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!
-
-
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 -
Replying to @homsiT @Meaningness
Gosh—if one didn't read authors who don't read CR, that would be nearly everyone! This surely can't be the criterion. (Also, people should read what they want! CR doesn't clearly solve problems for everyone.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @reasonisfun @Meaningness
Oh of course! It’s just that so much of his work centers around rationality, and he often critiques LessWrong-style rationality as if it’s the “state of the art”. It’s uninteresting to me to read those critiques when I don’t buy that kind of “rationality” in the first place.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Bayesianism is VeryWrong, but it at least has *an* account of how accumulating evidence can come to support a theory. Afaict, CR doesn’t? And in fact denies that this ever happens? Which … no one else believes.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @reasonisfun
Haha, Bayesianism is a good term. The evidence does support a theory, but not inductively. It is indeed counterintuitive to many people, but that’s one reason CR is so interesting! Surely that can’t be a real argument against it :P
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @homsiT @reasonisfun
“Bayesianism” is the standard term LessWrong routinely uses for its own epistemology. (In recent years, they’ve started to grow out of it, recognizing that it doesn’t work. I probably can’t take much if any credit for that, but I do feel smugly vindicated, because I’m arrogant.)
1 reply 0 retweets 6 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.