In time for the holidays, I've added some books I've been excited by recently to my recommended reading list:https://meaningness.com/further-reading
-
-
“Sorting Things Out: Classification and Its Consequences” explores the ways classification systems are constructed and used in practice. It explains the non-rational “infrastructure” a rational system relies on to function where it meets nebulosity.
https://meaningness.com/further-reading#Bowker …pic.twitter.com/YDkwsWuyp5
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's a very Hilbertian take too
-
Well... this is about the practicalities of how we do formal rationality, not about the foundational questions of what math is. I think a practical account should be compatible with any philosophical position, although yes this is more obviously similar to the formalist theory.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
This suggests to me that your blog may be driving a significant proportion of sales for this book.pic.twitter.com/GCor4r3JRO
-
That’s funny! Not surprising on reflection I guess. Academic monographs typically sell only a few hundred copies, and mostly only to universities, and universities don’t buy from Amazon.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's the abstraction module that saves the species.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Also, "putting cognitive biases aside" actually entails indulging strong cognitive biases for honesty, humility, rigor, etc. "Being objective" means "being subjective in the ways I approve of."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There are some other ways besides those two tools but it's definitely more indirect and less personal. One of my favorite writings on that question is "Regimes, Pathways, Subjects" by Guattari, who talks about monastic orders as proto-computers.
-
Later on saw the same logic in Nietzsche's genealogy of morals, which seemed to be about fetishized rationality as a perversion of ethics
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Interesting distinction. I don’t think it’s possible for human beings to “think logically”. Cortical thought is an elaboration of brainstem affective “feelings”, meaning all thought is composed of positive/negative valences (pleasure/unpleasure dynamic).
-
We “like” this thought, we “dislike” that thought. And all “logical” cognition is infected with this binary hedonic dynamic. But thankfully, we can mitigate this native deficit by applying logic TO our thoughts. This method is also hit and miss, in my experience.
- 1 more reply
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.