Can describe the steps in doing a standard statistical analysis (hypothesis test on model parameters) of some data in a similar way:
(1) Describe data collection method and problem data is being used to study.
(2) Identify derivable statistics for problem and their distributions.
(3) Aggregate derived statistics into a statistical model appropriate for research question.
(4) Model fitting - instabilities? weirdness? go to (1) .
(5) Model checking - violated assumptions? go to (1)
(6) Fit checking - what purpose is the model to be given?
(7) Impact assessment - what does the model mean for the problem at hand?
(8) Interpretive conclusions? Ambiguities? Quantificational results? Improvements for further study?
(9) Return to (2) until all avoidable violations and weirdness have been removed or accounted for and fit is adequate. — fdrake
(1) Describe data collection method and problem data is being used to study.
(2) Identify derivable statistics for problem and their distributions.
(3) Aggregate derived statistics into a statistical model appropriate for research question.
(4) Model fitting - instabilities? weirdness? go to (1) .
(5) Model checking - violated assumptions? go to (1)
(6) Fit checking - what purpose is the model to be given?
(7) Impact assessment - what does the model mean for the problem at hand?
(8) Interpretive conclusions? Ambiguities? Quantificational results? Improvements for further study?
(9) Return to (2) until all avoidable violations and weirdness have been removed or accounted for and fit is adequate. — fdrake
As a pragmatist, I assert that no philosophical position is meaningful unless it has concrete implications for phenomena present in the everyday world, life, and experience of normal human beings. As a pragmatic epistemologist I assert that the primary value of truth and knowledge is for use in decision making to help identify, plan, and implement needed human action. Philosophy that does not meet this standard is not useful. — T Clark
One cannot justify the usefulness of a model of data without first making ontological commitments. The concept of usefulness only comes after committing to some notion of truth, that cannot be pragmatically determined on pain of circularity. — sime
And there seem lots of ways that philosophy is not transcribable as any kind of engineering. But that imo in no way disqualifies an engineering approach to philosophic matters. Expectations of utility have to be modified, to be sure. But salient is the command to think, think through, test and analyze, evaluate (& etc.), rinse and repeat until done. — tim wood
What this needs, imo, is the addition of the word "possible." Possible implications, world, experiences, people. Nor even impossible ruled out, but perhaps qualified in some way. And primary value but not exclusive value. And thus such philosophy instead of being not useful - which of course in a sense it isn't - is instead denominated not especially useful at this time. — tim wood
I don't think my list starts far back enough to be a general guideline. Most questions aren't even precise enough to get numbers associated with them! — fdrake
I think it's clear from what I've written that I don't agree. — T Clark
Ah I see. Sorry. Do you have a reference for a Site Conceptual Model? — fdrake
I'm not sure that we do disagree. You presumably agree that modelling assumptions , which are ultimately causal or logical, aren't empirically verifiable, and that on the other hand, unless modelling assumptions are made, to speak of learning from data is meaningless. — sime
I am under the impression that epistemological pragmatism is being defined here in terms of the practicality of the problem pursued, rather than in terms of the method of inquiry — sime
which at every step hangs upon intuition regarding non-verifiable assumptions of causality. — sime
So what you are describing in the method you set out presupposes that we already know stuff.
I assume the process is iterative? — Banno
Strikes me as simply good method. What is it that makes it specifically pragmatic? — Banno
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that considers words and thought as tools and instruments for prediction, problem solving, and action, and rejects the idea that the function of thought is to describe, represent, or mirror reality. — T Clark
It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white so long as it catches mice. — Deng
It appears like you're describing knowledge in the context of a single individual. I would add that when it comes to collective problem solving, it's important to articulate thoughts promptly and succinctly. Knowing something well means being able to effectively explain it to others. It's also important to challenge others to help them solidify their own knowledge. — pfirefry
"Pragmatic Excellence" is one of the engineering values at the company where I work as a software engineer. I endorse pragmatism a lot. To me, being pragmatic means making decisions despite the lack of knowledge or sometimes even against what I know. Knowledge and pragmatism can conflict. This makes me wonder if it's safe to combine the terms "pragmatic" and "epistemology" together. — pfirefry
It's easy to arrive at a contradiction with "pragmatic epistemology". If we all adopt a pragmatic attitude towards knowledge, then we will stop pursuing the knowledge that is far removed from our everyday lives. However, if we look back at the past, we will see that our modern everyday world is grounded in the scientific projects that didn't offer any practical value at the time they were carried out. — pfirefry
Sure, pragmatism pretends to drop the notion of truth in the hope of working instead only with belief. — Banno
But one does not have to drop the notion of truth in order to act in accord with your six methodological points. Indeed, it is clear from the first point that some things are to be taken as true in order to get the process started.
It would not do in your example to doubt the existence of groundwater and soil. These are presumed as constitutive of the activity in which you are engaged.
But further, it would not do to doubt that one can keep accurate records, that one can make measurements, that one can communicate these with others, that one's actions can make a difference to the environment. — Banno
Philosophers mostly talk about knowledge as a proposition that can be true or false. In a pragmatic view, knowledge is a conceptual model that can be accurate or less accurate. — T Clark
As a pragmatist, I assert that no philosophical position is meaningful unless it has concrete implications for phenomena present in the everyday world, life, and experience of normal human beings. — T Clark
In software engineering, we have a practice of consolidating knowledge in Design Docs, also called RFCs (Requests For Comments). E.g. Google, Uber. Overall, it is similar to SCM. When someone needs to build a new feature or change an existing system, they will write the proposal in a design doc and assign relevant stakeholders for a review. — pfirefry
Overall, my stance is that knowledge exists in our heads. We use processes such as SCM and design docs to solidify our own knowledge and to align our knowledge with the knowledge of others. The artefacts of the process, such as SCM and design docs, don't fully capture the knowledge that we have, but they help their readers to form their own knowledge. Obtaining knowledge and sharing it with others requires investing time and effort. A pragmatic person knows how to balance the time spent researching and the time spent doing. — pfirefry
Intuitively, we think that sharing knowledge is an altruistic act, because it takes away someone's time for the benefit of others. But I think oftentimes it is not the case. For example, this comment is an artefact of knowledge sharing. I expect that 90% of the value generated from this comment is for my personal gain, from organising my thoughts on this topic, and I can only hope that it will generate at least some value for others. — pfirefry
What goes on here is really different from what goes on in the design process. During design, sharing knowledge, or at least documenting it, is a fundamental requirement. It's not altruistic at all. — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.