Lynch’s book lays out the ethnomethodological approach to understanding science, which rejects the “social constructionist” view of e.g. Latour. He argues that Latour just did sign flips in logical positivism while retaining the conceptual framework, which was wrong.
Yes, I don’t have numbers. My impression is that it’s common, and probably a substantial majority of working scientists, but I could be wrong!
-
-
This is a pop statement of “religious” probabilistic rationalism (if I understand it, which I’m not sure I do):https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CPP2uLcaywEokFKQG/toolbox-thinking-and-law-thinking …
-
Having read all the above, some thoughts: a) yes, I do find the EM jargon impenetrable. b) I think, based on my experiences as a scientist & publisher, that the "religious" form rationalism is rare enough to be discounted as a major influence on how research is done.
- 8 more replies
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.