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 @RealtimeAI
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @JakeOrthwein @RealtimeAI
That makes sense… how does it relate to CR?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @RealtimeAI
I'm thinking of it in relation to paragraphs like these, both from Deutsch. (But he may be misreading Kuhn here, and I may be overdrawing the analogy.) I have to get back to work, but will think harder about this before my next
@LetterWiki reply! Thanks for engaging.pic.twitter.com/KxVRmLJwSq
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
I like the first paragraph, and I think that he’s right that Kuhn treated paradigms as more rigid than they actually are.
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.