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
Better ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—around problems of meaning and meaninglessness; self and society; ethics, purpose, and value.
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more
By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.
| Country | Code | For customers of |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 40404 | (any) |
| Canada | 21212 | (any) |
| United Kingdom | 86444 | Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2 |
| Brazil | 40404 | Nextel, TIM |
| Haiti | 40404 | Digicel, Voila |
| Ireland | 51210 | Vodafone, O2 |
| India | 53000 | Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance |
| Indonesia | 89887 | AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata |
| Italy | 4880804 | Wind |
| 3424486444 | Vodafone | |
| » See SMS short codes for other countries | ||
This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.
Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
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
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.
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.
As just one example, this point is covered thoroughly by Deutsch's concept of a Good Explanation.pic.twitter.com/mnEmGZSW89
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,
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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
“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.)
I really got into Bayesianism because of how amazing HPMOR was. I wonder if a postrat/Meaningness version could help put the nail in the coffin 
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.