"To put it super crudely it's a sort of disagreement with the idea that informal rationality is just an approximation to the math instead of the other way around." - Srijit Sanyal gives the best one-line description of @Meaningness's views I've heard. Or at least I thought so?
-
-
Reasonableness is entwined with perception and with concrete activity in ways that formal rationality isn’t and can’t be—so they have different functions. They’re not just different ways of doing the same thing. cc
@_Srijit -
Formal rationality has to rely on reasonableness to make contact with concrete reality. There’s always a gap of non-formal interpretation between formal symbolic understanding and the world. Recognizing this is a prerequisite to meta-rationality; but is not meta-rationality.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I did also suggest he read some Quine and Wittgenstein, if that helps. (As my waggish friend recently observed on his meme-page, if you can do Twitter, you can do the Philosophical Investigations.)
-
I wish there were something more recent and more straightforward to recommend. There really isn’t… which is why I have to write the Eggplant book.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
‘and the meta-rationality to know the difference’
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
your distinction between reasonableness and metarationality is valuable, but I actually think my throwaway remark about informal primacy was meant to map closer to your "metarationality" than the more specific "reasonable thing to do", the way you use terms here.
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.