1/ *cracks knuckles* So... Once you know one field well, you get comfortable with (or at least aware of) how many people are very good at presenting smart-sounding and compelling evidence in favor of [anything].https://twitter.com/eigenrobot/status/1170476053002776576 …
-
Show this thread
-
2/ I don't mean that in a nefarious way. Complex systems are complex and often complicated, and well-trained people will present coherent and smart-sounding simplifications as arguments.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
3/ For this reason, history intimidates me. A LOT. And, it's why I hate historical claims as attacks of particular positions. I don't have enough historical knowledge to evaluate my own claims critically, let alone someone else's.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
4/ I mean, history is *really* BIG. But it's also lost by, like, thermodynamics. So you better know a lot of the pieces and how they fit together if you want to be robust against bullshit. And even then, I bet scholarship drifts for lack of information.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
5/ So most of the time now, when I hear historical arguments, I just assume people are generating projections backwards onto the past to suit what they want to "prove" in the present to select the future they want. Which...isn't terribly useful, except rhetorically.
2 replies 1 retweet 9 likesShow this thread -
6/ I don't really have a point to this. It's just something I've been thinking about lately. If those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, what about those who hallucinate it?
5 replies 1 retweet 7 likesShow this thread -
(Ps
@eigenrobot: this is my way of saying I suspect I would enjoy doing hallucinogens with you, you wonderful robot.)2 replies 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread
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.