a belief is true if it has utility within some bounded context; the tricky parts are in
1. where to draw the contextual bounds
2. how to produce an absolute truth value
the problem is that reality can be gerrymandered to make any belief useful, & its unclear how to rank contexts
---
RT @Aella_Girl
just cause something is an ancient tradition practiced over hundreds of years by smart people does *not* mean it's right
it's not very hard …
https://twitter.com/Aella_Girl/status/1475203921392152582
a context can be:
0. an ephemeral self-concept
1. your time-coherent higher self
2. the social reality of some group
3. some slice of physical reality
4. the entirety of the universe (?)
the appropriate level of epistemic rigor varies greatly across these contextual tiers
the difference in requisite approach per context is the root of this conflict; unless one is explicit about which context they're making truth claims within, everyone hears something different
epistemic consensus is necessary for productive collaboration; science gets this right
the way people form themselves into alliances historically shifts from physical proximity, to memetic proximity, to epistemic proximity; each reorganizes people along different lines & enables new coordinative affordances
how you know things matters
---
RT @pee_zombie
epistemic alignment, not object-level belief or even axiomatic or values alignment, is the strongest indicator of long-term interpersonal compatibility
"how you go abou…
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1474502427776888838
this conflict is the core problem driving the historical dialectic of epistemic architecture;
the centralization into modernism, the intensification of high modernism, the subsequent collapse into post-modernism, & the various currently competing heirs
---
RT @pee_zombie
cynicism aside, the collapse of high modernism into PM has many parallels, such as the negation of the "end of science" by blackbody radiation & relativity
the spli…
https://twitter.com/pee_zombie/status/1389730165861793792