I meant the last one—I don’t see a slider for the % careerists? (possibly one of my 73 security plugins has screwed it up?)
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @calcsam
OK updated! (It wasn't the fault of your plugins... at least not this time ;)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KevinSimler @calcsam
Thank you! There’s now “careerists” sliders on two of the earlier simulations, which might not be what you wanted? (if adding the careerist sliders to the last one adds it automagically to the others due to code modularity, then maybe better on none…)
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Ofc your sims aren’t meant to be quantitative… but fwiw I’d estimate >80% of scientists are dead weight (<= 0 value). Somehow some science gets done anyway! In practice I think this is because the competent people have informal networks that route around the damage.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @calcsam
"Somehow some science gets done anyway!" — well the degree is much higher IRL. In the sims, each scientist can only talk to 4 others! "Informal networks" — I've heard this called the "invisible college" and I _love_ that term.
2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @KevinSimler @Meaningness
Btw, David, I think you'd really like this essay (which I excerpted for you a couple weeks ago): https://thestoryofscience.blogspot.com/?m=0 I would also love to hear your thoughts on it! It talks about invisible colleges and systemic problems with science and many other things.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @KevinSimler
Thank, I enjoyed this! Its description of the pathologies of institutional science are mostly correct I think. They’ve been clear to the clueful for decades, have gotten progressively worse, and are now so bad that even the MSM are writing about the problems.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @KevinSimler
The question is what to do about it. Charlton is nostalgic for “the systematic mode” or “high modernism” or “the golden age of rationalism,” which ended in the late 60s. What he’d really like to do is to restore that, which gives him a cranky reactionary tone, but >
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @KevinSimler
> he recognizes that this is impossible, and suggests a return to amateur science instead. His valorized examples are the Manhattan Project and Apollo, which … are the antithesis of amateur science. (As he also notes.) They are, rather, peak achievements of high modernism.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @KevinSimler
Since we’re no longer capable of Apollo, we’ll have to go back in history to the Lunar Society of aristocratic amateurs. I fit that profile, after a fashion, so I find it emotionally attractive, but it’s unrealistic for numerous reasons and can’t be taken seriously.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Which he then admits and gives up with “well science was nice while it lasted but’s over, so I’m taking refuge in my Catholic faith” which I don’t find altogether satisfactory.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @KevinSimler
I would rather look forward than back—although I do read a lot of history of science to inform my attempts to imagine better futures.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @KevinSimler
“Meta-rationality” means examining how we’re using rationality (including science) in context, not taking its claims about itself at face value, figuring how it relates to concrete reality, where and when and how and why it works or doesn’t, and figuring out how to do it better.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes - 9 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.