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)
-
Show 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 -
@meaningness, Have you read much of John D Norton's work? Seems like you both may have come to some similar conclusions about epistemology. (http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepage/research/ind_material.html … & http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepage/research/ …)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Thanks, yes, I've read and greatly enjoyed that. His opening example of Curie's crystallography is fascinating & compelling, for instance.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Is this the piece you're talking about? I'll check it out. https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Curie_truism_final.pdf …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Ah, no, I hadn't seen that one! I meant his analysis of Marie Curie's explanation of the crystal structure of radium chloride. It provides a strong argument against Bayesianism (as well as logical positivism). http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/material_theory/1.%20Material%20Theory.pdf …
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.