And also *ought* to be done according to Important Theory right?
-
-
Well, according to ME, anyway!
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @vgr and
Oh i think I misunderstood you here—you meant “ought to be done according to official scientistic ideology.” Yes
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @vgr and
The problem is we don’t have accurate normative stories about how to do science well because we don’t have accurate descriptive stories about how it’s done at all
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @vgr and
I'm really curious about what's wrong about the Popperian Problems => Conjectures => Criticism by Experiment scheme? Noting that problems aren't only conflicts/paradoxes in an explanation, but basically anything that makes one dissatisfied about it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @11kilobytes @vgr and
It’s not specific enough to be useful.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @vgr and
To be a bit more specific (:p), can one argue that there better and worse, though not systematic criteria for choosing between problems and interpretations of thoughts that inspire problems, and these cannot be accounted for in a crit-rat account of science?
@reasonisfun1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @11kilobytes @vgr and
Clearly it’s partly true that science proceeds by replacing old theories with better ones. But this is obvious and unhelpful.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @11kilobytes and
Unless there’s specific investigation of what “better” means in different cases, how to choose a criterion of betterness from among the many available, how to come up with better theories, how to design an experiment that will test a theory, >
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @11kilobytes and
and all the other practicalities of actually doing science, I don’t see that critical rationalism has anything to offer. There appears to be no there, there. I would love to be proven wrong!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Here’s a more detailed version of that critique of critical rationalism, suggesting we need a better theory :)pic.twitter.com/HCChsmUOqS
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @11kilobytes and
Mark ( 🧘 🧪 🧙♂️ 💩 ❤️) Retweeted David Chapman
"Better" is itself subject to critique. You get truth-seeking and goodness-seeking in the same system. It's very elegant.https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1222610007650230272 …
Mark ( 🧘 🧪 🧙♂️ 💩 ❤️) added,
David Chapman @MeaningnessReplying to @Meaningness @11kilobytes and 4 othersUnless there’s specific investigation of what “better” means in different cases, how to choose a criterion of betterness from among the many available, how to come up with better theories, how to design an experiment that will test a theory, >1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @meditationstuff @Meaningness and
Er, maybe a bit more clearly, criteria of betterness, their selection, experimental design, everything, is subject to critique, including the theories themselves. It is meta-rational no-view.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 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.