Re: Linx is racistisch

Jos Bergervoet <Jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl> wrote:
 

"Is dat goed of slecht?" zouden sommigen hier dan vragen. Maar het
woord "goed" betekent welbeschouwd niet veel meer dan: "dat wat
volgens gangbare inschattingen een prettig leven oplevert" (en
slecht is dan het tegenovergestelde).

Geheel in de lijn der verwachting lieten mijn AI vriendjes ChatGPT en
Grok 3 weinig heel van deze Jos-tekst.

Alinea 5, waarin Jos zich weer eens overgeeft aan name-dropping, kreeg
van Grok zelfs, om mij onbekende redenen, spontaan een Engelstalige
analyse!

Misschien niet. Het zou kunnen zijn zoals de onvolledigheidsstelling
in de wiskunde: niet alle wiskundige beweringen zijn te bewijzen,
maar die stelling zelf valt (gelukkig) binnen de categorie die wel
bewijsbaar is. En dat bewijs heeft Godel nu bijna een eeuw geleden
ook geleverd, daarmee Hilbert's volledige axiomatisatie van de gehele
wiskunde torpederend. Maar dat die onvolledigheidsstelling zelf toch
nog te bewijzen was doet ons natuurlijk denken aan Pandora's box:
op het eind was toch niet alles verloren!

Critical Analysis of Paragraph 5

Summary of Paragraph 5

The paragraph suggests that the question of whether science is a funda-
mentalist ideology might not be unsolvable, drawing an analogy to Gödel's
incompleteness theorem. It claims that while not all mathematical state-
ments are provable, the theorem itself is provable, as demonstrated by
Gödel nearly a century ago, which "torpedoed" Hilbert's axiomatization of
mathematics. The paragraph ends with a reference to Pandora's box, implying
that "not all is lost."

Analysis of Pretentiousness and Self-Aggrandizement

Pretentious Style

Intellectual Name-Dropping: The casual references to Gödel's incomplete-
ness theorem, Hilbert's axiomatization, and Pandora's box are intended to
give the text an air of profundity. These complex concepts are dropped
without explanation, implying that the writer assumes the reader shares
their erudition, which feels like an attempt to appear intellectually
superior.

Forced Analogy: The comparison between Gödel’s theorem and the
science-ideology question is vague and poorly developed. It seems chosen
for its intellectual prestige rather than its relevance, reinforcing the
writer’s attempt to seem smarter than they are.

Exaggerated Language: Terms like "torpedoing" and the poetic flourish of
"Pandora’s box" are overly dramatic, aiming to present the writer as a
thinker with literary and intellectual flair. This comes across as hollow
given the lack of substance.

Self-Aggrandizement

Overconfident Tone: The opening “Maybe not” and the parenthetical
"(luckily)" suggest the writer has a unique insight into a complex problem,
but no concrete solution is provided. This implies a level of understanding
that isn’t demonstrated.

Elitist Phrasing: The use of "naturally" in "naturally reminds us of
Pandora's box" assumes the connection is obvious, alienating readers and
giving the writer an air of superiority.

Unsubstantiated Optimism: The Pandora’s box reference implies a hopeful
resolution without any supporting argument, presenting the writer as a
visionary without earning it.

Why It Fails

Lack of Substance: The Gödel analogy is not explained in relation to the
science-ideology question, making it a decorative rather than substantive
addition. This betrays a lack of depth in the writer’s understanding or
effort.

Disconnect Between Ambition and Execution: The writer aims for a profound
philosophical insight but delivers a vague, confusing paragraph. This gap
between ambition and result is what makes the text feel "pathetic" or
"cringe-worthy."

Historical Oversimplification: The claim that Gödel "torpedoed" Hilbert's
program is an exaggeration, as mathematics continued to thrive post-Gödel.
This kind of overstatement is a tactic to sound authoritative but under-
mines credibility.

Conclusion

Paragraph 5 exemplifies the writer’s tendency to present themselves as
smarter and more insightful than they are. The intellectual name-dropping,
forced analogies, and dramatic language are all attempts to impress, but
the lack of clarity and substance makes the effort fall flat. This creates
a "pathetic" or tragi-comic effect, as the writer's self-aggrandizement is
painfully obvious yet unearned. The paragraph is a microcosm of the broader
text’s flaws: an ambitious facade that crumbles under scrutiny.

--
Pancho