[turingbike]

I bounced a bunch of times too for similar reasons.

Is it worth checking out? emphatic yes

Summarize? I will try, and probably not do a great job; I'm still digesting it.

The world is both "nebulous" [1] and patterned; observed patterns aren't really out there so much as a combination of "there" and in our mind. Some of these patterns are incredibly useful. One pattern is "the rational / modern world view", which lets science work. It is very good, but not complete.

Post-modernism noticed that no pattern is a perfect fit on the partially-nebulous world, and went nowhere with that, and ended up in a nihilistic, bad place. That isn't good.

The goal is to see patterns as useful, conventional truths, not ultimate truths. Then you can pick the right pattern / conceptual framework with which to approach a given situation.

[1] https://meaningness.com/nebulosity

[andrewflnr]

So, "all models are wrong, some models are useful" spun out into a whole philosophy?

In all seriousness, that is becoming one of my guiding principles (along with "divisions into categories are models"), so maybe I should pay more attention to this dude, except that he really is kind of hard to follow sometimes...

[bluef00t]

I think a better way to put it is that all models are right given a situation / context / set of assumptions. It is important to understand the latter to apply the model.

I would highly recommend reading Chapter 3-5 (Epistemology) of Objectivism by Leonard Piekoff. It's a much more logical and easy to understand take on these same ideas.

[bluef00t]

Thanks for a good summary. If you'd like an alternative take on these same ideas in a bit more systematic framework, consider read Objectivism by Leonard Piekoff.