Ir para o conteúdo

@robertmorphis.bsky.social did:plc:35rtye5dkqea6taizeubqboy

No Bluesky desde

Seguidores
2
Seguindo
2
Posts
7
Dias nos rankings
0

Resumo

(@robertmorphis.bsky.social) é um usuário do Bluesky desde 3 fevereiro 2026. Tem 2 seguidores, segue 2 contas e publicou 7 posts.

Aparições nos rankings

Os melhores dias em que posts desta conta entraram na lista diária do Debya.

Esta conta ainda não apareceu em um ranking diário.

Posts curtidos recentemente

Curtidas públicas da rede Bluesky.

  • Michael Hendricks 🇨🇦@michaelhendricks.bsky.social

    I guess what I'm getting at is that if we don't make a distinction between "wrong" and "error" then we are mixing things that are essential and serious problems in one category.

    Ver post
  • Michael Hendricks 🇨🇦@michaelhendricks.bsky.social

    Particularly galling for things the theorizer could not possibly know. Should we just say nothing until all possible evidence is known, presumably some time near the heat death of the universe, to avoid error?

    Ver post
  • Michael Hendricks 🇨🇦@michaelhendricks.bsky.social

    Yeah I think many of the examples in the table are extraordinarliy bad, the definition is a little better. But a good wrong theory for available evidence cannot be considered an error, it's probably the most productive tool science has. Otherwise we conflate "progress" with "self-correcting."

    Ver post
  • Mark Rubin@markrubin.bsky.social

    It's tricky to define. The author has a go here...

    Ver post
  • Michael Hendricks 🇨🇦@michaelhendricks.bsky.social

    I think I might not understand what an "error" is? Pluto = planet is just a semantic distinction based on a 2006 definition some people made up? Likewise are incomplete theories that fit all available evidence errors when new evidence is found that requires new theorizing?

    Ver post

Entre para ver mais

Contas que bloqueia

No Bluesky, bloqueios são registros públicos.

Esta conta não bloqueia ninguém.