I am utterly unpersuaded that there is any sense in which a “turpentine effect,” if it even exists, is a bad thing in regard to any scientific field. eg, building LIGO is as much a scientific achievement as any analysis of its results
-
-
-
Building a bureaucracy otoh is very much *not* doing science. it may or may not be valuable, but it’s nothing to do with turpentine
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
A great philosophy professor I had framed Feyerabend as the most scientific realist philosopher of the century bc he had confidence that reality would reveal itself when human methods were cleared away. Interesting counter to people who see Feyerabend as a nihilist.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Feyerabend: the Tom Bombadil of phil-sci.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The scientific method is over prescribed as a method of discovery when it is really a gut check.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“The only chemistry painters need is fat over lean and don’t ash your joint in the turpentine.” — Maceij Ceglowoski, responding to pg’s Hackers & Painters
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That turpentine article is brilliant. I see the dance in my own work, between getting sucked into making elegant tools to actually producing amazing product. Thanks for that. I missed it the first time around.
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.