I'm not really finding the second characterization very useful, it's contrastive but not normative...
-
-
-
That’s why it has to be a book :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It appears neither is correct. There is an optimum (a "general formula", a procedure to regulate based on the best model that is discoverable within resource limits), but we don't know it. Pragmatically, both point at something valuable (criteria for rationality vs. embodiment).
-
Rationalism has the highest utility when dealing with subjects which are quantifiable. When dealing with subjects which contain variables which are NOT quantifiable (such as social “sciences”), rationalism drops in value.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think of my own view falling between the two, wherein I believe in axiomatic principals (like doing no harm) and use these for meta rationalization, all with the principal of changing w/ circumstances
-
I see it as the Mahayana approach
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You are underestimating coordination problems. Tell ppl this and they will just what they feel like doing. Formulas coordinate.
-
Who formulates the formulas?
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.