Perhaps I don't understand Kegan correctly, but imho stage 4 marks the departure from externally assimilated beliefs to internally constructed ones, and that necessary involves the exploration of the criteria for valid beliefs? (Not that I want to discuss Kegan exegetics here.)
-
-
Replying to @Plinz
Oh, I see, interesting! Yes, I can see how you could interpret it that way. But my understanding is that generally the system you adopt at stage 4 is one that is publicly available.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz
Stage 4 does give you more control, because you do take beliefs and emotions as object, rather than subject. However, your self (subject) is structured by principles you take over from your culture; you can’t construct those from scratch.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz
Rationalism/empiricism is one possible stage 4 structure.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
Could you somehow prove that there is no optimal learning theory, or do you derive your rejection of rationalism just from your difficulty to find it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
There can be no absolute proofs about anything in the macroscopic world. However, there are stronger and weaker arguments. And there are strong reasons to think there can be no optimal learning theory…
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz
Philosophers of science spent decades trying to find a provably correct theory of induction. Instead, they found more and more reasons to think that no such theory is possible.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz
Half a century ago, the field switched to trying to understand more clearly why no such theory is possible, and (more importantly) why science often works anyway.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz
There are many different reasons (which the Eggplant book is supposed to explain). A simple one: there are always unboundedly many things that *might* happen, that you can’t know about.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz
Relatedly: you can never interpret data without making unboundedly many implicit ontological assumptions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
My understanding is that serious statisticians acknowledge this. Any statistical inference on unboundedly many “ceteris paribus” assumptions, most of which cannot be justified by data.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz
Failure to recognize this is one major underlying cause of the present replication crisis.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
I think the opposite it true: the replication crisis is the result of people believing that they can wing it somehow, without understanding the mathematical foundations of their statistical tools.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 3 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.