Because of the lack of places and borders between them there are no "home field defaults" and thoughts (short and un-nuanced ones) easily escape virtual in-group contexts without being adapted to the general discourse.
-
Show this thread
-
If we were perfect angels we would be more likely to be confused than angry because since we aren't, we wrongly assume we understand the context when we sense hostility in an ambiguous idea, and automatically interpret it uncharitably.
1 reply 1 retweet 13 likesShow this thread -
We form mental models of reality through abstraction and generalization that are much, much smaller (in terms of bits of info) than reality itself. That means lossy compression, and that means choices about what aspects of the territory we choose to represent in high fidelity ->
1 reply 1 retweet 18 likesShow this thread -
...and which we do not. We can disagree about those choices without disagreeing about concrete facts or moral values. I think many complex disagreements are of this kind.
1 reply 1 retweet 9 likesShow this thread -
When I read constructivist scholars on science I resisted their points because they felt like attacks. Part of that was my own preconceptions but I also think there was genuine hostility towards science from some of them — or at least towards some perceptions of science. ->
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread -
There's great value to (a steelman of) their perspective that I'm better at appreciating now — social factors does matter for how the body of ideas considered scientific develops. But it would be way easier to absorb that lession from people who didn't come off as hostile.
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
I should have been clearer about the logical positivists. They did think ordinary language didn't have objective meaning but thought it was possible to create language that did. They couldn't and postmodernism lies partly in the wake of that failure. ->
3 replies 6 retweets 31 likesShow this thread -
-
Replying to @robert_mariani
Good question. I've absorbed it piecemeal through many secondary sources and I can't necessarily point to one. Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations was important in the middle though.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @everytstudies @robert_mariani
Maybe the reason no one has ever written a good unified discussion of this is that there wasn't a conclusive event. Logical positivism just kept failing over and over in different ways, and eventually everyone got discouraged and then forgot about it.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
_Philosophical Investigations_, Quine's _Two Dogmas of Empiricism_, and Kuhn's _Structure_ are often cited as "the end," but I think it was already effectively over before those. Everyone had de facto given up, so at most it just needed a small final push to fall over.
-
-
Those were more like retrospective diagnoses of how and why it failed. But none of them was fully accurate, imo. It seems to have taken another half-century to get clear on it, and no one has written up a detailed contemporary understanding. Afaik.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
New conversation -
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.
