Maybe we should discuss whether Hari Seldon's psychohistory is a science?
-
-
If we take serious Imre Lakatos's view of science as a productive research project, then, no, Seldon's psychohistory is not a science.
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Love this interpretation of it!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Yeah, in-universe it's clearly a science. Knowing what we know, there's no way that would work. And indeed, Asimov pretty quickly realized that lol.
- Show replies
-
-
-
Even Hari was aware, hence the Second Foundation to keep the plan in line.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It’s not clear it had much of an empirical base. It’s seems like the social science equivalent of string theory.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The "Napolean Method" of creating a science. I am referencing Hegel but what was the Tacticus quote about the Roman Empire and Hegemony? They plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they name this Empire...https://twitter.com/HeerJeet/status/1490142895030128640?s=20&t=RZMr9YhQjEhuIPLh7IFRAg …
-
...and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace. ----- Put another way Copernican "revolutions" happen by many methods. How does one map the territory we call science?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Given that the first foundation was expressly setup WITHOUT knowledge of psychohistory you're probably right
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“Psychohistory is what we make of it” — Wendtian scholar on Trantor.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.