Peer review lacks transparency. Paths Forward commonly involves rational, critical discussions on publicly-readable internet forums. That enables transparency and some other advantages like wider participation. Article authors could be expected to address criticisms. This is like how people have recommended a norm of sharing raw data along with articles. I
I criticized peer review for lacking transparency. I suggested the process should take place publicly. (I have no objection to anonymizing the discussion until the review process is complete to help reduce bias during the discussion. I’d suggest de-anonymizing it afterwards though.) Do I ever have someone edit one
There are a few standard ways intellectual attention is allocated to ideas. There are social networks. Having allies and fans helps with getting attention. There are gatekeepers and lots of people follow their curated output. There’s popularity or virality. Saying stuff people like and share, or which seems good
This is a brief, question-based outline of some Critical Fallibilist epistemology. What is knowledge? Information that’s effective for (adapted to) a purpose. It has the appearance of design. It’s not arbitrary nor random. How is knowledge created? Evolution (replication with variation and selection). The explanation of why evolution
There are calls to pause or shut down AI development. I want to stay out of the widespread, tribalist, parochial political bickering because I think those activities are unproductive. But I can use these issues for examples to apply Critical Fallibilism (CF) philosophy to. How could people approach the issues
There are different acting methods which relate to different ways of dealing with subconscious automatizations. Some actors try to get into their character’s mindset and immerse themselves in the part. They’re trying to adjust a bunch of automatizations and intuitions so they actually become more like the character.
Let’s look at a grammatically ambiguous sentence fragment by me. This is a simple example of analyzing text, which is common philosophical activity. For context, I wrote CF newsletter titles and descriptions: We’ll analyze this text: Infrequent updates and links to Elliot's work This is a sentence fragment
Sometimes people get stuck overthinking things when writing or making decisions. This can be caused by perfectionism. People may keep trying to make their writing or plan more and more perfect. CF and Theory of Constraints (TOC) ideas about goals, variance, limiting factors and excess capacity can help with perfectionism.