I get that the advanced logic kinds of topics are interesting in their own right, but I don’t have the background to feel qualified to run a 3rd year course on modal logic, say. But a course that targeted the meaning, in your head, of the claim “2+2=4”, I’d be down for that!

Ya! I’ve been struggling with what to say to students. On the one hand, I personally am not interested in doing a second order logic course, or a course on computation theory, modal logic, etc. OTOH, if we used those topics as a segue into mind and language, I’d be super down.

If we think that he thinks that we think that he thinks it’s true, then it’s true, duh.
OMG, I just heard him interviewed about his new book and my body hurts from how hard and sustained the cringe!

I think I’m going to devise a new course for them. Probably start non-traditional, start with Borges but then back and up go and down forward. Go full Alice in Wonderland on them. Would they hate me? Yes. Would they love me? Also yes. Haha

to demand an advanced logic class. Imagine what would happen if their professor actually knew anything (i.e. If they had you).
The children of the working class are hungry. It’s great.

This is completely besides the point at issue in your post, but I would love for you to consider…
I‘ve been refreshed since taking a 70% teaching position. My students are super engaged. I’m teaching logic for the second time and my department chair told me there’s a petition…

But how does it act on the particles if it has no mass? His reasoning by analogy relied on particles and fluids that obey the action reaction principle, but by definition caloric can’t, because massless. 🤔

It also shows that Lavoisier’s caloric was accepted for a time despite being fundamentally incoherent. Caloric is a massless fluid that fills the space between the particles of a substance and accounts for their change in volume during phase changes when temperature remains constant...

Phlogiston was a theory that mashed up both oxygen and co2 and thermal energy. and so Kuhn was quite right that revolutions are quite messy and blurry.

Part of Kuhn’s answer was that the community could see a future for themselves under subsequent paradigm. The episode illustrates his idea that it really wasn’t as simple as “phlogiston was discovered to be incorrect theory of oxygen that was vanquished by discovering oxygen.”

{hoping to inspire a new @seamus.bsky.social deep dive!]

Tell, if you take Diamine’s registrar’s ink, and then dip a pen tip into lye and then mix with the ink, you’ll break up the surface tension enough to make it flow nice and buttery smooth and have really really close to what Newton wrote with.

Amongst Isaac Newton’s manuscripts and library are some receipts when he purchased components to make his own ink. I’m not an inkologist, but when I was working with his manuscripts I decided to try to make a comparable ink. It was glorious. But it has since destroyed my pens. Ugh.
Near as I can…

History, philosophy, science, religion, math, alchemy

Now my plate is full, y’all

Oh, I think I see what happened. Bsky is still so small that if one person in your vicinity goes tin foil and reposts several things in a row, it can dramatically change what your timeline is representing as popular.

Yes, but is your ink iron gall?
I’m in a new city and struggling because there’s nobody here I can turn to for pen repairs owing to my horrific choice of ink.