Tentative +9, I aim to read/re-read the whole sequence before the final vote and write a more thorough review.
My current quickly written sense of the sequence is that it is a high-effort, thoughtfully written attempt to help people with something like ‘generating the true hypotheses’ rather than ‘evaluating the hypotheses that I already have’. Or ‘how to do ontological updates well and on-purpose’.
Skimming the first few posts, there’s an art here that I don’t see other people talking about unprompted very much (as a general thing one can do well, of course sometimes people talk about having ontological updates) and have not seen written down in detail before and it’s so awesome that someone has made a serious attempt.
I haven’t read it all but I have seen bits and pieces of the thinking and explanations (and been to a short workshop by Logan), and I think this should definitely go through to the review phase and probably some of the essays (or the sequence as-a-whole) should go into the top of the review.
Tentative +9, I aim to read/re-read the whole sequence before the final vote and write a more thorough review.
My current quickly written sense of the sequence is that it is a high-effort, thoughtfully written attempt to help people with something like ‘generating the true hypotheses’ rather than ‘evaluating the hypotheses that I already have’. Or ‘how to do ontological updates well and on-purpose’.
Skimming the first few posts, there’s an art here that I don’t see other people talking about unprompted very much (as a general thing one can do well, of course sometimes people talk about having ontological updates) and have not seen written down in detail before and it’s so awesome that someone has made a serious attempt.
I haven’t read it all but I have seen bits and pieces of the thinking and explanations (and been to a short workshop by Logan), and I think this should definitely go through to the review phase and probably some of the essays (or the sequence as-a-whole) should go into the top of the review.