Here’s an (ethno)method: Alice and Bob are picking a restaurant. Bob suggests three he wouldn’t mind; Alice then chooses from his list.
Authors make sense if you treat them like they’re explaining something, instead of proving a theorem, 🧵:
Classical science doesn’t look “scientific,” 🧵
Routinization is a way of minimizing uncertainty, of minimizing cognitive load while centralizing decision-making. But how many domains are either too complex to reduce procedurally (see classical science) or are actively anti-inductive (see the stock market)?
And response:
Freedom lives in the gap between feeling and action:
When politicians get praised for cutting expenditures, and “long-term thinking” looks like preparing for your upcoming re-election cycles…
Evolutionary epistemology gets complex when it’s hard to tell what’s working:
Two Americas, likely with different expectations of what social structures are “normal”:
Every ideology over-extends itself and is eventually replaced by an upstart which capitalizes on its opponent’s over-reaching:
cf. Michael Huemer’s “In Praise of Passivity”
In the Eragon children’s book series, one of the key abilities dragon-riders must hone is holding a single image of a brick wall in their minds. I remember trying this as a ten-year-old, remember how hard it was to not watch the wall crumble, or be swiped away by some other vision.
Are social sciences fraught because of the inability to intervene & see what happens, or because…
Surrogation strikes again:
Studying complex objects requires stamp-collecting, end of story.
Disciplines are fake, and too many discourses are cloistered. If they three blind men can’t talk to each other, they’ll never learn they have an elephant on their hands.