Almost like you need to take different empirical observations from varied tools and perspectives to get more reliable predictions about the wider body. Enough robustness gives you confident weightings that can be used to grow more empirical evidence to build new cognitive tools. No map is the territory, so robustness and weighting need to be an active process in changing/growing areas of understanding. no new tools are possible without philosophy actively constructing along science using wider Bayesian basins than some single scientific data point. those varied but well-weighted Bayesian networks are not “just philosophy” like joe rogan giving a very shallow, non-robust, greentext level take on something that sounded mildly plausible.
I whole heartedly agree, as a social scientist it’s impossible to deny the continued evolution of ideas is as important as the evolution of methods. Its also why techniques of synthesis such as systematic reviews and meta analysis are crucial for the health of science. It’s also why I am always bothered how we tend to in popular discussions of the social sciences continue to refer back to very old rudimentary musing by founders like Freud or Yung as guides to understand a science that had evolved past time for over 100 years. I respect their work but I feel many people never look past early authors of the 19 and 20th century and try to understand modern theories.
the problem is the population conception of things must be portrayed in a super simplistic narrative. and lay people think that narrative is how things work because they have no experience of the actual processes that go on in highly specialized areas of knowledge and research and such processes are entirely opaque to them.
hence why a lot of people hate science and don’t trust it, because they literally can’t understand it. the science they learn in high school is nothing like the way in which contemporary science is done. and they feel like that is a failure of science itself, that it scientific inquiry can’t be a simple as a high school physics experiment than it’s ‘wrong’.
I used to teach philosophy and about 70% of my students just straight give up on learning it once they realize they won’t get ‘answers’ out of it. their POV is that it’s suppose to give them answers they can use to beat other ‘stupid’ people over the head with… they don’t understand that they are learning a process or a skill. like they come into philosophy 102 thinking they will ‘learn’ the ‘answer’ to the question of ethics of abortion, and get angry/upset that they come away ‘knowing’ less than they did before, and feel ‘cheated’.
average people don’t want to think, or challenge themselves intellectual. this want clear, definite, and simple answers from which to construct a worldview that is consistent and unchanging and therefore ‘correct’. and simplistic pop-psychology gives them that. so does religion. so does high school coursework in science.
Almost like you need to take different empirical observations from varied tools and perspectives to get more reliable predictions about the wider body. Enough robustness gives you confident weightings that can be used to grow more empirical evidence to build new cognitive tools. No map is the territory, so robustness and weighting need to be an active process in changing/growing areas of understanding. no new tools are possible without philosophy actively constructing along science using wider Bayesian basins than some single scientific data point. those varied but well-weighted Bayesian networks are not “just philosophy” like joe rogan giving a very shallow, non-robust, greentext level take on something that sounded mildly plausible.
I whole heartedly agree, as a social scientist it’s impossible to deny the continued evolution of ideas is as important as the evolution of methods. Its also why techniques of synthesis such as systematic reviews and meta analysis are crucial for the health of science. It’s also why I am always bothered how we tend to in popular discussions of the social sciences continue to refer back to very old rudimentary musing by founders like Freud or Yung as guides to understand a science that had evolved past time for over 100 years. I respect their work but I feel many people never look past early authors of the 19 and 20th century and try to understand modern theories.
the problem is the population conception of things must be portrayed in a super simplistic narrative. and lay people think that narrative is how things work because they have no experience of the actual processes that go on in highly specialized areas of knowledge and research and such processes are entirely opaque to them.
hence why a lot of people hate science and don’t trust it, because they literally can’t understand it. the science they learn in high school is nothing like the way in which contemporary science is done. and they feel like that is a failure of science itself, that it scientific inquiry can’t be a simple as a high school physics experiment than it’s ‘wrong’.
I used to teach philosophy and about 70% of my students just straight give up on learning it once they realize they won’t get ‘answers’ out of it. their POV is that it’s suppose to give them answers they can use to beat other ‘stupid’ people over the head with… they don’t understand that they are learning a process or a skill. like they come into philosophy 102 thinking they will ‘learn’ the ‘answer’ to the question of ethics of abortion, and get angry/upset that they come away ‘knowing’ less than they did before, and feel ‘cheated’.
average people don’t want to think, or challenge themselves intellectual. this want clear, definite, and simple answers from which to construct a worldview that is consistent and unchanging and therefore ‘correct’. and simplistic pop-psychology gives them that. so does religion. so does high school coursework in science.