4 ms·

There are times, when a complete rewrite is warranted; prose, code or otherwise. Yet explicitly putting a due date on knowledge and its pursuits ignores the fac

There are times, when a complete rewrite is warranted; prose, code or otherwise. Yet explicitly putting a due date on knowledge and its pursuits ignores the fact that novel insights may arive- and last well beyond the 'end date' we put on such endeavours. Firth's, "you shall know a word by the company it keeps" from 1957 and whether meaning resides 'in the text' or in the minds of the reader, prevailed academia at the time, and seemed fairly settled (halfway in between, contextually entangled)[0]. Yet this very premise became the basis of modern NLP half a century later, where yes, a semblance of meaning could be found in just the text itself; you just needed a lot of it to be able to make out the interrelations. That is to say: 'settled knowledge' today [ed. if there is such a thing] can have a renewed impact tomorrow, and it seems odd to self impose an expiry date on its pursuit because at this moment in time, there seems nothing left to uncover. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Différance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Différance

dotsam 3y ago
> settled knowledge today can have a renewed impact tomorrow We need to move away from the idea that there is such a thing as 'settled knowledge', because as you suggest there is always something else to uncover. Our knowledge is fallible, never settled, there is always the possibility to find and correct errors.
- dleeftink 3y ago
  Thanks for reminding, I was about to edit: "settled knowledge (if there is such a thing [...] )"
- andrewgleave 3y ago
  Perversely, this "settled knowledge" nonsense actively inhibits the growth of knowledge and just leads to the "justified true belief" swamp... All we have is our current best explanations/understanding. We use them to make progress until we find a problem with it – something it fails to account for, something it makes an incorrect prediction for etc. Then, we attempt to conjecture new explanations which solves the new problem while still accounting for all the useful aspects of the old theory. That is knowledge creation, and also progress. [Edit]
  - mistermann 3y ago
    > All we have is our current best explanations/understanding. And if our forefather/mothers ran away every time they encountered a "swamp", we wouldn't have that. If you ask me the philosophical accomplishments of this era are minimal, if not negative...let's hope there's no penalty for that, for us or our children (say, the effects of climate change on a species who is unable to act).

dotsam 3y ago

> settled knowledge today can have a renewed impact tomorrow We need to move away from the idea that there is such a thing as 'settled knowledge', because as you suggest there is always something else to uncover. Our knowledge is fallible, never settled, there is always the possibility to find and correct errors.

dleeftink 3y ago
Thanks for reminding, I was about to edit: "settled knowledge (if there is such a thing [...] )"
andrewgleave 3y ago
Perversely, this "settled knowledge" nonsense actively inhibits the growth of knowledge and just leads to the "justified true belief" swamp... All we have is our current best explanations/understanding. We use them to make progress until we find a problem with it – something it fails to account for, something it makes an incorrect prediction for etc. Then, we attempt to conjecture new explanations which solves the new problem while still accounting for all the useful aspects of the old theory. That is knowledge creation, and also progress. [Edit]
- mistermann 3y ago
  > All we have is our current best explanations/understanding. And if our forefather/mothers ran away every time they encountered a "swamp", we wouldn't have that. If you ask me the philosophical accomplishments of this era are minimal, if not negative...let's hope there's no penalty for that, for us or our children (say, the effects of climate change on a species who is unable to act).