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 Jun 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      “Quasiscience” may be a useful term for a field somewhere between science and pseudoscience. The foundations are dubious and the whole thing may be nonsense. There well may be some real stuff there, but it’s impossible to sort out which, given the methods used.

      1 reply 7 retweets 24 likes
      Show this thread
    2. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 18 Jun 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation

      Quasisciences address problems everyone wants answers for, but for which no good methods are available. Practitioners collude to obscure the foundational problems. Funders want answers and choose to overlook doubts. Identity communities form around the field’s outputs.

      5 replies 7 retweets 40 likes
      Show this thread
    3. Venkatesh brrrRao‏ @vgr 18 Jun 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness

      Hmm. Seems like you’re conflating application métis and fan theories a bit? Most programmers don’t understand semiconductor manufacturing but build their theories atop abstractions that they trust up to a point. Programming lore does not appear to be a quasiscience in your sense.

      2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
    4. Venkatesh brrrRao‏ @vgr 19 Jun 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @vgr @Meaningness

      There is a spectrum going from programming lore on one end (based on strong, nearly leakproof abstractions) through fMRIology to social psych and say startupology. The abstractions they depend on get progressively leakier, and conclusions shakier.

      2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
    5. Venkatesh brrrRao‏ @vgr 19 Jun 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @vgr @Meaningness

      Fandom seems almost like an epiphenomenon of shaky foundations but not in itself an indictment of the foundations. You look for more social reassurance when your truths have a half life of 5 years rather than 50. But that’s degree, not kind.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    6. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 Jun 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @vgr

      This sounds like an interesting thread of questions, but I’m not sure I understand what it is. Is the point that there’s a continuum from reliable science to pseudoscience? Yes definitely. “Quasi” refers vaguely to the middle ground there.

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

      There are fields that haven’t quite managed to get into a normal-science groove yet, because the methods are still shaky or there’s still ontological problems. Kuhn called them “pre-paradigm”.

      2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes
    8. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 Jun 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @vgr

      Pre-paradigm science is great (only place I personally want to be; normal science, however valuable, bores me). Quasisciences are ones that are pre-paradigm but are treated as normal due to public desire for answers. That’s pathological.

      2 replies 2 retweets 9 likes
    9. Manjari Narayan‏ @NeuroStats 19 Jun 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @vgr

      Do you mean the scientists themselves treat it as normal? If so, on what basis is a field being designated as *actually* pre-paradigm?

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    10. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 Jun 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @NeuroStats @vgr

      Well these are interesting and difficult questions! The relevant meta-science is itself mostly pre-paradigm, so any answers have to be tentative… >

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 Jun 2019
      • Report Tweet
      • Report NetzDG Violation
      Replying to @Meaningness @NeuroStats @vgr

      Anecdotally, scientists in any field have varying degrees of understanding of, and skepticism about, the field’s methods and logical foundations. And fields differ with respect to that distribution.

      9:28 AM - 19 Jun 2019
      • 1 Like
      • michael_nielsen
      2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        1. New conversation
        2. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 Jun 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness @NeuroStats @vgr

          A field whose leaders recognize and acknowledge that its foundations are shaky, and/or its methods are questionable, and are working to improve them, is not pathological—quite the opposite. (Although its results are unreliable in the interim.)

          2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
        3. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 Jun 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness @NeuroStats @vgr

          If outsiders took the field as reliable when the leaders are loudly saying “no, not yet” that would be pathological (although not the field’s fault). Do you have examples in mind?

          0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. End of conversation
        1. New conversation
        2. Manjari Narayan‏ @NeuroStats 19 Jun 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @Meaningness @vgr

          Definitely. I work at the intersection of something like 4-5 and the differences are mindboggling.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        3. David Chapman‏ @Meaningness 19 Jun 2019
          • Report Tweet
          • Report NetzDG Violation
          Replying to @NeuroStats @vgr

          Wonderful, would love to hear more! I’ve often/usually worked at the intersection of multiple fields, and that does seem to give one meta-scientific insight that straight-ahead normal scientists can’t have.

          0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        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