Twitter | Search | |
David Chapman
Better ways of thinking, feeling, and acting—around problems of meaning and meaninglessness; self and society; ethics, purpose, and value.
35,072
Tweets
121
Following
12,979
Followers
Tweets
David Chapman 8h
Replying to @context_ing @ri_cook
Thank you!
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman 14h
Unexpected discovery: Keith Stanovich has a chapter on “metarationality” in his 2010 “Decision Making” book. He uses the word to mean evaluating preferences in a formal decision-theoretic framework. Which is important, and consistent with my use, but a much narrower conception.
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman 19h
Replying to @11kilobytes
Thank you!
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman 21h
Replying to @tobybray
Thanks!
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman Feb 1
Replying to @sTeamTraen
It works surprisingly well, but won’t quite get you to orbit:
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman Feb 1
This fascinating misunderstanding was once used to prove that space rockets were impossible. Calculations showed that the most explosive substance then known, TNT, would be insufficient to power one.
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman Feb 1
Replying to @IllegibleLenny
Yes I have come across “the reasonable person standard” in legal stuff
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman Feb 1
Replying to @IllegibleLenny
Yes… in practice, all technical fields have to do this, because nebulosity is unavoidable. It’s probably clearer in law than most others! Unfortunately one I know little about.
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman Feb 1
Replying to @michaelabuckley
Thank, nice metaphor!
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman Feb 1
Replying to @michaelabuckley
Thanks! Google is failing me… monkeys wearing hats?
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman Feb 1
🆕 Much of my explanation of how and why rationality works (the middle part of the book) is a simplified presentation of ethnomethodological concepts and findings in easier language. It’s hip! You need to be able to say “ethnomethodology” confidently
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman retweeted
Adam Strandberg Jan 28
my philosophy is indexical, yours is limited in scope, theirs totally fails to generalize
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman retweeted
Indexical Banana Jan 29
every seemingly innocent fragment of information is secretly plotting how to escape its context and cause trouble
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman retweeted
David R. MacIver Jan 30
I wish people were better at distinguishing "I understand where this person is coming from" from "I think this person is correct". I see way too many "lol can you imagine believing X" posts, and I think if you *can't* imagine it you're probably lacking crucial empathy skills.
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman retweeted
Ben Reinhardt Jan 30
1/ Did you know that Vannevar Bush (you know, the guy who helped enable everything from radar to the manhattan project, the NSF to memexes) wrote an autobiography? Turns out that yes he did, it's been out of print since the 70's, and it's *excellent* BOOK REPORT THREAD
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman retweeted
Chad Orzel Jan 30
In which I object to philosophers looking down at the sort of science done by the vast majority of professional scientists: (lunchtime repost)
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman Jan 30
Ah, yes, the problem word here seems to be “directly”. There are of course several stages through which the causal path travels. It is however local and fast. Otoh a formal model on paper of some astrophysical phenomenon is not.
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman Jan 30
I assume many things are meaningful to dogs, but they aren’t capable of rationality in the relevant sense.
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman Jan 30
Yes… the one I’m suggesting is different, I think? I take it that some non-human animals have subjective awareness, but do not reason formally.
Reply Retweet Like
David Chapman Jan 30
> through a causal chain result in your sticking a fork in it. What role do mathematical abstractions play in that?
Reply Retweet Like