Philosopher and Social Psychologist. Assistant professor at Nantes University. Studying justice, morality, replicability and open science. Personal website: https://aurelienallard.netlify.app/
Exactly. And it’s this very norm that we’re against. Complexity for complexities sake. The “nuance is always good”. No it’s not. The incremental insights need to outweigh the added complexity. And often the reported complexity is just empirical noise.
November 21, 2025 at 12:33 PM
Exactly. And it’s this very norm that we’re against. Complexity for complexities sake. The “nuance is always good”. No it’s not. The incremental insights need to outweigh the added complexity. And often the reported complexity is just empirical noise.
I think likening that to a superposition of quantum states doesn't work. In the quantum case, make a measurement and you will end up either with one or the other. What you are describing is worse: it starts out and will remain inconsistent. Let's call it the Whitman approach to causal inference!
November 11, 2025 at 11:52 AM
I think likening that to a superposition of quantum states doesn't work. In the quantum case, make a measurement and you will end up either with one or the other. What you are describing is worse: it starts out and will remain inconsistent. Let's call it the Whitman approach to causal inference!