Thread by @ironick

@clarkjosephf @QuillRKukla @carl_b_sachs First, Thank you for sharing your "opinionated introduction"/reading list. I love it!
Second, Thank you for highlighting the @QuillRKukla essay on stances. It's amazing! It brings together several threads I was in the middle of working on: the interpretive stance, coping,

@clarkjosephf @QuillRKukla @carl_b_sachs Davidsonian triangulation, and of course pragmatism. Their generalization of the stance concept to economic stance and interpretive stance was EXACTLY what I was getting at in my tweet.

My favorite line: "There is no neutral stance." In other words, there is no

@clarkjosephf @QuillRKukla @carl_b_sachs neutral/universal way of interpreting patterns. Interestingly, Rorty made a very similar claim regarding his panrelationalism: "Naturalism as the claim that (a) there is no occupant of space-time that is not linked in a single web of causal relations to all other occupants and

@clarkjosephf @QuillRKukla @carl_b_sachs (b) that any explanation of the behavior of any such spatiotemporal object must consist in placing that object within that single web. I define reductionism as the insistence that there is not only a single web but a single privileged description of all entities caught in

@clarkjosephf @QuillRKukla @carl_b_sachs that web.’ 'Truth & Progress' No privileged stance means no privileged description.

I'm currently reading a wonderful (if a bit confusing) book, "From Darwin to Derrida" that delves deep into the transition from the physical stance to the design and interpretive

@clarkjosephf @QuillRKukla @carl_b_sachs Kukla's concept of myriad stances has helped me clarify how all these stances can be true at the same time.

Now the challenge is to further clarify/justify when to switch stances. Of course my answer be based on my unifying concept of fruitfulness!

@clarkjosephf @QuillRKukla @carl_b_sachs I just skimmed the second paper you recommended (by @carl_b_sachs) and it's starting to feel uncanny! I was going to allude to Ladyman's OSR in my above thread, but thought it was a bit off topic wrt @QuillRKukla paper. And then, bam!, the second paper was about relating

@clarkjosephf @QuillRKukla @carl_b_sachs the two!?! And Carl's paper also links to the idea of a 'mathematical stance' (MS), of which pace Carl I claim there are a plurality (ie every axiomatic framework is a different mathematical stance). Furthermore, the objects of are as arguably real as any other real

@clarkjosephf @QuillRKukla @carl_b_sachs patterns. The basis of these claims is the wonderful book, "Defending the Axioms", by Penelope Maddy. It it, she defends the concept of 'Thin Realism' wrt the objects of what I would call mathematical stances.

And the ultimate ground for such objects and such stances?

@clarkjosephf @QuillRKukla @carl_b_sachs Surprise! It's fruitfulness.