Oh what a great passage! A coda I would add is that, once you have the full causal model of a rainbow, it becomes _much less interesting_ to ask how the labels “objective” and “subjective” apply to it.
-
-
Replying to @KevinSimler @visakanv
Yes! And, generalizing, most arguments about whether something is subjective or objective are due to both words being poorly defined, and can be resolved by looking at the concrete specifics of the relationships involved.
1 reply 1 retweet 8 likes -
Agree with the above! My only quibble is with the (joking?) phrase in the passage about rainbows being "guaranteed 100% metaphysics free."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @StephenPiment @Meaningness and
If you mean "metaphysics" in the sense of "goofy section in the bookstore," then yes, of course. But there is also a rigorous sense of metaphysics that is all about describing exactly these issues.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes; that’s probably a helpful correction! It’s tricky because “metaphysics” is vague. Besides the holistic chakra balancing stuff, there’s a standard STEM dismissal of any uncomfortable conceptual discussion, taking metaphysics = bullshit.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @StephenPiment and
More like conceptual discussion that they don't like = bullshit. But if it is about how everything is made of quarks, then you are good. It's not that they don't engage with metaphysics, it's that they assume a metaphysics and can't question it, so everything else is bullshit.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @FateOfTwist_ @StephenPiment and
Yes, right, exactly! There’s a taken-for-granted default metaphysics, and anything that isn’t that is “philosophical bullshit.”
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @FateOfTwist_ and
Although the default thing isn’t well-defined or worked-out; it’s roughly early 20th C positivism. The numerous reasons that can’t work are “philosophy.” “It HAS to work, because otherwise science itself wouldn’t work!” is “rationalism.” Which isn’t philosophy, it’s TRUE.
3 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @StephenPiment and
Yeah. I find that when arguing with these sorts, ceding ground by accepting their dismissal of metaphysics is a bad move. Better to challenge them on the fact that they are taking all sorts of metaphysical commitments for granted.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @FateOfTwist_ @StephenPiment and
Yes! The first part of my Eggplant book points out all these unthought philosophical assumptions, and why they are wrong. Glad to say there’s now a complete first draft of that! Changing one’s mind requires understanding the better alternative though (rest of book)!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The rainbow piece is written at a really introductory level, trying to get some intuition across with a metaphor, without going into any elaborate conceptual analysis.
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.