E. Glen Weyl, February 10, 2022 Why I Am a Pluralist - RadicalxChange Mandarin version 為何我是多元宇宙人
(DeepL)(excerpt)
- I see two aspects to pluralism, institutional and epistemological.
- Institutional Pluralism
- Epistemological Pluralism
- … It is important to turn to the other side of pluralism, namely epistemology…
- The reality of plural thinking is perhaps even more obvious than that of plural institutions. Again, let us consider some examples
- Languages The 91 languages, classified into more than 10 language families, are spoken by more than 10 million people, with many more languages spoken by a smaller number of people each. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, some thoughts are impossible in some languages and, even by softer theories, clearly some languages are better suited than others to express certain thoughts, so these language differences are in a sense important and reflect the conditions of the society that accepts them …
- I think this is a very important point. Since “epistemological pluralism” doesn’t quite get the message across.言語的Pluralityと呼ぼう
- Maybe “Plurality of words” would be better.
- I think this is a very important point. Since “epistemological pluralism” doesn’t quite get the message across.言語的Pluralityと呼ぼう
- Languages The 91 languages, classified into more than 10 language families, are spoken by more than 10 million people, with many more languages spoken by a smaller number of people each. According to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, some thoughts are impossible in some languages and, even by softer theories, clearly some languages are better suited than others to express certain thoughts, so these language differences are in a sense important and reflect the conditions of the society that accepts them …
- Thus, in parallel with institutional pluralism, a natural epistemological project is presented. Instead of aiming to integrate all disciplines into a single theory, or at least to move toward such a universal truth, what about speciation and differentiation of knowledge and active investment in bridging between disciplines in order to develop specific applications and technologies? In other words, rather than seeing knowledge as a search for a single, ultimate, universal truth, why not, in the spirit of ecology, see it as the gradual evolution of a stable coexisting diversity that specifies and becomes more complex as it develops?