Self-refuting lyrics?

By -
OK, what about "Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer"?

In the first few lines, we are told that we know the names of all the "traditional" reindeer. (The tradition does not stretch back all that far, but never mind that.)

Then we are asked, "But do you recall / the most famous reindeer of all?"

Now, wait just a second. I can see where we could recall the names of many reindeer, but forget the name of "the most important reindeer of all," or "the most noble reindeer of all," or something like that.

But isn't the phrase "the most famous reindeer of all" pretty much equivalent to "the most recalled reindeer of all"? So, if it is a given that everyone knows the names of all those other reindeer, but doubtful that they know Rudolf's, isn't that pretty good evidence that he is not "the most famous reindeer of all"?

I just wanted to get that off my chest, so I can get back to exploring the commonality among social cycle theories.

Comments

  1. Bobybuilder12:12 AM

    You know Hemingway, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, and Dreiser,
    But do you recall the most famous twenties writer of all?

    Because I bet you don't. The Steven King or Tom Clancy of the time, but not so famous now. And Rudolph being unjustly forgotten but now remembered by you, the child audience, fits the tale nicely I think.

    Probably Zane Grey, but maybe Lewis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah12:24 AM

      Yes, possibly it says "Rudolph was famous then, but now forgotten"... except there was no "then" when Rudolph was famous. He was only invented with the song!

      Delete
  2. Anonymous6:26 PM

    Gene,

    There's no contradiction, it's just a question with an obvious answer.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Machine Learning"

By -
 The name is a misnomer. And a harmful one, because it interferes with understanding the process that is really occuring. What is really occurring is a search of a constrained program space. Let's say you want to be able to identify images of hot dogs . You begin with a plausible program for doing so, that is able to also search the space of nearby programs that might get better results on the problem. You then (in "supervised learning") provide scores that indicate how well one of these possible programs has done on solving the problem. After doing this for some time you settle upon a program that solves the problem "well enough." This is a great technique that can produce truly impressive results on a wide class of problems, such as identifying images of hot dogs. But notice that, except for the phrase in scare quotes, there is no "learning" in the description. Calling this "learning" is importing ideological baggage that just obscures what
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more