Never did proper CompSci or Logic. Learned logic + compsci from
age 11 on when I got my little computer in 1983 and taught
myself BASIC. That book there taught the basics of binary,
binary logic, algorithms and stuff. What's awesome about
programming vs logic is that if the logic is bad in a program,
it just doesn't work. Or it gives improper results. So even
without knowing the 'why', just plunging ahead and trying to
make things work properly automatically makes the logic 'good'.
Also made me a huge fan of NOR over XOR. Served me well. == I'm
44 now. Outside of a little dabbling here and there, I wouldn't
touch Philosophy much for decades. Didn't like the people much,
either the people that got into it (always struck me as hero
worship) or the people they were studying. But two years ago, I
decided to tackle that demon and decided: I will understand the
mind of the Internet Philosopher and joined several Philosophy
groups, including this one. Learned a lot. XOR is _very_
important to them. = Awesome smile emoticon I like mathematical
concepts - but I'd say I'm more of a systems guy. Give me a
system, any system, I'll try to figure it out and analogize it
to another system in a workable way somehow and find its flaws
if I can. I love searching for flaws. Flaws don't invalidate
something for me, but they humanize it. Oh the book? It's
"Extended BASIC". It was particular to that system. it was just
my first computer language. Since then I've picked up dozens
more on and off. Once you know one, you can do any of them.
Maybe not write FLUENTLY in them, but they all become somewhat
readable, at least enough to change code when necessary and
understand what it's trying to do. == These days I use Microsoft
Excel as my workhorse. I like being able to spread out. Never
was much for the terseness of mathematical formulas beyond a
certain point, but I'm ok with a spreadsheet full of formulas
and mini algorithms. ==
Here's one of the flaws with mathematics as we do it. Removal of
variables. To me that's information loss. The search for an
"elegant formula" like an E=MC2 is nice and all, but it's very
misleading to people. The short form is missing several VERY
important variables, causing confusing to those not "in the
know".
*
What I prefer with something like Excel or with programming is
you never really lose
==
* If I had to focus on Keynes, I'd continually return to the
base assumptions of causation. Keep moving forward in the
assumption but keep looking for alternative causes.Look for the
critics. What's their methodology? Is it equally valid? Can
something from the critics apply to the Keynesian liquidity trap
and perhaps dissolve the trap altogether? [ie - it might not
even exist if we change the questions being asked]. I'll give a
basic economics error that goes way back a few hundred years:
The assumption of the rational man. Consider the economic
rational man as the base unit. Does such a being exist in
reality? Going ahead to macroeconomics, these are systems that
often tend to follow physics patterns. Yet, what might be
missing? Look for outliers: Is it possible that the driving
forces might be led by or pushed by statistical outliers that
might otherwise be normalized out of the system?
==
* anyway, that's how my brain works. I always look for the
potential flaws in my assumptions and methodology and keep them
mentally "nearby" as I'm puzzling out issues. I often find I'm
working with someone *else's* assumptions that might be
incorrect, taking me down the same paths THEY went down and
falling into the same issues they fell into because I was
following their lead. Then again, if this stuff is for school,
you have to go with what the professor wants tongue emoticon
==
