Blogging for Posterity

Though I’m an avid blogger, for the 5+ years that I’ve been at it I’ve also been content to simply leave my writings at the sites of others in the form of commentary. This shall continue, both because I love it and also because as a working family man I don’t currently have enough time for this as well as to produce and service worthy content at my own site. But lately I’ve been thinking that I should at least document what I do online right here. (There will be no documentation of my email discussions however, since I consider them private.)

One reason for such documentation is so that any interested person could see what I’m up to right now or in the past. You know, for friends and potential friends. Then another is for posterity. If my ideas do turn out to be as good as I think they are, then once this particular paradigm does shift, my own life might become a matter of public interest. Why not help out the historians? 🙂

The kicker for me has been an excellent series of videos produced by the Crash Course people. This one is entitled “The History of Science” and is hosted by Hank Green. (I consider him to be the best of the lot. Nicole Sweeney may be fun, though to me her normative “oughting” presents cases which are sometimes less than scientific.)

The recurrent point that got me thinking this way is that good ideas would commonly surface, and yet be ignored until someone had the resources to muscle them through. This makes perfect sense from my perspective — we’re all self interested products of our circumstances. Politics do matter! Sure the better ideas seem to rise to the top in the end, often leaving original visionaries to die in frustration.

The theme to my own possibly “better ideas”, is that science suffers today given that it does not yet have generally accepted principles of metaphysics, epistemology, and axiology (or “value”), from which to work. Given this void a loose “scientific method” has permitted certain sciences, such as physics, to become “hard”, while other sciences, such as psychology, seem quite unable to develop broad theories from which to explain observations of our nature.

For the past few years I’ve been proposing one principle of metaphysics, two principles of epistemology, and one principle of axiology, from which to potentially found the institution of science better. I believe that they’d help harden up our soft sciences, which is to say permit them to develop broad general theories which are finally effective. Regardless my position is that we’ll some day have a community of professionals with such accepted principles at their disposal, and thus these “philosophers” will become one with the institution of science.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

I’m through 12 of these Crash Course History of Science videos, though apparently there are 46 so they’ll be getting quite modern! Here’s the first one:

2 Comments on “Blogging for Posterity”

  1. Hey Eric,
    Good to see you posting again. One of the nice things about it is that you can set the conversation you want to have, rather than just reacting to everyone else’s thoughts.

    That Crash Course series is pretty good, although I’ve only watched scattered episodes here and there. He seems to be taking a somewhat broader view of science in that series, which is interesting.

    Have you considered doing a post, or series of posts, on your metaphysical and epistemic principles? I realize the descriptions might be somewhere in your archives, but if so they don’t seem named in a manner that makes them easy to find. And bite sized chunks are more easily digestible for most people. Just something to consider.

    • Posting again? Well I suppose that I did have a single post four years ago before this one. As I recall for some reason Massimo had rejected one of my comments. So instead I posted it here and linked to it from his site, which he did let through. Surely almost no one read that one, though this did at least help me feel a bit more empowered.

      You’re right that I should include my four principles of philosophy somewhere on this site. Right now you’ll essentially just find what I brought in from before 2014. Back then I figured that the implicit philosophical rules that I used to help develop my positions must already be accepted in science explicitly. Once I realized how badly such principles were needed I went and developed them as well. My old stuff doesn’t seem to resonate with others, though given what I’ve learned since I do seem better able to express my positions today.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s