I noticed I'd stopped reading nonfiction recently and realised this was because I didn't actually want to read either of the books I had on the go. It's surprisingly hard to notice the difference between not being in the mood for something and finding specific instances aversive.
I gather it’s a rallying cry for progress based on scientific understanding, and that’s what’s attractive about it, and I’m super happy there’s an inspiring text around which people can rally, because “yay progress!” is vital and in danger of extinction. But
-
-
based on summaries in reviews and the like, the account of how science and progress work (and fail to work) is highly inaccurate. Do I have a responsibility to understand the account and contest it if I think it’s mistaken? Probably not
-
Yeah the book is very philosophy-done-by-a-physicist. e.g. his philosophy of science is very Popper based and he rubbishes most philosophy of science done by people who aren't Popper.
- 12 more replies
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.