Beginning of Infinity cont: I'd describe myself as... about 70% in agreement with the book, but there's a bunch of crucial details in the 30% that I feel like he glossed over, and his characterisations of other people's work is often based on fairly shallow misreadings of it.
-
-
Replying to @DRMacIver
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @DRMacIver
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DRMacIver @Meaningness
It's also... yes the book is very "Yay progress!" but the book is very "Yay this very specific notion of progress and all of those people who I disagree with are enemies of progress". I think on balance it's more good than bad if you're not familiar with this stuff, but still.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DRMacIver @Meaningness
FWIW I endorse your impression that you would not find reading it a positive experience and I would recommend against it for you even if I wouldn't in general.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DRMacIver
Thank you! Popper was a great guy and I’d love to discover I’m somehow missing something valuable in his seemingly content-free philosophy of science, but [puts on Bayesian hat] that seems highly improbable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
I think what you're missing is a desire for simple solutions that allow you to stop thinking about the problem further.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
-
Replying to @Meaningness
That being said, I don't think I find Popper entirely content-free. I think falsification describes a useful toy model of how a specific aspect of theory development works, helpful for reasoning about part of the process, it's just not a fully accurate or general description.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
tbf, part of the problem is that no one has articulated a more accurate account of science *in terms that scientists would listen to*. So the toy model persists for lack of an easily available alternative. (obvs, my intention is to fix this, if I can get time for the project)
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
Susan Haack's crossword puzzle analogy is pretty good, but for various reasons I don't think has really been picked up by scientists and is mostly aimed at philosophers of science. http://sci-hub.tw/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02683186 …
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DRMacIver
Thanks, will read! I believe all the necessary pieces of an accurate account are available, but scattered across a dozen academic fields, and academics don’t feel responsible for assembling them into a coherent, accessible form. As an internet eccentric, I can do that.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 3 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.