tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post2678374688283151968..comments2024-03-23T04:01:39.348-04:00Comments on Understanding Society: A fresh approach to life plansDan Littlehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15953897221283103880noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4058766287077382431.post-16921910462397823152016-01-07T18:10:03.865-05:002016-01-07T18:10:03.865-05:00I like this view an awful lot.
I read your earlie...I like this view an awful lot.<br /><br />I read your earlier post linked from Chris Dillow (stumbling and mumbling blog) and only got round to reading this now.<br /><br />I love seeing a realistic and coherent 'life plan' as actually somewhat ad hoc decisions made as and when - but threaded around a solid set of principles. This actually allows for mistakes as a valid part of experience. Not only for the long term utility (lessons learned etc), but in a totally non-teleological form: as the best decision that was consistent with your principles at a particular time, which then may serve to inform future choices. Or at least develop a sense of humour.<br /><br />I can't help commenting on your bio as well - I'm a first time commenter here so I guess this is part of my introduction: As a physical scientist I can tell you that you are absolutely correct that social science is a much harder environment for analysis, inductive and deductive reasoning and constructing theory. I used to explain to friends in the social sciences (who were occasionally relatively self deprecating about their field) that reading e.g. post-modern social psychology was substantially harder and had far more nuance than reading quantum mechanics. Honestly, the hard philosophical concepts in physics work like this: accept it - understand the experiment - can you think of a better explanation - no? then just accept it! In social science, it's like this: Here are the flaws of human beings - accept this - these are no all your flaws, and accepting and recognising this immediately sets you on edge and against yourself. Any assumption you make is then coloured by the fact that it is you are making said assumption. You are then challenged by people who have counter assumptions - often predicated on the basis that *they* have no flaws - and your admission of the fallibility of humanity disqualifies any theory which you might put forward.<br /><br />And that's just the start.<br /><br />Quantum particles are indistinguishable. No matter how counter-intuitively they behave, it is absolutely predictable. Humans are anything but.<br /><br />Thanks for the post,<br /><br />MikeMJ McNallyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00666377752772479499noreply@blogger.com