A fun part of learning is when you spend 15 years fiddling with a topic, come up with a conclusion, start arguing it...and discover that folks you've been reading loosely for 10 years already solved the problem...but you didn't understand when you heard them say it.
The most recent version of this in my life:
In the last 2 days, I re-read Sarah Fitz-Claridge's introduction to TCS (warning: if you're not already mostly nuts...this article makes how I think seem positively mainstream, except that I agree at 95% with what she says), and I read the introduction to David Deutch's recent book (not advocating for the book. Not there yet...just friendly with 1/2 the introduction). While I'm not 100% in the exact same place as they are...they're fundamentally folks who have been working on the fallibilist problem for >10 years. I half wish I'd understood it back when I ran into it long long ago. But I'd have missed the learning process, which would have made it not worthwhile. Now I can approach TCS, Deutch, and Popperian Epistemology from the point of view of someone who's made the journey himself, and has something to contribute to the thought-space...not someone who read some words, and agreed.
The virtue of excellence
Monday, October 10, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
..."We should be open to better ideas"? With a rejection of some of one of the more problematic products of Bayesian reasoning (that the source of ideas matters)?
Or am I missing the problem and hence the solution being expressed here?
I suspect the latter.
Orphan,
1. I'm very impressed by your intellectual humility, given your obvious competence.
2. This makes this concept less different from how you do things than it is from other folks.
3. Everyone kinda knows the part you said...the question is: What are the consequences of taking it seriously.
4. TCS is the childrearing consequences of holding 2 general principles:
A) They may be right...and just because I don't think so up front doesn't make me right.
B) Their interests are (roughly) as important as mine.
5. Turns out the political problem looks to me nearly identical to the childrearing problem.
If I qualify as humble the scale is broken; I just don't presume to know things I don't know. (If I think I know it, I'm as arrogant as the next person. Probably more.)
I suspect I was to some extent raised on these principles, though. (At least, I offended more than one teacher when I started attended school by looking up answers I suspected were wrong and calling them on it later. This was highly unappreciated.)
Post a Comment