Conversation

There is no “correct” statistical method. You have to *actually do science* if you want to figure stuff out. Science can't be reduced to any fixed method, nor evaluated by any fixed criterion. It *uses* methods and criteria; it is not defined or limited by them.

143

330

Replying to

What parts are left out then if you reduce science to the scientific method? The culture around it? Or is there no scientific method as such?

Replying to

Right: there is no scientific method

Replying to

As in "there are many methods and there is no coherence to them", "no single method could hope to capture all empirically accessible knowledge", and/or in another way? (Is there a longform piece about it? Especially the latter version feels technical to show)

Replying to

Pretty much about that:

metarationality.com

Upgrade your cargo cult for the win | Meta-rationality

Richard Feynman derided “cargo cult science” that sticks to fixed systems. Innovation requires an upgrade to fluid, meta-systematic inquiry.

Replying to

these days "tacit knowledge" maps onto "metis" in my mind, I think

@conflatedauto

's conflatedautomatons.wordpress.com/2017/09/27/met introduced me to that

conflatedautomatons.org

Metis and General Intellect

“The general intellect” can be interpreted as tacit craft knowledge embedded in individual cunning and social relations. This definition sets general intellect in contrast and oppositio…

Replying to

and

also re campbell's law, going metarational/multimethodical could be viewed as obfuscation against would-be system gamers (once in another capacity, I used obfuscated (tacit) law to frustrate ruleslawyers, but that's another story)

2:54 AM · Dec 18, 2017Twitter Web Client