I listen to probably 1000 lectures, presentations, documentaries yearly, for a couple of years already. I have to say this the best one yet. It deeply resonated with a lot of thoughts I have been pondering lately, and some of the concepts described really helped verbalize my ideas on metaphysics and neoplatonism. May Dummett rest in peace, he was a brilliant thinker.
@@ZK-iu5gl Background in humanities, interest in philosophy/physics. The implications of Boltzmanns theories, Maxwell's Demon, Godels incompletness theorems, that kind of thing.
I believe that the woman that speaks at the end of the talk and moderates the discussion is Nancy Cartwright. I haven’t upload this audioclip, but I’m pretty sure that it corresponds to the talk that Michael Dummett gave at the London School of Economics on the occasion of his receiving the 1994 Lakatos Award for his book ‘Frege: Philosophy of Mathematics’, as an outstanding contribution to the philosophy of science. I attended that talk as well as the award-giving ceremony that took place afterwards, and remember them quite vividly. The talk was given at the ‘Old Theatre’ of LSE and Michael was introduced by Prof Nancy Cartwright, who was the Head of the Department of Logic and Scientific Method at the time. The prize itself was given in a much smaller room, in a ceremony presided by Prof John Watkins, former head of the department (who had retired a few years earlier). I was a PhD student at the time.
Interesting point about ordinals and cardinals right at the very end. For several months, my three-and-a-half year old grandson could count ordinals up to twenty or so, but couldn't get the idea that when you counted things with ordinals, you were deriving the cardinality of the set of object you were counting. If you counted gummy bears, one -- two -- three -- four, and then asked him how many gummy bears he had, he wouldn't think to say four. Now he's getting it.
Oh man, I´m SO glad those talks are back! When they were taken down I had just met your channel, I watched the Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics, found it wonderful, and saved this talk for later, but it was gone when I went to see it! I tried to find it somewhere else but couldn´t, made me really upset. Oh I´m so happy, good luck in the future, and keep the great work! And by the way, where do you get all those talks?
Dear Philosophy Overdose, Please re-post Michael Dummett's discussion on meaning/Frege. It was the the video where Dummett starts by saying "the meaning of a sentence". Many thanks.
The speaker says that definitions only serve as a preliminary and not a means to discovery in mathematics. This seems absurd to me. Definitions reorganize our perception of mathematical structure much the way that an optical apparatus reorganizes our perception of bodies. Surely an optical apparatus is a means.
I'd like to express gratitude for this channel. It's a true gem.
Good to see the channel is back, I got worried seeing so many good lectures get lost
@@verse728 taken down for copyright issues
I knew those Open University uploads were a bad idea =/
Oh man I didn’t even know it’d been zapped. PO is awesome, thank you for your work.
I listen to probably 1000 lectures, presentations, documentaries yearly, for a couple of years already. I have to say this the best one yet. It deeply resonated with a lot of thoughts I have been pondering lately, and some of the concepts described really helped verbalize my ideas on metaphysics and neoplatonism. May Dummett rest in peace, he was a brilliant thinker.
What's your interest or major? In science/academic
@@ZK-iu5gl Background in humanities, interest in philosophy/physics. The implications of Boltzmanns theories, Maxwell's Demon, Godels incompletness theorems, that kind of thing.
Where to find people with these interests irl?🥲
I believe that the woman that speaks at the end of the talk and moderates the discussion is Nancy Cartwright. I haven’t upload this audioclip, but I’m pretty sure that it corresponds to the talk that Michael Dummett gave at the London School of Economics on the occasion of his receiving the 1994 Lakatos Award for his book ‘Frege: Philosophy of Mathematics’, as an outstanding contribution to the philosophy of science. I attended that talk as well as the award-giving ceremony that took place afterwards, and remember them quite vividly. The talk was given at the ‘Old Theatre’ of LSE and Michael was introduced by Prof Nancy Cartwright, who was the Head of the Department of Logic and Scientific Method at the time. The prize itself was given in a much smaller room, in a ceremony presided by Prof John Watkins, former head of the department (who had retired a few years earlier). I was a PhD student at the time.
What a beautiful and eloquent oration. If only my powers of retention permitted a lone viewing.
Interesting point about ordinals and cardinals right at the very end. For several months, my three-and-a-half year old grandson could count ordinals up to twenty or so, but couldn't get the idea that when you counted things with ordinals, you were deriving the cardinality of the set of object you were counting. If you counted gummy bears, one -- two -- three -- four, and then asked him how many gummy bears he had, he wouldn't think to say four. Now he's getting it.
Oh man, I´m SO glad those talks are back! When they were taken down I had just met your channel, I watched the Introduction to the Philosophy of Mathematics, found it wonderful, and saved this talk for later, but it was gone when I went to see it! I tried to find it somewhere else but couldn´t, made me really upset. Oh I´m so happy, good luck in the future, and keep the great work!
And by the way, where do you get all those talks?
38:15 the context principle
Dear Philosophy Overdose, Please re-post Michael Dummett's discussion on meaning/Frege. It was the the video where Dummett starts by saying "the meaning of a sentence". Many thanks.
Does anyone have a transcript of this lecture?
click on the 3 dots under the video - there's a "show transcript" option - copy n paste
Source?
11:00 (timestamp for myself)
The speaker says that definitions only serve as a preliminary and not a means to discovery in mathematics. This seems absurd to me. Definitions reorganize our perception of mathematical structure much the way that an optical apparatus reorganizes our perception of bodies. Surely an optical apparatus is a means.
I didn't understand anything
who is this woman?