I definitely don’t think the same thoughts about what it means for science to be self-correcting (or not) as many seem to. Interesting.
-
-
Replying to @zerdeve
It's all a bit bizarre when you have people who think science is a search for truth, who think data is not theory-laden, and/or who think testing hypotheses is the same as testing theories.
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
And also people who don’t seem to think of science as a process. We take a snapshot and fix everything that is wrong with it is not how I conceptualize science at all.
2 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @zerdeve
Ohh! And that reminds me, we have people who think levels of analysis don't exist. Because at some levels of looking at the system science does sometimes self-correct; at others, nope.
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
I had no idea people literally don't get Marr ON THIS SCALE (or any other levels of analysis system, doesn't have to be Marr) until I joined Twitter.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
It's serious because without understanding layers/levels of analysis/abstraction, you can't do this work. Same with computer science: YOU NEED LEVELS, but in that field they don't have this self-destructive denialism/ignorance at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
As I said elsewhere, training for specialised mass production, with a necessarily narrow focus, has robbed the big picture. Without a broader perspective, there are no levels.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes
Hilarious that compscis are more broad!
-
-
Yep!!
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.