>listening to the in our time episode on logic >first 15

>>8421438

Braggs position is to be the mediate the panel guests & the curious and open-minded listeners of the show.

I don't know if you've listened to many of the shows; I think they're great because of Bragg's self-imposed, teacher/pupil determination to distinguish between the knowledgeable 'experts' who parrot their university lectures and those 'experts' who can expound on his sometimes direct, jilting questions.

Bragg, yourself, and the experts on the show: everyone learning.

So, what is the big deal ;)

Tip top lel, now I'm listening to the continental analytical philosophy split and this woman guest is literally saying that continental philosophy is mental masturbation about feels. She is literally saying that.

What's your favourite In Our Time episode?

File: 1471173954175.jpg (83KB, 507x763px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 507x763px

>>8421543
well?

>>8421552

That's like saying 'what's your favorite cup of water'?

They're all decent it just depends what content you're interested in. Hundreds of episodes spanning all different subjects. Check them out and just choose one on a subject you're interested in.

I remember being amused by this moment in the show.

>In Our Time episode on Chromatography
>guest talks about how his stupid experiment with paper and markers "brings out the inner child in just about anyone"
>Melvyn: "Well my inner child has not - yes, fine we'll leave it at that"

>>8421508
It's better to have an echo chamber of uni lectures in your head instead of having it be empty

Just downloaded the ordinary language episode and went for a walk. Didn't understand much but thanks for the input, OP.

>>8422010
Please stop posting

You're a total retard if you don't realize the monumental importance of formal logic in human thought.

>>8421621

That's good for you pal, didn't mean to offend you or anything like that. It's good to hold knowledge, but to be an authority on that knowledge may be a different game entirely, just saying.

The difference is if you're authority on the knowledge you aren't phased by Bragg's sometimes awkward questioning, you don't attach yourself to the blase confidence in his questioning thus you do not falter when you give an answer i.e 'was he just a stamp collector' is an obviously provocative question; a university graduate will falter and say 'Maybe he was just a stamp collector, in a way? But He's still cool for this and this reasons..' When an authority on the knowledge would know he was being deliberately & ignorantly inductive for the sake of prizing more concrete information out of the guests, then would elaborate on why Aristotle wasn't just a stamp collector. That's all I was saying.

>>8421573
Is it? Doesn't seem completely crazy to have an episode which you particularly enjoyed.