both of your points seem to implicitly assume that I am wrong, rather than demonstrating that I am wrong.
You were portraying the “we’re confused about agency” position as being that agency is “pre-paradigmatic”. I think that’s a mischaracterization, and corrected it. This doesn’t implicitly assume that you’re wrong.
However, I accept that my claim “this is a bad model of how scientific progress works” does implicitly rely on the idea that there’s a clean new paradigm to be discovered for bounded agents. I didn’t have that cached in my head as the core crux between us, but I’d phrase it differently now that I do.
You were portraying the “we’re confused about agency” position as being that agency is “pre-paradigmatic”. I think that’s a mischaracterization, and corrected it. This doesn’t implicitly assume that you’re wrong.
However, I accept that my claim “this is a bad model of how scientific progress works” does implicitly rely on the idea that there’s a clean new paradigm to be discovered for bounded agents. I didn’t have that cached in my head as the core crux between us, but I’d phrase it differently now that I do.