Skip to content
By using Twitter’s services you agree to our Cookies Use. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, and ads.
  • Home Home Home, current page.
  • About

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Language: English
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Hrvatski
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Ελληνικά
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Have an account? Log in
    Have an account?
    · Forgot password?

    New to Twitter?
    Sign up
o_guest's profile
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
@o_guest

Tweets

Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ

@o_guest

• goth gremlin • computational cognitive/neuroscience modeling • geek & techish Cypriot • plant aficionada • came up with #bropenscience • http://neuroplausible.com  •

Τότεναμ, Λονδίνο & Cyprus
olivia.science
Joined October 2015

Tweets

  • © 2019 Twitter
  • About
  • Help Center
  • Terms
  • Privacy policy
  • Imprint
  • Cookies
  • Ads info
Dismiss
Previous
Next

Go to a person's profile

Saved searches

  • Remove
  • In this conversation
    Verified accountProtected Tweets @
Suggested users
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @
  • Verified accountProtected Tweets @

Promote this Tweet

Block

  • Tweet with a location

    You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more

    Your lists

    Create a new list


    Under 100 characters, optional

    Privacy

    Copy link to Tweet

    Embed this Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Add this Tweet to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Add this video to your website by copying the code below. Learn more

    Hmm, there was a problem reaching the server.

    By embedding Twitter content in your website or app, you are agreeing to the Twitter Developer Agreement and Developer Policy.

    Preview

    Why you're seeing this ad

    Log in to Twitter

    · Forgot password?
    Don't have an account? Sign up »

    Sign up for Twitter

    Not on Twitter? Sign up, tune into the things you care about, and get updates as they happen.

    Sign up
    Have an account? Log in »

    Two-way (sending and receiving) short codes:

    Country Code For customers of
    United States 40404 (any)
    Canada 21212 (any)
    United Kingdom 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Ireland 51210 Vodafone, O2
    India 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonesia 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italy 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » See SMS short codes for other countries

    Confirmation

     

    Welcome home!

    This timeline is where you’ll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.

    Tweets not working for you?

    Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.

    Say a lot with a little

    When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart — it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.

    Spread the word

    The fastest way to share someone else’s Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.

    Join the conversation

    Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you’re passionate about, and jump right in.

    Learn the latest

    Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.

    Get more of what you love

    Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.

    Find what's happening

    See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.

    Never miss a Moment

    Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.

    1. Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest 8 May 2018
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @onnlucky @zerdeve

      I've a feeling we don't agree on the definition of scientism.

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
    2. onnlucky 🍀‏ @onnlucky 8 May 2018
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @o_guest @zerdeve

      It can mean a few things, I am using it more like this: "An example of this second usage is to label as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values or as the source of meaning and purpose" – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism 

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    3. onnlucky 🍀‏ @onnlucky 8 May 2018
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @onnlucky @o_guest @zerdeve

      But regardless, the moment science and it's results are not viewed objectively, it becomes a political or philosophical expression. And can, and should, be critically interpreted there. But science can only be criticized when it failed to stay objective or when shown incorrect.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    4. Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest 8 May 2018
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @onnlucky @zerdeve

      I've actually written this on Scientism http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Scientism 

      3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
    5. onnlucky 🍀‏ @onnlucky 8 May 2018
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @o_guest @zerdeve

      Would you agree that we can and should use science to keep our beliefs, our stories, our examples, our morality realistic? (The stories and examples insofar they claim to be portraying reality, fiction/fantasy is fine, of course.)

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    6. Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest 9 May 2018
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @onnlucky @zerdeve

      Highly loaded question which itself is philosophical position.

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    7. onnlucky 🍀‏ @onnlucky 9 May 2018
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @o_guest @zerdeve

      It's not a science question indeed. 1. But can we? Eg. say something about homeopath? Say something about Gilgamesh and if it is fantasy or history? 2. If a person applies science that way (for themselves and whoever is interested), is that scientism?

      1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
    8. Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest 9 May 2018
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @onnlucky @zerdeve

      I'm not sure I understand your two questions. Yes, you may apply any of the scientific methods to homeopathy. Feyerandian scientific method probably would surprise you here. This is a good overview of the philosophical skeptics/philosophers of science: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-philosopher-paul-feyerabend-really-science-s-worst-enemy/ …

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
    9. Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest 9 May 2018
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @o_guest @onnlucky @zerdeve

      As in: even those who spend their whole life studying and proposing a scientific method often come to realise it's more chaotic in practice. I don't really agree with Feyerabend on his version of the scientific method though, but I don't think that matters.

      1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
    10. Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest 9 May 2018
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @o_guest @onnlucky @zerdeve

      Almost every field, if not even subfield uses different scientific method and it can change dramatically through time. One thing even a lot of scientists don't realise is that there's no one true way to do science.

      1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
      Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest 9 May 2018
      • Report Tweet
      Replying to @o_guest @onnlucky @zerdeve

      Proponents of using science to answer moral questions often fall into the trap of thinking that there's a true single method all scientists agree to follow. They also pretend theory isn't an integral part of the process.

      1:38 AM - 9 May 2018
      • 3 Likes
      • Manjari Narayan Eric Lawton eigenvalue
      1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
        1. New conversation
        2. Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest 9 May 2018
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @o_guest @onnlucky @zerdeve

          Theory is actually really important but many scientists sadly neglect it. There are whole field that collect data but don't really test theories. It's not as simple a picture from the outside, and from the inside often you can't see the wood for the trees.

          2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
        3. onnlucky 🍀‏ @onnlucky 9 May 2018
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @o_guest @zerdeve

          As humans, we look for explanations that helps us recognize what is going on and help us predict what might be next. Science is the continuous quest for good models and the benchmark is the accuracy of the predictions, secondary, how well it fits with other models. 1/2

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        4. onnlucky 🍀‏ @onnlucky 9 May 2018
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @onnlucky @o_guest @zerdeve

          And roughly there are two kinds of models: 1. external behavioral/statistical models; 2. internal causal models (with perhaps statistical submodels). Science (and people) really prefer 2, but they are the hardest to obtain. Crossing that "why-line" too soon is dangerous. 2/2

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        5. Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest 9 May 2018
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @onnlucky @zerdeve

          I'm glad you think models are really important. Many in science sadly overlook them. In fact I often worry I'm not scientific enough because I'm a comp modeller. However, I'm a little surprised you feel the need to explain this to me.

          2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
        6. onnlucky 🍀‏ @onnlucky 9 May 2018
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @o_guest @zerdeve

          haha, sorry, that was not my intention, I am merely establishing our common ground, see where our thinking diverges. Since you were just explaining to me your views on science …

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        7. onnlucky 🍀‏ @onnlucky 9 May 2018
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @onnlucky @o_guest @zerdeve

          But then it does go back to my question, when is something scientism, what are the criteria? Because using science to make sure other fields (philosophy/politics/morality) are realistic is not scientism, imho. But using science to prescribe things for those fields is.

          1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
        8. Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ‏ @o_guest 9 May 2018
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @onnlucky @zerdeve

          I think we agree on the things you are saying in your last two sentences.

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        9. onnlucky 🍀‏ @onnlucky 9 May 2018
          • Report Tweet
          Replying to @o_guest @zerdeve

          So not everybody using science to say something about these other fields is necessary committing scientism. And I assume a subjective criteria, basically “I disagree, therefor scientism”, is not how we want to identify scientism either. So what objective criteria to use?

          1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
        10. 7 more replies

      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.

        Promoted Tweet

        false

        • © 2019 Twitter
        • About
        • Help Center
        • Terms
        • Privacy policy
        • Imprint
        • Cookies
        • Ads info