How knowledge works:
You start with some existing knowledge (models/traditions/genes/memes).
Some of that contains problems (two parts contradict).
Try a modification to solve it.
Criticise to see if the solution works.
Modify as needed.
New problem.
-
Show this thread
-
Lulie Retweeted Lulie
The first step of 'existing knowledge' is necessary — that's where problems come from. And problems are what thinking consists of. It's impossible to think about something without some model. "Model-free" just means your models are less about the form.https://twitter.com/reasonisfun/status/1106853147417423872?s=21 …
Lulie added,
Lulie @reasonisfunReplying to @context_ing @Malcolm_OceanOne can't get knowledge from ignorance. What's happening in negative space drawing is not being model-free, but *using a better model*. And that's what's happening in philosophy (&improv, etc.) too. It feels like being model-free because it's using inexplicit/intuition models.1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
Where #CriticalRationalism and other fallibilist philosophies like#MetaRationalism may differ. (one of the few places they seem to be in actual disagreement?@Meaningness@Malcolm_Ocean)2 replies 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @reasonisfun @Malcolm_Ocean
Not sure I understand which possible disagreement you are pointing at? If it is whether pre-existing knowledge always plays a role in the generation of new knowledge, I don't think any serious thinker of the past >50 years could disagree. Some other points though:
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
You started with "how knowledge works," but your flowchart seems to be an account of belief revision, not of how knowledge typically functions, which is practical usage without revision. An account of belief revision probably needs first an account of how knowledge does work.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
I'm not sure what you mean by "knowledge"; you cite "models/traditions/genes/memes," which I suspect all work in very different ways, and I'm skeptical that a theory that covers all of them can be detailed and concrete enough to be useful.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The belief revision flowchart does seem very general. For instance, Jaynesian Bayesianism (ie LW rationalism) seems to fit the schema, with the caveat that it denies absolute contradictions and recognizes only "evidence against."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I would like more specificity at each step: * What is knowledge & how does it work? * How do you recognize problems/contradictions, once we admit that actual logical contradiction is rarely the issue? * How do you get potentially better models? * How do you evaluate them?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
At the first step, I think it will turn out that "knowledge" is diverse and there can't be one answer, but there can be many answers that are useful for different sorts in different situations and for different purposes. And then the same will go for the others.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I think these questions have to be approached empirically, at minimum with case studies (as Kuhn did), but much better with detailed observation (as ethnomethodologists do). I don't thinking about epistemology in general and in the abstract and in an armchair has any value.
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.