I enjoyed reading your thoughts. I'm curious what aspects of the dialogue particularly provoked this response for you? No need to be polite! ;)
-
-
Replying to @SpeakingSubject
Well, I think
@non_buddhism nailed it here: > Concepts like “model” and “self-model,” and theories of “representation” are, to my non-expert ears, possibly just as ideologically overdetermining as “emptiness” and whatever other Abhidharma concepts you might want to invoke.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @non_buddhism
So how would you reply to @Failed_Buddhist (wtpepper) response on that thread, in particular: “No theory, if it is a theory, is ever an “interpretation.” It is an explanation. And it can be correct.”
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SpeakingSubject @non_buddhism
David Chapman Retweeted David Chapman
Yes, this is the case for “theories” in the strong, scientific sense. My judgement is we currently have no theories about minds in that sense, much less about meditation. Their ontologies are wrong, so they aren’t even false.https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1136115951068372992 …
David Chapman added,
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @non_buddhism
To clarify your position, with respect to mind there are only ideologically infused interpretations, not explanatory theories? What is your position on this
@evantthompson ?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
We have theories and partial models built out of elements from multiple sources--cogsci, cross-cultural philo of mind (including Buddhist theories), phenomenology. They're tentative works in progress in evolving creole languages
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This is what I called “a meta-systematic approach, of deploying multiple interpretive frameworks while recognizing that they *are* just interpretive frameworks, and frequently asking “does this work here? what are the consequences? what are the alternatives?”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
So what are your criteria for truth? pragmatic?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
That is complicated. I am writing a book about it, supposedly! One must inquire into what “truth” means in particular sorts of situations, and then what ways may be appropriate for investigating it.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @SpeakingSubject and
Of standard philosophical theories, this is closest to the Stanford School of the philosophy of science, such as Peter Galison. Peter Godfrey-Smith’s _Theory and Reality_ is good at the introductory level.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Elijah Milgram’s _Hard Truths_ has a lot that’s good in his positive program, although he bogs down a bit in his discussion of rejected technical alternatives like supervaluationism (which, tbf, is too stupid to do a good job on).
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.