The quote imagines the ironic and philosophical attitude wrapped up in one person, which made me think. Per Godfrey-Smith (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003URRG0W/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title …) a problem with Popper is that he imagines the scientist as being both skeptic and true believer. 1/3
-
-
Replying to @marick @Meaningness
Godfrey-Smith argues that doesn't work and posits that science-as-it's-practiced works as a system that uses individuals in different roles (in different times and about different topics). 2/3
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marick @Meaningness
(It's too hard to be motivated to do tons of work if the best you hope for is to not be proven wrong yet, if you have a cool skepticism about your topic.) So, thought: what if metarationality isn't properly or effectively inherent in individuals, but rather in groups/systems?3/3
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marick
Yes, that’s a good point. I’d say that rationality is also not inherent in individuals; it’s a collection of cultural practices, which mostly function only in collaboration. OTOH, to the extent individuals can exercise rationality, we can also exercise meta-rationality.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @marick
Popper’s model seems, if I understand it correctly, entirely inadequate both descriptively and prescriptively. Observing how science actually works (e.g. ethnomethodologically) is the way forward.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @marick
That does reveal diversity of functional roles in the process, which only loosely correlate with formal roles (grad student/journal editor). It’s good to have some people trying to prove something, and others trying to disprove it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @marick
Afaict, the Popperian idea that you can only disprove things has nothing to do with reality. Evidence for and against are symmetric. Induction and confirmation are routine features of scientific work. They just aren’t ever absolute.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @marick
I feel like I may be missing something here because there are some smart Popperians I respect, but the things they say don’t make any sense to me.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @marick
That's a shame. As Brian is aware, no other school of thinkers has made nearly such good sense to me, but plainly I can't pour my understanding from my mind into yours.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Popper may have overestimated the degree to which his epistemic claims could be prominent in scientific endeavors, but my sense is that people miss the structural simplicity of his core idea. Science is big, messy, and human. The *advantage* of science is none of these.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The advantage is…?
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.