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. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 18 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      So how do scientists gain knowledge, if not by using the scientific method?pic.twitter.com/KaSVdLklhh

      12 replies 26 retweets 105 likes
      Show this thread
    2. Fate Of Twist‏ @FateOfTwist_ 18 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness

      The popularity of this concept of """the"" scientific method" is baffling. Basically no philosophers of science held that such a thing existed post-Kuhn, and that wasn't universally believed before then. Yet it is The Standard taught in many public schools.

      1 reply 0 retweets 15 likes
    3. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 18 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @FateOfTwist_

      Yup; and nearly all scientists claim to believe in it, although two minutes of consideration of their own typical working day would be adequate to disprove it. It’s a law of nature that everyone has to have a religion, and this is one of them.

      4 replies 2 retweets 13 likes
    4. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 19 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @FateOfTwist_

      Curious what your source is for "nearly all scientists claim to believe it"? I associate it with science fans, less so with good scientists (though there are _some_ very good scientists who use the phrase). Also, related:pic.twitter.com/JGflUiSIoa

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

      I always thought that "the scientific method", like a lot of philosophical ideas, boils down to "y'know, thinking, doing, learning, the way you would if you actually gave a shit". It's sort of vacuous, but you need to give it a name to distinguish it from blind stupidity.

      5 replies 3 retweets 29 likes
    6. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 19 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @s_r_constantin @Meaningness @FateOfTwist_

      I'm quite happy to adopt "y'know, thinking, doing, learning, the way you would if you actually gave a shit" as a formal definition of "The Scientific Method" 😀

      4 replies 0 retweets 9 likes
    7. Ashley‏ @polyaletheia 19 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @michael_nielsen @s_r_constantin and

      Interesting comparison: in mathematics, what makes something a proof? I think the answer is, that it convinces other mathematicians of something. Likewise, science is about convincing other scientists (and others) that nature behaves in a particular way.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 May 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @polyaletheia @michael_nielsen and

      There’s a lot of truth to this; but science is genuinely different from (e.g.) theology, where “convincing other theologists” is the whole of it. No one has been able to find a hard-line test for what makes science different, but the differences are vital and worth investigating.

      10:29 AM - 19 May 2019
      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Sarah Constantin‏ @s_r_constantin 19 May 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness @polyaletheia and

          I think a proof actually does refer to...a shape, sort of, Out There, even if different people will write it up differently and disagree on what counts as "trivial" vs what needs more unpacking. There is a pattern in which write-ups will get graded as "proofs" vs. "not proofs".

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

          Yes…. setting aside the unanswerable metaphysical questions, math is uniquely hard-edged in the sense that once a matter is settled, it virtually always stays settled. Whereas this is rare in the general case of convincing a group.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. 1 more reply
        1. New conversation
        2. Ashley‏ @polyaletheia 19 May 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness @michael_nielsen and

          Science also needs to convince non-scientists at some point. Then again, theologians convince the laity. TBH I don't think there is an objective demarcation, it's just that we ourselves are no longer convinced by the theologians, but are still convinced by the scientists.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        3. Fate Of Twist‏ @FateOfTwist_ 19 May 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @polyaletheia @Meaningness and

          Theology can get quite rigorous. The problem is reliable access to the phenomena. People from different traditions are extremely talking past each other in an opaque way. A mathematician can point to a definition, a construction. A scientist can point to an experiment.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. 3 more replies

      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