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.
Yes, this is a major feature of how and why rationality in general works. Rationality always depends on “closed-world assumptions” (or “small-world assumptions” in statistical parlance) that are actually untrue, but enable rational operation to the extent that they hold.
-
-
So a major aspect of meta-rationality is opening up the details of the closed-world assumptions and asking how and why and whether they hold, and if altering them in a particular situation might make your rational inference process go better.
-
Closed/small world assumptions are closely related to Stanovich’s cognitive decoupling, btw… you have to be able to do this in order to apply technical rationality. And you have to be able to ask “what would be the consequences of relaxing the decoupling?” for meta-rationality.
End of conversation
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.