My first question would be “How do you go about trying to fulfill the community’s metagoal?” which is very nearly the same question as “What does it mean to be a member of this community?”
But my question for you is, why do you already know what you’re eventually trying to prove when you haven’t even settled on which questions to ask yet? Data (even hypothetical data) first, conclusions after.
Your “first question” is excellent. Your question for me is even better.
What I’m trying to eventually prove is called a hypothesis. If I can disprove it, that is equally valuable to me.
Hypothesis first. Experimental design second. Then data and conclusions.
BTW, I regard “How do you go about trying to fulfill the community’s metagoal?” and “What does it mean to be a member of this community?” most simply as better phrasings of what I meant by question 5 (though the answers would probably answer 4).
I would also give 1, 2, and 3 higher priority since they are likely to be shorter answers and the answers may well permit me to join while I perform further investigation. Your questions can take a lifetime to answer and are probably answered differently by each member of the community.
Hypothesis first. Experimental design second. Then data and conclusions.
This is the simplification taught in science class, that perhaps scientists even tell themselves. Really though, most of the work is forming the hypothesis, and the social process of science only manages to protect itself from the dangers of forming hypotheses without that work by having norms of collecting lots of redundant data.
The original statement said nothing about how much work each step was. In fact, the original statement was refuting a statement that was even more simplistic and strongly implied the process was limited to just data and conclusions.
and strongly implied the process was limited to just data and conclusions.
Strictly speaking, if the data clearly supports a conclusion, why does it matter whether you predicted the conclusion or not? Assuming your goal was to learn about the data/conclusion, not to assess your own predictive power.
Post hoc analysis is subject to all sorts of fallacies.
Huh. I just realized that there is nothing that I recognize as a clear Science/Scientific Method sequence (though there is a ton either assumed or sprinkled throughout the sequences) for me to reference.
Reread Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.
Here’s an even clearer phrasing that refutes that. “What is day-to-day life like for a member of this community? How does it differ from what I’m accustomed to?” Really, I’m just trying to resolve the ambiguity that Vladimir_Nesov observed. Merely knowing that a group is rational and utilitarian (or at least, that it claims to be) doesn’t narrow down what it is very much.
Also, I would find the statement of hypothesis in the original post much clearer if you said “my hypothesis is that …” What you’ve stated instead is that you’re trying to prove your hypothesis, which is, I hope, wrong—rather, you’re investigating whether your hypothesis is true, without the specific goal of proving or disproving it.
Merely knowing that a group is rational and utilitarian (or at least, that it claims to be) doesn’t narrow down what it is very much.
Interesting. Those were sidelights for me as well. What was definitive for me was the statement of the community’s top-most goal.
What you’ve stated instead is that you’re trying to prove your hypothesis, which is, I hope, wrong—rather, you’re investigating whether your hypothesis is true, without the specific goal of proving or disproving it.
My first question would be “How do you go about trying to fulfill the community’s metagoal?” which is very nearly the same question as “What does it mean to be a member of this community?”
But my question for you is, why do you already know what you’re eventually trying to prove when you haven’t even settled on which questions to ask yet? Data (even hypothetical data) first, conclusions after.
Your “first question” is excellent. Your question for me is even better.
What I’m trying to eventually prove is called a hypothesis. If I can disprove it, that is equally valuable to me.
Hypothesis first. Experimental design second. Then data and conclusions.
BTW, I regard “How do you go about trying to fulfill the community’s metagoal?” and “What does it mean to be a member of this community?” most simply as better phrasings of what I meant by question 5 (though the answers would probably answer 4).
I would also give 1, 2, and 3 higher priority since they are likely to be shorter answers and the answers may well permit me to join while I perform further investigation. Your questions can take a lifetime to answer and are probably answered differently by each member of the community.
This is the simplification taught in science class, that perhaps scientists even tell themselves. Really though, most of the work is forming the hypothesis, and the social process of science only manages to protect itself from the dangers of forming hypotheses without that work by having norms of collecting lots of redundant data.
The original statement said nothing about how much work each step was. In fact, the original statement was refuting a statement that was even more simplistic and strongly implied the process was limited to just data and conclusions.
I agree with your second sentence.
Strictly speaking, if the data clearly supports a conclusion, why does it matter whether you predicted the conclusion or not? Assuming your goal was to learn about the data/conclusion, not to assess your own predictive power.
Post hoc analysis is subject to all sorts of fallacies.
Huh. I just realized that there is nothing that I recognize as a clear Science/Scientific Method sequence (though there is a ton either assumed or sprinkled throughout the sequences) for me to reference.
Reread Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.
The piece of the sequences relevant here is probably Science as Attire.
You are not in a position to tell other people to go read the Sequences.
Here’s an even clearer phrasing that refutes that. “What is day-to-day life like for a member of this community? How does it differ from what I’m accustomed to?” Really, I’m just trying to resolve the ambiguity that Vladimir_Nesov observed. Merely knowing that a group is rational and utilitarian (or at least, that it claims to be) doesn’t narrow down what it is very much.
Also, I would find the statement of hypothesis in the original post much clearer if you said “my hypothesis is that …” What you’ve stated instead is that you’re trying to prove your hypothesis, which is, I hope, wrong—rather, you’re investigating whether your hypothesis is true, without the specific goal of proving or disproving it.
Interesting. Those were sidelights for me as well. What was definitive for me was the statement of the community’s top-most goal.
Agreed.
It’s definitive, in that it’s a definition, but it’s not very descriptive.