Philosophy

I summarised the main pts of January's discussion about a toolkit for not-knowing here: https://vaughntan.org/NK13summary

My key takeaway is that building capacity for seeing and relating to diff. kinds of not-knowing is the big and important gap ... and that learning to question is crucial for this.

not-knowing ✹ 🍕-fan ✹ productive discomfort + idk ✹ Marseille / Singapore / Auvergne ✹ The Uncertainty Mindset (2020) ✹ now: vaughntan.org/now-ish

Just stumbled upon this. What do you think drives the aversion to traditional philosophy or other established frames of thought when it comes to these discussions?

Not-knowing has been covered in depth by many thinkers.

another thought: exploration of uncertainty is established in theory but
1) formal + informal imprecise usage continues
2) this imprecision impedes development of contingent responses

i wrote about this: 
1) https://vaughntan.org/overloading-and-appropriation   
2)

My apologies Vaughn I realise I came across as quite judgemental in my earlier post (cast).

This is fascinating. I am going to take a look and get back to you.

another thought: exploration of uncertainty is established in theory but
1) formal + informal imprecise usage continues
2) this imprecision impedes development of contingent responses

i wrote about this: 
1) https://vaughntan.org/overloading-and-appropriation   
2) https://vaughntan.org/false-advertising

idk about aversion! 

my pers view (largely from sociology) is that it's a rare perspective that both a) takes diff. types of not-knowing seriously and b) investigates concrete tools for responding well to them. i'm thinking of ellsberg, knight, stark ...

not as familiar with phil — share a few foundational refs?