Yes, agreed, > On Jun 26, 2021, at 12:41 AM, glen ep ropella <[email protected]> wrote: > > So, my sense is not that there's a categorical leap brought on by *scale* so > much as a categorical leap caused by some sort of inter-disciplinary > facility. It's similar to the idea that robust reasoning is an interwoven > combination of in-, ab-, and de-duction. What I find disheartening is a kind > of "moralism", for lack of a better term. People tend to invest too much > faith in what they know, what's succeeded in the past, whatever the cool kids > are doing these days, etc. And what I think Bloom shows nicely is the > required kind of *agnosticism*, especially to where clues may lie, what > methods may lead to good product, etc. > > It's the ability to commit to surveillance logging (e.g. sequencing every > strand that comes down the pipe, every modification to some R script, every > detail of every machine, etc.), ubiquitous induction and semi-automated > selection of induced artifacts, and a willingness to dive into that chaotic > ocean "on a mission". *That* ability/willingness is the categorical > disjunction.
The above is a good description of what I think I believe also. Eric - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
