Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
Meaningness's profile
David Chapman
David Chapman
David Chapman
@Meaningness

Tweets

David Chapman

@Meaningness

Better ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—around problems of meaning and meaninglessness; self and society; ethics, purpose, and value.

meaningness.com/about-my-sites
Joined September 2010

Tweets

  • © 2020 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Imprint
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Sarah Constantin‏ @s_r_constantin 19 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness

      I'm genuinely confused by this -- how does it refute "the scientific method"? Yes, most of the time you're trying to fix broken shit, and labs are more like workshops than anybody acknowledges, but don't lab scientists "try changing one thing and see if that fixes it"?

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    2. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @s_r_constantin

      Ah, hmm, may be multiple disjunctures here… The point of the first tweet in the thread is not to *refute* “the scientific method” (it’s “more or less right, as far as it goes”) but to point out that there’s no overall formulation that is both nontrivial and empirically accurate.

      2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
    3. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @s_r_constantin

      So the question is “How actually do scientists gain knowledge, once we admit that there is no concise a priori answer? And how can we find that out?”

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    4. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @s_r_constantin

      One obvious approach is to ask them “how did you determine this specific fact yesterday,” and then they launch into a story about chromatography columns and ethidium bromide or whatever.

      1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
    5. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @s_r_constantin

      Then instead of trying to turn that story into a tidy morality fable about The Scientific Method, you can take it seriously in its own terms. What specifically *is* the logic whereby that experiment shows protein A regulates protein B.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    6. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @s_r_constantin

      Another thing you can do is to hang out in labs watching scientists do science. Then what you see is “shop work” that is almost perfectly dissimilar to the fables you are taught in HS/undergrad about how science is done.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    7. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @s_r_constantin

      The actual work is mostly improvisational futzing around with materials and equipment, trying different things out, trying to coax them to produce an answer. And when you do that, you run into the “contingencies” Garfinkel enumerates.

      2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
    8. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @s_r_constantin

      Phil’s insight was that the contingencies are constraints on the form of a cognitive architecture.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    9. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @s_r_constantin

      E.g. if you assume knowledge consists of datastructures representing fopc wffs, you inevitably hit a combinatorial explosion. So we applied modus tolens, and concluded that knowledge can’t be datastructures or wffs or anything like that. Our program Pengi did fine without them.

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    10. Sarah Constantin‏ @s_r_constantin 19 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness

      ah, the thing where you can't proceduralize a scientist. (or an engineer or mechanic for that matter.) yes, that's quite true.

      2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
      David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @s_r_constantin

      Right! Although, if you say “you can’t proceduralize X” to a rationalist, they’ll launch into explaining Church-Turing to you, and will not listen when you try to explain how that’s irrelevant…

      9:53 AM - 19 May 2019
      • 2 Likes
      • YouAlreadyKnowWhoItIs☭❤️ halvorz is cheating on Lentmoot with SARS-2
      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Sarah Constantin‏ @s_r_constantin 19 May 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness

          because it's at an unproductive level of abstraction, right? Church-Turing also says that there's a way to translate a rock into code, but we're not going to find it. We have read-access to human thought at a higher & more usable level of abstraction.

          1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
        3. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 May 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @s_r_constantin

          Yup!

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. End of 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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2020 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Imprint
        • Cookies
        • Ads info