A good label for something is a first step, but only the first step. You must then go on to address causality.
Causality in complex evolving systems can be very difficult to untangle. It becomes even more complicated for entire human societies.
This is how I think about the issue:
When viewed from a very high level, evolutionary processes require two things:
1) Necessary pre-conditions that enable lower-level factors to come into existence and survive and change over time. There are often many different pre-conditions that must come together to create the “Goldilocks conditions.” At any time, the pre-conditions can disappear and the entire evolutionary process collapses.
2) Specific mechanics that explain how that evolution takes place. This usually consists of multiple mechanics that interact with each other in complex ways.
Thanks for the kind words. My view (RK) is that labeling is useful, but mostly so one can point at the phenomenon one wants to explain. I agree that it's an important step, but my concern is when people mistake the label for the explanation. But, yes, I agree. I sort of tried to talk about that a bit in the material in the Boneyard getting at an issue in the literature on morality, which has the problem that the word has multiple meanings, making even the label step potentially difficult.
Nothing against falsification, it has been widely used in recent years, however worth reading about how it became famous and does it really help distinguish from science & non-science?
I tried to signal in the piece that falsification was one of a number of criteria that one might use, so fair enough. There was a time when most people were pure Popperians, more or less, but philosophy advances as well. I don't think we have epistemics right now either, but it's a process.
Agreed. On a side note, your writings are super interesting, and informative. Thing I like is the simplicity, and content seems genuine. Wish you keep sharing more.
Great article.
A good label for something is a first step, but only the first step. You must then go on to address causality.
Causality in complex evolving systems can be very difficult to untangle. It becomes even more complicated for entire human societies.
This is how I think about the issue:
When viewed from a very high level, evolutionary processes require two things:
1) Necessary pre-conditions that enable lower-level factors to come into existence and survive and change over time. There are often many different pre-conditions that must come together to create the “Goldilocks conditions.” At any time, the pre-conditions can disappear and the entire evolutionary process collapses.
2) Specific mechanics that explain how that evolution takes place. This usually consists of multiple mechanics that interact with each other in complex ways.
Thanks for the kind words. My view (RK) is that labeling is useful, but mostly so one can point at the phenomenon one wants to explain. I agree that it's an important step, but my concern is when people mistake the label for the explanation. But, yes, I agree. I sort of tried to talk about that a bit in the material in the Boneyard getting at an issue in the literature on morality, which has the problem that the word has multiple meanings, making even the label step potentially difficult.
Nothing against falsification, it has been widely used in recent years, however worth reading about how it became famous and does it really help distinguish from science & non-science?
Short answer, NO.
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/michael-d-gordin-fate-falsification/
I tried to signal in the piece that falsification was one of a number of criteria that one might use, so fair enough. There was a time when most people were pure Popperians, more or less, but philosophy advances as well. I don't think we have epistemics right now either, but it's a process.
Agreed. On a side note, your writings are super interesting, and informative. Thing I like is the simplicity, and content seems genuine. Wish you keep sharing more.
I was going to write a comment, but then I wrote a post, so this comment is now a linkback. https://whyweshould.substack.com/p/only-just-so