cptgaio

Now we wait for someone to say that I wished ill upon Alessio...

@Geenoo: I didn't mean to belittle your idea, just to explain mine. Anyway, I don't think you're in the minority. I find Odifreddi not boring at all; on the contrary, I find his approach fascinating and one of the few possible ways to live with rationality (as soon as it gets unblocked, I'll also reply to you in the editorial regarding the debated issue).
@Alessio: I believe you haven't grasped the etymology of "simple" or, at least, the sense in which I was using the term. Also, be aware that I have many Neapolitan colleagues and friends scattered across Campania's hospitals (and even at the national level) in case you ever need (let's hope never) to go to the hospital: I don't know if I could put in a good word for you. Am I threatening you? :-D

You’re a "simpleton", you have fun with little (nothing). A bit (but only regarding this) I envy you.

"Pierino against Everyone" by Marino Girolami, 1981
Sorry, it didn't make me laugh back then either; I'm used to a different kind of humor, less "fart joke".

I was replying to Geenoo, don't worry: really, the one who is always on my mind is you. I'm busy, sorry,

No, Geenoo, you’re wrong, Stoney didn’t mean that. And Odifreddi petty? Just because he debunks the little tales of religion or metaphysics? Honestly, that doesn’t seem fair to me.
I’m responding here regarding the issue of changing one’s mind because the deserver doesn’t allow me to comment on the editorial; I guess I didn't explain myself well, or you misunderstood: those who never change their minds are fools, and I don’t believe I am one. The point is that it would be equally honest to admit when one's mind is changed, and the person in question currently lacks this virtue. And it’s not a matter of age, let’s be clear.

Fusi: I know, it’s just that I don’t agree with the starting points on which he bases his judgment on Proust: that’s all. On other matters (most of the time, I would say) I almost always share both the premises and the conclusions he explores. @Geenoo: the first one who doesn’t compare himself to Einstein, I believe, is him ;-) In a passage from "Le Menzogne di Ulisse," he defines Russell, Gödel, and Einstein as the triad that “to us humans would seem like the holiest intellectual trinity,” and I insist, I think your definition of "blinders" is not the same as mine, that’s all.
I repeat, for the benefit of others who have intervened (like Stoney, whose thoughts I share) that the "scientific integralism" I’m talking about is what no longer allows you to distinguish between "harmful" entertainment and "frivolous and peaceful" entertainment; often (but not always, for heaven's sake) Odifreddi seems to fall into this error, but it’s a fairly minor flaw if you consider the overall picture of his project. On the other hand, not always (in my case, almost never) do you fully agree with the thoughts and/or works of your favorite authors, artists, thinkers: in my case, Odifreddi is well above 80% (and the remaining 20% is in things that are mostly negligible: quality also counts) and there aren’t many of them.

I believe the acoustic issues were more due to the venue (the Magazzini have always had them, especially at the beginning of concerts: difficult acoustics to set up, I imagine) for the rest I saw them in order in London (for the first), Pistoia (the second) and Crans Montana (the fourth) and I didn’t notice big differences in empathy (him a clown in the positive sense, her lovingly calm and ethereal) but I think those things depend on personal impressions :-D

Ah, Fusi: scientific fundamentalism in the sense that often Odifreddi has overly harsh judgments towards things (literature, art, etc. etc.) that do not embrace non-scientific parameters (I remember a rant against Proust in one of his books that was quite unnecessary, for example: I don't think anyone reads "La Ricerca" for explanations about space or time, but for purely literary reasons; he often overlooks this).

Respect to Isi and Fusi ;-)
@Geenoo: Russell's book should be taken, as the title suggests, to have the ABC, that is, the fundamental notions to understand Einstein and then use it to, if interested, "dive" into more specialized topics (I also mention this at the end of the review): regarding the lack of effect, it depends on how well-versed one is in the subject; I think for beginners it certainly has an effect (after all, its purpose is to "introduce") and, as mentioned, considering "the age," it remains one of the most important books in popular science, even today. Regarding Odifreddi, the discussion is complex: while I do not agree with him on all his battles, I believe that his "overall design" deserves support and consideration, especially in times like these. And, excuse me, but I think the term "blinkers" should be used in very different contexts: if having blinkers means ignoring or deconstructing metaphysical theories and the like (which are so trendy today), then bring on the blinkers.