Part 1: Ontology, indexicality, correspondence, meaning-debt (!). > In one sentence: there are possibilities we can conceive of solely because our ontologies c

Part 1: Ontology, indexicality, correspondence, meaning-debt (!). > In one sentence: there are possibilities we can conceive of solely because our ontologies can include things we can’t directly point to, but this power comes with the debt to make them point to something later. Part 2: Problems representing meaning, comparison, explanation, stories instead of data, some words point to things that are uncertain without a way to resolve them. Part 3: "Representations annihilate detail," "Meaning is a product of interaction," "We intuitively know how to open our eyes in our everyday lives, but how do we open the door between us and the myriad of static representations that modern life puts before us?" Part 4: Historically "data couldn’t help but be interactive and indexical, because it was bound up inextricably with human beings." "Because data collection and analysis work can be made more and more automatic and scalable while the anti-ridiculousness work is much more manual..., the balance is getting ever-more disturbed by modern norms of science." What is often called a failure of replication is often instead a failure of representation. "This is not a manifesto about all scientific findings and modern rationality being wrong. It’s a warning that the right stuff and the wrong stuff are going to look exactly the same to the untrained eye." Whew... That's quite a read, and I was interrupted several times with life, but worth it. Think Godel, Escher, Bach the blog post.