and also the Vajrayana admonition that you just can’t do it without a teacher.
-
-
Replying to @joXn
Yeah. Unfortunately, this points me in the direction of trying to teach this stuff, about which I have quite mixed feelings.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
there’s a service to be done even in providing examples, I think. The Kathy Sierra talk is worthwhile, esp for only 20 minutes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn @Meaningness
problem being that what is “good” and what is “bad” is contentious, at this level.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn @Meaningness
for STEM folks, who you’re trying to reach, what’s needed is examples where “fuzzy” “unscientific” thinking wins really big …
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
I only started thinking about the 4.1…4.9 structure a few days ago, but I was thinking that the final lesson would be called >
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness @joXn
“Conjuration: legendary feats of meta-systematicity”; and I came up with a list of examples, but then realized that none are sciency
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @Meaningness
everyone accepts that group theory and symmetries of groups are integral to physics, but rewind 150 years and nobody did
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @joXn
Yes; hard part is finding examples in which process of discovery is known in enough details to explain its meta-systematic character
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I did that in “How To Think” but cheated by using examples where I was involved, so knew first-hand what the process was
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.