” Cum See, Cum Saw, as my Dad would say.