David Chapman

@Meaningness

Better ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—around problems of meaning and meaninglessness; self and society; ethics, purpose, and value.

Vrijeme pridruživanja: rujan 2010.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @Meaningness

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @Meaningness

  1. Prikvačeni tweet
    1. velj

    🆕 Much of my explanation of how and why rationality works (the middle part of the book) is a simplified presentation of ethnomethodological concepts and findings in easier language. It’s hip! You need to be able to say “ethnomethodology” confidently

    Poništi
  2. prije 4 sata

    I was going to have the photo be a really messy laboratory, but on looking at some via image search I suspect that if you haven’t worked in a wet lab, you can’t even see whether it’s tidy or a mess. Better use a messy kitchen I think!

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  3. prije 4 sata

    I’m thinking this gets an accompanying diagram showing “the real world” as a photo of a mess and “the formal model” as a Greek temple floating in a cloud with a Greek philosopher emitting some well-formed formulae. And some random arrows connecting them.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. prije 4 sata

    “Passing over these considerations may result in predictable patterns of rationalist failure.”

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  5. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    prije 7 sati
    Odgovor korisniku/ci

    Nice theory! But I expect it will be replaced in a few years by Eggs-bar Theory, proposing hierarchical application of the various components for breakfast.

    Poništi
  6. prije 10 sati

    “Aspects of the Theory of Breakfast” Formal rationality is not much help in making an omelet! Here’s a better way… The title is a play on Noam Chomsky’s “Aspects of the Theory of Syntax,” a founding text in cognitivism.

    Poništi
  7. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    The whole interview is delightful and funny and well worth reading for an understanding of the early days of statistics, how the field developed out of the second world war and into the 50s and 60s at Stanford and MIT:

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. prije 14 sati

    🆕 📨 Letter #12 in my dialog with . This one isn’t very interesting; I’m linking it here for completeness. If you haven’t read the exchange, start at the beginning instead; there’s some good stuff in it!

    Poništi
  9. prije 15 sati

    🆕 Summary of "mere reasonableness," with a Gigantic Chart and an application: breakfast!

    Poništi
  10. 2. velj

    Unexpected discovery: Keith Stanovich has a chapter on “metarationality” in his 2010 “Decision Making” book. He uses the word to mean evaluating preferences in a formal decision-theoretic framework. Which is important, and consistent with my use, but a much narrower conception.

    Poništi
  11. 1. velj

    This fascinating misunderstanding was once used to prove that space rockets were impossible. Calculations showed that the most explosive substance then known, TNT, would be insufficient to power one.

    Poništi
  12. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    29. sij

    my philosophy is indexical, yours is limited in scope, theirs totally fails to generalize

    Poništi
  13. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    29. sij

    every seemingly innocent fragment of information is secretly plotting how to escape its context and cause trouble

    Poništi
  14. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    30. sij

    I wish people were better at distinguishing "I understand where this person is coming from" from "I think this person is correct". I see way too many "lol can you imagine believing X" posts, and I think if you *can't* imagine it you're probably lacking crucial empathy skills.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    30. sij

    1/ Did you know that Vannevar Bush (you know, the guy who helped enable everything from radar to the manhattan project, the NSF to memexes) wrote an autobiography? Turns out that yes he did, it's been out of print since the 70's, and it's *excellent* BOOK REPORT THREAD

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    30. sij

    In which I object to philosophers looking down at the sort of science done by the vast majority of professional scientists: (lunchtime repost)

    Poništi
  17. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    30. sij

    From - “Reasonableness works directly with reality, whereas rationality works with formalisms. Rationalism assumes that a formalism somehow reflects reality, and glosses over questions about how that works.”

    Poništi
  18. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    “A rational theory is primarily epistemological; it wants to be a collection of true beliefs. A meta-rational understanding is primarily ontological; it wants to be a collection of useful distinctions“ From in

    Poništi
  19. 30. sij

    The part of your brain that tries to explain everything in terms of wooden spoons.

    Poništi
  20. 30. sij

    (This via , one of my main sources for science reform news)

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·