No. About once every three months I re-read the blurb/introduction and re-conclude that I’m not going to get anything out of it. I could be wrong :)
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun
I ask because, in your terms, I definitely made the trip from stage 4 to 5 practically painlessly and BoI was a big part of that. Also I am very confident you are indeed wrong :)
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @homsiT @reasonisfun
What I would like to read is a philosophically sophisticated argument for critical rationalism that takes seriously the standard objections to it. I have not found one, and BoI does not appear to be that. If anyone can recommend one, I would be very grateful!
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun
I think
@reasonisfun might be help help you with that And fair enough, I would like to read the standard objections! Do you have a specific piece you'd reference?1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @homsiT @reasonisfun
Peter Godfrey-Smith’s _Theory and Reality_ has an introductory overview of criticisms from a philosophical perspective. Just at the level of logic, it doesn’t do the work it would need to do.pic.twitter.com/P07TV8QsCs
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
More importantly in my view, it totally fails to explain empirical studies of what successful science does in practice. That empirical work is done in the history and ethnography of science.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun
I think Deutsch's work is the state of the art in CR. Definitely build on Popper. Only skimmed just now, but most of these objections are at least addressed (if not refuted, I leave to you to decide) in the Epistemology chapters of Fabric of Reality or in Beginning of Infinity.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
As just one example, this point is covered thoroughly by Deutsch's concept of a Good Explanation.pic.twitter.com/mnEmGZSW89
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @homsiT @reasonisfun
David Chapman Retweeted David Chapman
Afaict, BoI has no worked-out theory of what makes a better explanation. Here is a relevant discussion:https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1177325438382665728 …
David Chapman added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun
You're basing that conclusion off of a conversation with someone on twitter, rather than the source material which you refuse to read
The one reason I haven't personally taken more than a shallow look at your work is that you haven't taken more than a shallow look at CR.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Well, I *did* just read his "bad philosophy" chapter since you insisted that I do so!
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun
I think we need you two to just have a debate, or a
@LetterWiki or something. Reading your critiques of LessWrong-style rationalism just feels weird to me when it's already been completely (IMO) disproven by CR.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Well, my reading just now of the “bad philosophy” chapter is that his view is that there are only two available theories, which are anti-rational relativism and CR. There are a LOT of others, and unless CR people learn them and seriously address them, discussion is pointless.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes - 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.