No Unwobbling Pivots in Empiricism/Induction Either (loop 1)

Any given understanding is a distinctive material state of the brain States of the brain are influenceable by genes sensory input (including inputs from other people) randomness All understandings are empirically rooted, derive from detecting pattersn in past events (depend on inductive processes)

Strengths and limitations of science (more generally, of empirically/inductively derived understanding)

A traditional perspective	A loopy story telling perspective
Science as body of facts established by specialized fact-generating people and process Science as successive approximations to Truth Science as authority about "natural world"	Science as process of getting it less wrong, potentially usable by and contributed to by everyone Science as ongoing story telling and story revision: repeated making of observations, interpreting and summarizing observations, making new observations, making new summaries ... individually and collectively Science as skepticism, a style of inquiry that can be used for anything, one which everybody is equipped to to/can get better at/be further empowered by, and contribute to - a way of making sense of what is but even more of exploring what might yet be

Review and prospectus Empirical, purely inductive inquiry can get it less wrong, but not "Right" nor even closer to "Right" (except in case where inquiry proves in fact to have an end) inability to prove universals because of irreversibility, possible indeterminacy, observations are not certain guides to underlying "properties and rules" multiple summaries for a given set of observations the hill-climbing problem on complex landscapes observations themselves depend of existing summaries, an irreducible "subjectivity" Empirical, purely inductive inquiry (and aspiring to greater "objectivity") has been, can be productive but ... the "goal" of inquiry as unshakeable collective understanding is not only unachievable but may lead one in less productive directions, get one stuck (to say nothing of producing serious interpersonal, intergroup conflict) One might stay with a particular "goal" even if it is unachievable, and perhaps should in lieu of a replacement. Is there an alternative "goal" for inquiry that might be "less wrong"? generativity Paul, there seems to be no relationship between your two concepts of what makes a theory (or a story, which for me is the exact same thing) good: "It is less wrong" "It is generative" Good theories/stories are BOTH less wrong AND more generative, because inquiry is as much about bringing into existence new things as it is about describing what already exists. The point is particularly important for deciding which of many non-falsified stories to use as a basis for further inquiry (and reminding one that doing so is always a bet). Story (and story sharing/comparing/testing) is as much a part of inquiry as are observations/summaries. This in turn creates a demand for new ways of understanding/conducting/teaching inquiry. Among other things it suggests that one should avoid both premature story telling AND premature story rejection. Generativity of this story? "Loop one is indeed characteristic of all living organisms ... But there is some important difference between trees/bacteria on the one hand and leeches/frogs on the other." "Each of us probably knows ourselves less well than we know the world" "I've always assumed that ToM came from the inside when a young mind was developmentally ready. But, Mary Midgley's assertion that it comes from the outside makes infinitely more sense now that I think about it." "we are actually more different in our unconsciousnesses than we are in our consciousesnesses, that part of the function of the latter is to find and express commonality with other people" "However unwillingly a person who has a strong opinion may admit the possibility that his opinion may be false, he ought to be moved by the consideration that however true it may be, if it is not fully, frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living truth."

On to story (loop 2) and intersubjectivity (loop 3)