I hope that when you read it, you will agree that it’s not philosophical!
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness
I have read much and already found much that I consider philosophy. Maybe we just use that word differently. But I don’t know what else you could call a (rational / reasoned / argument-based / logical ?) discussion about different ways of approaching thinking itself.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RealtimeAI @Meaningness
I do find you mostly to be attacking straw men. But, Deutsch helped me jettison a lot of this semantics stuff. We’re trying to make sense with each other. If someone calling themselves a “rationalist” wants to defend a logical contradiction, they’re just being *irrational*.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RealtimeAI @Meaningness
In Deutschian terms, Chapman is largely criticizing foundationalist/justificationist accounts of rationality. Doesn't generally help to read him as a critique of CR. I think if there's a critique of CR there, it's that it doesn't attend to how people actually reason in practice
2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @RealtimeAI
David Chapman Retweeted David Chapman
Oh, that’s a nice way of explaining it, which clarifies the matter for me! However, see this thread where I complain that CR isn’t specific enough to be helpful:https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1222610654139256832 …
David Chapman added,
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @RealtimeAI
This is very helpful! Is it from a forthcoming Eggplant chapter? This bit from Kegan does seem very Popperian, but I guess CR would have to explain how the conjecture and criticism processes are getting micro-implemented in everyday practical action.pic.twitter.com/v4Xvu8NqoY
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @RealtimeAI
Not sure I understand? I take CR as boiling down to “the important thing is solving problems, which you do by finding a better way of dealing with them”; but that’s not really very helpful. And also, it isn’t even true:pic.twitter.com/rCdKvOMfgP
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @RealtimeAI @JakeOrthwein
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @JakeOrthwein
One thing you might be more inclined to do as a CR is to wonder whether the tau protein is even the right avenue. You might be less inclined to do a test you don’t find compelling *just because* it’s a standard test. You might be more likely to explore seemingly unrelated ideas.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
All those things sound good!
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.