4 ms·
Indeed, and if you think metascience is bad, imagine meta-metascience.
by caenn 5y ago
Indeed, and if you think metascience is bad, imagine meta-metascience.
- analog31 5y agoWhere's tail call optimization when you need it?
- jonsen 5y agoWould be nice if tail call optimization solved the halting problem.
- IIAOPSW 5y agoYou've caught an Orobus by the tail!
- svieira 5y agoMeta-metascience has been studied _extensively_ by previous generations, where what this generation calls "science" was called "natural philosophy" and interesting discourse and study was had on such things as: * The study of knowledge (epistemology): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology * The study of existence and what exists (ontology): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology * The study of the purpose of things (teleology): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology It turns out that these are hard areas of study and it requires a lot of properly focused leisure time to understand properly. Most people don't consider these things, wing it, and wind up working with a half-baked meta-meta science of their own creation ... oh, I see what you mean :-D