2 ms·

Again, I think you're giving the author the benefit of the doubt when it's not warranted. Your paraphrasing "science itself is insufficient to understand the wo

Again, I think you're giving the author the benefit of the doubt when it's not warranted. Your paraphrasing "science itself is insufficient to understand the world" is code for dualism. I forgot to add the reference in the comment above but tacit means what I said it meant. I quoted directly from Wiktionary [1]. I'll do so again here: Adjective tacit (comparative more tacit, superlative most tacit) 1. Expressed in silence; implied, but not made explicit; silent. tacit consent : consent by silence, or by not raising an objection 2. (logic) Not derived from formal principles of reasoning; based on induction rather than deduction. I chose the "logic" interpretation as it seemed the most appropriate given the context. [1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tacit https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tacit

nl 6y ago
I don't have any strong opinion about if the author is a proponent of dualism. I'd note that Quantum Bayesianism[1][2] (discussed the other day on HN) seems much more mystical than this, and yet is usually considered within the realms of science. I build neural networks in my day job. They encode tacit information because they are "based on induction rather than deduction". But that's not anything mystical - it's just learning from data, and it's not a dog whistle towards mysticism either. [1] https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained-by-its-founder-20150604/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/quantum-bayesianism-explained... [2] "For this reason, some philosophers of science have deemed QBism a form of anti-realism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Bayesianism