The final theory of truth is the one that I think is more relevant: the pragmatic theory of truth. The pragmatic theory states that what is true is what works for you.
This is most useful, because Progressive Summary and Progressive Ideation are *both* actionable methods.
Conversation
This means that we may verify it through actual practice.
But actual application is expensive. It takes time. Are there other ways to apply this theory of truth?
As it turns out, there are.
1
One implication of this theory of truth is that practitioners using it *should* be able to demonstrate results. In other words, it is more likely to be true if it works FOR THEM.
So our next question is: is there proof that these practitioners are able to produce novel thinking?
1
With , the answer (to me) is a clear yes. I believe PS is the best currently-known application of JIT principles to knowledge work. I even went back to the source (Taiichi Ohno's Toyota Production System) to verify for myself.
1
1
I recognise the contribution Forte has made to the current state of knowledge work.
Further proof, his synthesis of Toyota’s methods continue to haunt me:
Quote Tweet
1/ In many ways, we understand less about Toyota's success than ever, despite it being one of the most studied companies in history
1
But what about ? What novel insights has he published? Where is his proof of work? Where are the examples of the 'better thinking' that we are promised?
If progressive ideation is that wonderful, we should see the proof in his body of work.
2
To be fair, perhaps Milo does not have a large enough body of work to evaluate. But this makes me down-weight the usefulness of his technique.
But. There is a negative signal in the piece itself.
Milo cites ‘mirror neurons’, a highly discredited finding in neuroscience.
2
Replying to
My hot take was "yikes embarrassing!" But then I skimmed the link you provided. Here's an actual quote from the last paragraph
"Mirror neurons have begun to assume a humbler identity than was initially theorized, but it is important to remember that despite recent criticism, 1/
1
Replying to
🙃
Have you been following the replication crisis in psychology and medicine?
Scientists write like this because of induction — new evidence may emerge. But if you read enough meta-analyses, you learn to parse the jargon.
This one is saying: REPLICATION RED FLAG. RUN.
1
1
Or more accurately: "new evidence may emerge that prove us wrong, but right now, as the priors stand, our confidence that mirror neurons play an important role is less than 0.5, and funding is probably drying up as we speak."
Replying to
I'll trust your take on this. I haven't stayed up to date on it. It was just an idea that popped into my head as an easy example, but I probably should have made sure it wasn't now know to be foo-foo. Hopefully the example still made a point about connections
1