"The question that Science begins from is 'How do we understand spellsilver refining?', and it is then this understanding that we use to ask 'How do we improve spellsilver refining?'"

"The heartbeat of cognition, as it would be said out of dath ilan, is that sensory information floods into you on the 'diastolic-beat', from this you build a map or model of reality, then you search for strategies that the current model predicts may succeed, then actions surge out of you on the 'systolic-beat', which actions affect the environment and the 'sense-data' you get on the next heartbeat.  Where of course it's not a 'pointwise-perfect' analogy because in your heartbeat the expansion that draws blood in, and the contraction that pushes blood out, are distinct phases.  In cognition, sensory information is always coming in and we're always acting.  But, you get the idea.  Well, hopefully you get the idea.  I'll actually just spell out the idea.  The idea is that we can be overeager about jumping ahead to trying to improve things, not so much before we understand them, but without having properly realized that understanding is a distinct task that we can focus on and solve in its own right."

"Consider again the spellsilver refiners; if they'd been saying to themselves 'How can I figure out exactly what's happening during the spellsilver-refining process?', they might have performed different experiments and taken more precise notes.  Contrasted to asking 'Does this work to improve refining?' and then, when the answer is 'No', they treat that as a failure."

"The same distinction reproduces itself on the meta-level; you should consider yourself as first asking, not 'How can I make Science work better?' but rather 'What are the rules governing which ways of pursuing Science would yield which happenings in the world?'"

"The question that Science begins from is 'How do we understand spellsilver refining?', and it is then this understanding that we use to ask 'How do we improve spellsilver refining?'"

"The heartbeat of cognition, as it would be said out of dath ilan, is that sensory information floods into you on the 'diastolic-beat', from this you build a map or model of reality, then you search for strategies that the current model predicts may succeed, then actions surge out of you on the 'systolic-beat', which actions affect the environment and the 'sense-data' you get on the next heartbeat.  Where of course it's not a 'pointwise-perfect' analogy because in your heartbeat the expansion that draws blood in, and the contraction that pushes blood out, are distinct phases.  In cognition, sensory information is always coming in and we're always acting.  But, you get the idea.  Well, hopefully you get the idea.  I'll actually just spell out the idea.  The idea is that we can be overeager about jumping ahead to trying to improve things, not so much before we understand them, but without having properly realized that understanding is a distinct task that we can focus on and solve in its own right."

"Consider again the spellsilver refiners; if they'd been saying to themselves 'How can I figure out exactly what's happening during the spellsilver-refining process?', they might have performed different experiments and taken more precise notes.  Contrasted to asking 'Does this work to improve refining?' and then, when the answer is 'No', they treat that as a failure."

"The same distinction reproduces itself on the meta-level; you should consider yourself as first asking, not 'How can I make Science work better?' but rather 'What are the rules governing which ways of pursuing Science would yield which sorts of things happening?'"

"The question that Science begins from is 'How do we understand spellsilver refining?', and it is then this understanding that we use to ask 'How do we improve spellsilver refining?'"

"The heartbeat of cognition, as it would be said out of dath ilan, is that sensory information floods into you on the 'diastolic-beat', from this you build a map or model of reality, then you search for strategies that the current model predicts may succeed, then actions surge out of you on the 'systolic-beat', which actions affect the environment and the 'sense-data' you get on the next heartbeat.  Where of course it's not a 'pointwise-perfect' analogy because in your heartbeat the expansion that draws blood in, and the contraction that pushes blood out, are distinct phases.  In cognition, sensory information is always coming in and we're always acting.  But, you get the idea.  Well, hopefully you get the idea.  I'll actually just spell out the idea.  The idea is that we can be overeager about jumping ahead to trying to improve things, not so much before we understand them, but without having properly realized that understanding is a distinct task that we can focus on and solve in its own right."

"Consider again the spellsilver refiners; if they'd been saying to themselves 'How can I figure out exactly what's happening during the spellsilver-refining process?', they might have performed different experiments and taken more precise notes.  Contrasted to asking 'Does this work to improve refining?' and then, when the answer is 'No', they treat that as a failure."

"The same distinction reproduces itself on the meta-level; you should consider yourself as first asking, not 'How can I make Science work better?' but rather 'What are the rules governing which ways of pursuing Science would yield which sorts of things happening?'"

"If you're just running ahead trying to improve things, you might think that 'map first, then improve' sounded like great advice.  Once you enter the mapping mindset, you'll realize that the key claim is more like, 'people who follow "map first, then improve" ultimately invent improvements faster than people who don't follow that advice' and that this itself is something you could poke at and test to improve the process of Science itself."

"The question that Science begins from is 'How do we understand spellsilver refining?', and it is then this understanding that we use to ask 'How do we improve spellsilver refining?'"

"The heartbeat of cognition, as it would be said out of dath ilan, is that sensory information floods into you on the 'diastolic-beat', from this you build a map or model of reality, then you search for strategies that the current model predicts may succeed, then actions surge out of you on the 'systolic-beat', which actions affect the environment and the 'sense-data' you get on the next heartbeat.  Where of course it's not a 'pointwise-perfect' analogy because in your heartbeat the expansion that draws blood in, and the contraction that pushes blood out, are distinct phases.  In cognition, sensory information is always coming in and we're always acting.  But, you get the idea.  Well, hopefully you get the idea.  I'll actually just spell out the idea.  The idea is that we can be overeager about jumping ahead to trying to improve things, not so much before we understand them, but without having properly realized that understanding is a distinct task that we can focus on and solve in its own right."

"Consider again the spellsilver refiners; if they'd been saying to themselves 'How can I figure out exactly what's happening during the spellsilver-refining process?', they might have performed different experiments and taken more precise notes.  Contrasted to asking 'Does this work to improve refining?' and then, when the answer is 'No', they treat that as a failure."

"The same distinction reproduces itself on the meta-level; you should consider yourself as first asking, not 'How can I make Science work better?' but rather 'What are the rules governing which ways of pursuing Science would yield which sorts of things happening?'"

"If you're just running ahead trying to improve things, you might think that 'map first, then improve' sounded like great advice.  Once you enter the mapping mindset, you'll realize that the key claim is more like, 'people who follow "map first, then improve" ultimately invent improvements faster than people who don't follow that advice' and that this itself is something you could poke at and test to understand the laws governing people using Science, and then, with this understanding, try to improve your pursuit of Science."

"The question that Science begins from is 'How do we understand spellsilver refining?', and it is then this understanding that we use to ask 'How do we improve spellsilver refining?'"

"The heartbeat of cognition, as it would be said out of dath ilan, is that sensory information floods into you on the 'diastolic-beat', from this you build a map or model of reality, then you search for strategies that the current model predicts may succeed, then actions surge out of you on the 'systolic-beat', which actions affect the environment and the 'sense-data' you get on the next heartbeat.  Where of course it's not a 'pointwise-perfect' analogy because in your heartbeat the expansion that draws blood in, and the contraction that pushes blood out, are distinct phases.  In cognition, sensory information is always coming in and we're always acting.  But, you get the idea.  Well, hopefully you get the idea.  I'll actually just spell out the idea.  The idea is that we can be overeager about jumping ahead to trying to improve things, not so much before we understand them, but without having properly realized that understanding is a distinct task that we can focus on and solve in its own right."

"Consider again the spellsilver refiners; if they'd been saying to themselves 'How can I figure out exactly what's happening during the spellsilver-refining process?', they might have performed different experiments and taken more precise notes.  Contrasted to asking 'Does this work to improve refining?' and then, when the answer is 'No', they treat that as a failure."

"The same distinction reproduces itself on the meta-level; you should consider yourself as first asking, not 'How can I make Science work better?' but rather 'What are the rules governing which ways of pursuing Science would yield which sorts of things happening?'"

"If you're just running ahead trying to improve things, you might think that 'map first, then improve' sounded like great advice.  Once you enter the mapping mindset, you'll realize that the key claim is more like, 'people who follow "map first, then improve" ultimately invent improvements faster than people who don't follow that advice'.  That makes it plainer that this advice is really a theory, and a theory you could poke at and test to understand the laws governing people using Science; then, with this understanding, try to improve your pursuit of Science."

"The question that Science begins from is 'How do we understand spellsilver refining?', and it is then this understanding that we use to ask 'How do we improve spellsilver refining?'"

"The heartbeat of cognition, as it would be said out of dath ilan, is that sensory information floods into you on the 'diastolic-beat', from this you build a map or model of reality, then you search for strategies that the current model predicts may succeed, then actions surge out of you on the 'systolic-beat', which actions affect the environment and the 'sense-data' you get on the next heartbeat.  Where of course it's not a 'pointwise-perfect' analogy because in your heartbeat the expansion that draws blood in, and the contraction that pushes blood out, are distinct phases.  In cognition, sensory information is always coming in and we're always acting.  But, you get the idea.  Well, hopefully you get the idea.  I'll actually just spell out the idea.  The idea is that we can be overeager about jumping ahead to trying to improve things, not so much before we understand them, but without having properly realized that understanding is a distinct task that we can focus on and solve in its own right."

"Consider again the spellsilver refiners; if they'd been saying to themselves 'How can I figure out exactly what's happening during the spellsilver-refining process?', they might have performed different experiments and taken more precise notes.  Contrasted to asking 'Does this work to improve refining?' and then, when the answer is 'No', they treat that as a failure."

"The same distinction reproduces itself on the meta-level; you should consider yourself as first asking, not 'How can I make Science work better?' but rather 'What are the rules governing which ways of pursuing Science would yield which sorts of things happening?'"

"If you're just running ahead trying to improve things, you might think that 'map first, then improve' sounded like great advice.  Once you enter the mapping mindset, you'll realize that the key claim is more like, 'people who follow "map first, then improve" ultimately invent improvements faster than people who don't follow that advice'.  That makes it plainer that this advice is really a theory, and a theory you could poke at and test to understand the laws governing people using Science; then, with this understanding, try to improve your pursuit of Science."

"This process of Science reflecting and improving on itself is not, to be clear, something you can continue without limit until it turns you into a god.  There's 'diminishing-returns' and the process 'asymptotes', at least as humans do it.  Once you're doing most basic things right, doing things slightly more perfectly than that is often not worth the extra time it takes to think.  But that process of reflection is how you get to the point of doing the basics correctly; and that's not a process Golarion has undergone yet."

"The question that Science begins from is 'How do we understand spellsilver refining?', and it is then this understanding that we use to ask 'How do we improve spellsilver refining?'"

"The heartbeat of cognition, as it would be said out of dath ilan, is that sensory information floods into you on the 'diastolic-beat', from this you build a map or model of reality, then you search for strategies that the current model predicts may succeed, then actions surge out of you on the 'systolic-beat', which actions affect the environment and the 'sense-data' you get on the next heartbeat.  Where of course it's not a 'pointwise-perfect' analogy because in your heartbeat the expansion that draws blood in, and the contraction that pushes blood out, are distinct phases.  In cognition, sensory information is always coming in and we're always acting.  But, you get the idea.  Well, hopefully you get the idea.  I'll actually just spell out the idea.  The idea is that we can be overeager about jumping ahead to trying to improve things, not so much before we understand them, but without having properly realized that understanding is a distinct task that we can focus on and solve in its own right."

"Consider again the spellsilver refiners; if they'd been saying to themselves 'How can I figure out exactly what's happening during the spellsilver-refining process?', they might have performed different experiments and taken more precise notes.  Contrasted to asking 'Does this work to improve refining?' and then, when the answer is 'No', they treat that as a failure."

"The same distinction reproduces itself on the meta-level; you should consider yourself as first asking, not 'How can I make Science work better?' but rather 'What are the rules governing which ways of pursuing Science would yield which sorts of things happening?'"

"If you're just running ahead trying to improve things, you might think that 'map first, then improve' sounded like great advice.  Once you enter the mapping mindset, you'll realize that the key claim is more like, 'people who follow "map first, then improve" ultimately invent improvements faster than people who don't follow that advice'.  That makes it plainer that this advice is really a theory, and a theory you could poke at and test to understand the laws governing people using Science; then, with this understanding, try to improve your pursuit of Science."

"This process of Science reflecting and improving on itself is not, to be clear, something you can continue without limit until it turns you into a god.  There's 'diminishing-returns' and the process 'asymptotes', at least as humans do it in dath ilan.  Once you're doing most basic things right, doing things slightly more perfectly than that is often not worth the extra time it takes to think.  But that process of reflection is how you get to the point of doing the basics correctly; and that's not a process Golarion has undergone yet."