Philosophy is bunk. Pretty much. https://meaningness.com/eggplant/rationalism#philosophy …pic.twitter.com/KVv66XBtOb
U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više
Right those “problems” are like the “problem” of how much steel such and such a bridge needs. It assumes we already have the relevant knowledge. You can just apply it mechanically.
OK, let’s say I am a biologist who is working on the tau protein in Alzheimer’s. Concretely, how does CR help me do my job? What do I do differently if I accept CR vs if I don’t?
The analogy to Kegan I was driving at is that there are "problems" that seem to point more directly to the need for ontological restructuring. Unless an alternative is available, we tend to hold on to the prior paradigm -- and should, provided we don't deny there's a problem.
That makes sense… how does it relate to CR?
May be helpful to disambiguate the Deutschian CR terms: Problem: Conflict between "theories" (including things like emotions, perceptions, and procedural knowledge). CR: Evolutionary process by which we solve problems. Variation (conjecture) and selection (criticism/refutation).
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.