Well, does anybody else get the irony here?
After introducing myself I wrote one small but substantial story about the work of science, how the meaning of their own work is poorly understood by scientists who dismiss philosophy, and how it might be important for scientists, engineers, technologists (and perhaps even math geniuses) to consider the principles of coherency and cognitive psychology.
So when I challenged this community with a controversial but meaty tale about the history of epistemology and science, what was the result? Zero replies in two days. Apparently everybody already understood what I said, or they haven’t wanted to discuss it.
Instead I’ve been informed that my experience is irrelevant to the folks who live here. The very clear message (to date) is that I should take myself elsewhere to talk about the stuff that most people (everywhere!) want to avoid discussing. As if people who work on other topics are more open-minded about this stuff!
Interesting? Kinda. This is not much of a surprise to me; it’s the story of my career! Relatively few people are interested in the concept of levels of cognitive sophistication and how they apply to learning and communicating.
I came to the steemstem tag because it was represented to me as a gathering place for people who think about scientific things, and I wondered what people here think about science and critical analysis. I thought that someone might be interested in discussing what educational psychologists and educational philosophers have learned about human understanding.
In my experience science (the method) is supposed to be all about deep thinking and deep learning, and I’ve worked very hard at learning about people and things for two purposes: to generate fulfilment and social flourishing for myself, and to support others in doing that for themselves. That’s my educational commitment, here or wherever I am.
I could opine (with deep justification) about the neuropsychological sources of the motives of the people who dismissed me, but that seems like a bad idea, doesn’t it?
Anyway it’s only been two days, but if nobody here wants to deal with the principles of deep thinking, deep learning, critical thinking and practical wisdom, I can understand that.
I didn’t come here to infringe on people’s sensibilities. It just sorta happens when I express myself authentically.
Oh, well…
P.S. oh, yeah, about facticity. IMO the closest that scientists (or anybody) ever get to facts is data. A measurement is a fact (more or less; no measurement is absolutely true, of course, because every system of measurement is subject to a margin of error). Everything else is interpretation and inference.
I understand that we’d all like to believe that we know the truth about things, but if we don’t distinguish justifiable confidence from certainty about our opinions then we’re stuck with unjustified confidence.
