Being a pluralist in stats/ml/epi fields makes sense just because no single method is good at everything. There is a some history of influential stats/epi folks influenced by Feyerabend. E.g.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-017-0230-6 …
-
-
-
1/2 "Every methodology has its limits, so do not fall into the trap of believing that a given methodology will be necessary or appropriate for every application;"
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Eg when it is sexy
End of conversation
-
-
-
Seems a bit esoteric to be zeitgeisty, but Feyerabend is often read as anti-science & relativist, a creature of post-modernism. That reading could provide ammo for the “tear it down” mentality of our political poles. But perhaps it would do so all of the time, not only today?
-
He is read as that but is he actually that? My experience of hearing people talk about Kuhn and actually reading Kuhn was that there 2 Kuhns.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It seems to be related to post-rationality (or whatever the term is now) I saw a recommendation for a Feyerabend book (Against Method) just a few days ago, among the ribbonfarm crowd
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Honestly, he’s always had currency among a certain class of empiricists that are hesitant to impose a sort of theory-laden bias to their data collection. As data science has exploded, those attracted to those concerns have too. But Feyerabend was required reading even back in 93.
Thanks. 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.