A good definition of science is: keeping bureaucratic epistemology in check. We’re an unchecked proceduralist species. Without rules about how to make rules we tend to get on runaway rule-making binges and choking ourselves to death. The opposite of “scientist” is “lawyer”
-
-
“Doing science” is developing and exercising judgment about rules. Do the rules extend beyond the justifiable? Do they not formalize enough of what is justifiable? Does it apply here? Should it be broken there? Corner cases make bad law, but they make for good science.
Show this threadThanks. 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.