Comments on: All Knowledge In The Universe

By: flaillomanz

flaillomanz — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 02:17:11 +0000

1. Someone posts complex answer.
2. someone replies with slightly less confusing answer.
3. STATES THE OBVIOUS!
4. Smartass writes this comment.
5. Someone (most likely) insults me.

By: Shadowbane509

Shadowbane509 — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:22:07 +0000

no, its to give people secure threads to chat on whil having mnor entertainment

By: jorritio

jorritio — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:53:59 +0000

philosofy is also believing in something somehow

By: jorritio

jorritio — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 18:52:38 +0000

disagree, music nowadays is some hooker+anorexia

By: Copanincoob

Copanincoob — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:43:45 +0000

WOO MYTHBUSTERS!

By: DonLollio

DonLollio — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:14:08 +0000

Fail McFail ^^

By: Altiir

Altiir — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 08:16:53 +0000

MythBusters WIN!!!

By: waht

waht — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:12:55 +0000

yeah agree, nowadays music is science + bs

By: Jackson

Jackson — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:53:24 +0000

McFail

By: Gen

Gen — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:21:55 +0000

in my opinion, the ‘this chart’ section ruins an otherwise EPIC graph.
.
.
.
.
.
although that may or may not be due to the fact that i just spent an entire week watching the discovery channel (which in aussie consists of 50% mythbusters) while recovering from brain surgery

By: Snoot

Snoot — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 23:42:11 +0000

Although this graph is obviously intended to be no more than humor, it is still fascinating to note the distinction made between philosophy and science. Not long ago in our history, what we know call “science” would have simply been called “natural philosophy,” and those who studied it would have called themselves “philosophers.” Even Galileo would fall into this category. The same can be said of mathematics (think of Descartes, Leibniz, Pythagoras…) It wasn’t until the creation of a philosophical system called “empiricism” that the natural sciences began to operate independently, psychology being the most recent to divorce itself from philosophy. Nowadays, we all seem to have an unexamined devotion to an empirical theory of knowledge–we simply assume that only the explorations of science can be properly called “facts.”
So, it is interesting to call philosophy dirty names, when in fact we all have philosophical views that we may or may not choose to evaluate. To dismiss philosophy in favor of science, then, requires a closing of the mind; it is to deny or avoid the discovery of fact. Actual scientists know this and will generally know a thing or two about philosophy; the general population doesn’t care because believing whatever we are told is always easiest–whether that belief is in a science or a religion or a philosophy or whatever we want to call it.

As to the nature of music, if music is in some sense mathematical and scientific, it is no more so than anything else, and so while it may be correct to say that music is mathematic/scientific, it does not thereby distinguish music from any other datum. Wherefore, the Venn diagram fails.

But is still amusing.

By: Breadandcheese

Breadandcheese — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:33:49 +0000

Meshuggah?

By: Bill Nye

Bill Nye — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:26:52 +0000

:’(

By: will

will — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 15:42:17 +0000

PWNED !!!

By: Humm.

Humm. — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 16:45:50 +0000

I don’t really see why not, at least to religious people, since they consider their religion a fact, and for example the Bible contains information about the Christian God, so it can be considered knowledge.

By: Sej

Sej — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:10:51 +0000

With the thoughts and ideas behind the painting, lyrics, or mood of the music, yes.

By: Sej

Sej — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:09:17 +0000

To say Music is just Art + Science feels like an insult to me.

By: thestashattacked

thestashattacked — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:23:37 +0000

… and yet, if I may quote Einstein: “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed.”

Take from that what you will, but remember: Einstein believed very deeply in God.

By: thestashattacked

thestashattacked — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 07:16:57 +0000

Um, isn’t GraphJam meant to be pointless, or at least funny for no deep and meaningful reason?

By: Dman

Dman — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:51:33 +0000

first fail?

By: Blackqhat

Blackqhat — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 03:28:03 +0000

Well, since religion is based upon faith, can it truly be called “Knowledge”?
I don’t know, never saw the point in the whole religion thing. Maybe it just hides that fact that our world sucks [EXPLETIVE] by stating that there is a better one if you do good things and don’t whine and cry…

By: Humm.

Humm. — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:48:14 +0000

Of course they are. Graphjam is absolute, and everything in the graphs is true. I shall raise my children by teaching them what is taught in Graphjam.

By: lakyka

lakyka — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:23:16 +0000

I just love that you´ve put science and art together for music, so true, so nice

By: roflcopter pilot

roflcopter pilot — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:07:12 +0000

LoLz @ all the people arguing about philosophy/music.

By: Edward

Edward — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:09:54 +0000

“Philosophy is based on a few facts, and extrapolated unreasonably.”
What the hell are you talking about? The very purpose of philosophy is to use reason and formal logic to draw demonstrably valid conclusions. There is nothing unreasonable about it. Philosophy is synonymous with reason.

By: Edward

Edward — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:04:17 +0000

This just gets a big WTF from me.

By: Edward

Edward — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:55:27 +0000

The crafting of a saxophone does not create music. And I’m sure there are a lot of scientists and mathematicians who would be able to accurately graph the resonant frequency of a variety of objects, but wouldn’t be able to bang out a decent melody on a piano. Conversely, accomplished musicians don’t have to understand the science of harmonics. As Philo was saying, if music is science, so is everything else. Chemistry is required to make the pigments for painting; physics determines the materials used in sports equipment and describes the trajectory of objects and persons performing. Science is related to most everything. That doesn’t make everything a science.

By: Humm.

Humm. — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:43:23 +0000

Bad English, meant all knowledge.

By: Religion

Religion — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:11:30 +0000

Religion is outside of the three circles.

By: Humm.

Humm. — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 20:35:06 +0000

And I expected some religion-fan or an atheist to comment sooner. Too bad it seems they won’t, always fun to watch them fight.

By: yup

yup — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:28:03 +0000

I agree that Science is a part of Music, but isn’t it also a big part of Visual Arts?

By: music major

music major — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 17:14:02 +0000

I just don’t understand people saying music isn’t math and science. Music is entirely mathematical. Music is mixed with computers, amplified by microphones, and instruments are built using, guess what, science and math. Pythagoras was the one who discovered the overtone series. Only one musician has used math? Are you serious? All musicians use math. What do you think time signatures, note values, pitch values, and the science of acoustics are all about? Music is immensely mathematical as well as scientific.

I realize this graph is just fun, but no one had said this yet and I felt the need to comment.

Nice graph, btw.

By: Jes

Jes — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:46:30 +0000

Mathematics and Science are completely different? Alright dude, you go live your life pretending that they aren’t mutually exclusive.

There are lots of things in math that have yet to be proved that may be fact. Mathematicians sometimes spend their whole lives trying to prove something is fact by experimenting with equations. Sounds like science to me.

Also, Music is most definitely science + art, and your point is really stupid. Sound = frequency = mathematical equation. Suck it, Phil, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

By: Homer

Homer — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:11:46 +0000

“Attempted”?

By: Robot Santa

Robot Santa — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:10:40 +0000

Nice try but my head was built with Paradox absorbing crumple zones!

By: papajon0s1

papajon0s1 — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:32:44 +0000

Why does one philosophy have to be true? Can’t it be true that no runners won the race? But you are “saying saying” things so I am not sure I can trust trust you. I think perhaps your typo has disproved your point point. I win because my poor humor runs circles around your logic logic.

By: Robin

Robin — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 14:17:12 +0000

Best. Graph. Evar.

Or diagram, in this case. Mythbuster jokes rock.

By: squeehunter

squeehunter — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:57:58 +0000

I’d say the OP is confused.

By: squeehunter

squeehunter — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 13:57:13 +0000

Damn I expected someone to make a comment like that much sooner…

By: Shadrach

Shadrach — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 12:26:16 +0000

So a group of people trying to decide on the most important parts of their religious belief is not a philosophical process?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism

Philosophy does not necessarily care whether or not you can quantify something, primarily due to the fact that most of what it deals with is intangible.

Even if you are using the modern definition of Fund. you are incorrect, and apparently fishing for argument. Or are completely confused on what the definition of philosophy is…

By: Liz

Liz — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 07:04:12 +0000

Philosophy gave rise to science and the arts.

By: DDave

DDave — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 05:37:47 +0000

LOL!

By: Frederick Chook

Frederick Chook — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:34:26 +0000

Philosophy is the opposite of fundamentalism. Philsophy – including theology – uses logic to attempt to determine truth. Fundamentalism takes arbitrarily-chosen texts at face value and assigns an unproven value of truth to them. Fundamentalism is neither philosophical nor logical.

By: cheesebrrgrr

cheesebrrgrr — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 02:33:11 +0000

Yes, it should intersect just a bit less than it does now. Ok, more than a bit really.

By: Edward

Edward — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:01:33 +0000

BLASPHEMY!

SCIENCE + ART = MUSIC?
So thats why reggae dancers are so smart hmmm….

By: João Campos

João Campos — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 22:24:58 +0000

Hum true. Well actually, it isn’t stupid, just a bit… pointless Oh well…

By: kg333

kg333 — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:56:42 +0000

Nicely done chart.

And to those complaining/praising about philosophy (and therefore arguably religion) being included under BS, the diagram maker also put himself squarely in there. None of the opinions in the graph are meant to be taken seriously.

By: Aaaaargh

Aaaaargh — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:19:19 +0000

Nope. The size of different parts of venn diagrams doesn’t say anything about the quantity it represents, because that would make this graph a lot more difficult to make accurately. Therefore if quantity is represented in a venn diagram, this is done simply by putting numbers into it.

I have to say: awesome graph. No mistakes and well thought of.

By: Simon

Simon — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:57:21 +0000

Oh sh*t, infinity loop!

By: Homer

Homer — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:48:00 +0000

1. Duh….it’s been a long day. My bad.