Question: why don't the ontological implications of our method of analysis constrain us to observing explanations with similar ontological implications?

Maybe they can[*], but it is not exactly a good thing...if you stick to one method of analysis, you will be in an echo chamber.

[*}An example might be the way reality looks mathematical to physics, which some people are willing to take fairly literally.

Echo chamber implies getting the same information back.

It would be more accurate to say we will inevitably reach a local maxima. Awareness of the ontological implications should be a useful tool in helping us recognize when we are there and which way to go next.

Without pursuing the analysis to its maximal conclusions, how can we distinguish the merits of different ontologies?

Open thread, Jul. 25 - Jul. 31, 2016

by MrMind 1 min read25th Jul 2016133 comments

3


If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, then it goes here.


Notes for future OT posters:

1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.

2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)

3. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.

4. Unflag the two options "Notify me of new top level comments on this article" and "