There's a lot more than that. Rationalists don't do their due diligence when criticising other philosophy (see eg this: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qmqLxvtsPzZ2s6mpY/a-priori …) or otherwise understanding the literature, they are very unrigorous and handwavy (see the same post)
-
-
Replying to @aphercotropist @sonyasupposedly and
On top of that, there are a lot of philosophers that deal with really detailed real-world case studies. Many philosophers of science for example get very in depth into the history and methodology of the specific sciences they're investigating. Something LW really fails at.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @aphercotropist @sonyasupposedly and
Yes; but they were 22 and so they hadn’t had time to learn anything besides undergrad physics yet
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @aphercotropist and
So they thought everything worked like undergrad physics. Kinda dumb but we were all young once
2 replies 1 retweet 15 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @aphercotropist and
I still have concerns about gatekeeping, unevenly applies standards, or dismissal based in part on some non-standard usage of terms. The project might not have been an ivory-tower project, if that makes sense. But possibly used as straw target for academic in-group signaling.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @meditationstuff @Meaningness and
I for one could not give less of a shit about rats reinventing old philosophy without sufficient genuflection to the ancestors or whatever. I'm just frustrated that all most rats want to do is sit around and talk about stuff at great length (which, in retrospect, duh)
4 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @sonyasupposedly @meditationstuff and
Philosophy is comprehensively bunk. The value in studying it is that if you don’t, and if you think about abstract stuff, you inevitably reinvent it. Fortunately, for every attractive philosophical idea, someone has already done the work of figuring out why it’s wrong
6 replies 3 retweets 53 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @sonyasupposedly and
How would you classify your project(s)? Historical scholarship? Popular critique? Philosophy(???)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @meditationstuff @sonyasupposedly and
Self-help for nerds mostly. Some amateur social critique.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @meditationstuff and
Explicitly not philosophy: https://meaningness.com/eggplant/rationalism …pic.twitter.com/z7i9mVfsp1
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Explicitly not cogsci: https://meaningness.com/eggplant/cognitive-science …pic.twitter.com/Z3Il0rv0gt
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @meditationstuff and
I wonder if you may overgeneralize "cognitive science", giving it bad rep it doesn't deserve. Cognitivism is kinda dead, at least at my school (UCSD). Interactionist approach is default & strongly emphasized See Hutchins 2010—"Cognitive Ecology"
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mlegls @meditationstuff and
Yes, I’ve always admired Hutchins’ work, and I’m aware that parts of the field have recently looped back around to embodied/embedded/etc approaches, and am supportive of that:https://meaningness.com/metablog/abstract-emergent …
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes - 4 more replies
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.