Any philosophers of science willing to vouch for the accuracy of this chart?
I don't think my view is represented here. Basically, I think scientific models start out lower down and can be moved upwards through different degrees of reality as work on them.
So my perspective is sort of a No-Free-Lunch or Very-Little-Free-Lunch perspective on scientific realism. Before I accept your theory, I want to characterize how much work you did and what kind. I don't want to give you "scientific reality" for free.
This is why I'm kind of a skeptic on "2+2=4" because in almost all cases one has done no real work to verify that a statement like this describes all of physical reality in practice. "All of reality" is very big you see.
I've decided to pull back from talking about race on social media. There are many reasons for this but the most important one for me is it has come to feel like a pointless energy drain that doesn't seem to make a difference.
During the summer, I was inspired to use my "platform" to be a "voice" but I don't think it has been very productive. Although many commenters have accused me of talking about race out of self-interest, I actually see it as a moral duty to help. A duty and often a burden.
I'm sure it has professionally hurt me. For instance, many people have made assumptions about my competence and intellectual background that simply aren't true.
As a non-American living in America, during a pandemic, I'm both awed and horrified by this country's reverence for work.
When most people around the world talk about work-life balance, they mean *quality* of life vs hours of work. Here in America, the trade off seems to be about years off your actual life.
HALF A MILLION Americans are dead because of this pandemic and as far as I can tell a huge number of Americans are OK with this. They would rather talk about the weather.
I've worked in a lot of different sciences and what I've discovered is that each science is its own slightly bizarre alternate reality where the scientific method turned out differently.
People say you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. But I need you to hear this: every science has its own facts. And I don't want to freak you out but they don't even agree on what a "fact" actually is.
The scientific method relies on the answers to questions like 'what is evidence'? Sciences are free to answer these questions in their own way and to define their own scientific method.
You may have heard "IQ is about 50% heritable". What you need to know is that by the same logic, "Experiencing Racism" is also heritable. A dark-skin man is likely to experience racism and his kids are likely to experience similar levels of racism to him.
If that man had children with someone white, their children's tendency to experience racism would be intermediate between both parents. Identical twins raised apart are likely to experience similar levels of racism.
Fraternal twins would be less likely to experience similar levels of racism than identical twins. Every pattern that we would normally look at to figure out if something is genetic would say "experiencing racism" is inherent and genetic.
Some people follow me for my statistics insights. Other people like me for my social commentary. This thread explains how those things are related. 👇
A lot of people don't understand statistics. Statistics is critical thinking with numbers. In statistics, the goal isn't to use numbers for the sake of using numbers. It's to use numbers in service of revealing the truth.
As a statistician, I believe it is my duty to not blindly follow the numbers but it's also my duty to fairly consider what numbers can tell us about the truth of things. It falls on statisticians to sit in this in-between place and hold space.