So here he’s saying “yeah LP was wrong because [among other things] actual certainty is impossible, but Latour’s pointing this out is hardly interesting.” The EM approach also rejects all flavors of rationalism, presumably including e.g. Bayesianism/probabilism.
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.
-
Re a), I seem to be doomed to be the first person to explain the point in plain English. I don’t know what monstrous sin I committed in a previous life to have been punished this way.
- 7 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.