I think Phoebe's point is that having a scope beyond which you didn't submit necessarily means you haven't shown there's a difference between what is in scope and what is not in scope.
I think because we targeted journals which look at gender, race & sexuality, people wonder if we have a problem with women and racial & sexual minorities & this manifests by asking why we chose these fields & not others. No, we have a problem with the epistemology & ethics.
-
-
This is what we all do in one way or another. Look at epistemology and ethics and argue for evidence-based epistemology & consistently liberal ethics. We used to focus more on religion & its truth claims and the basis for them and ethics around women's and LGBT rights.
-
Do you worry that we may have pushed against religion too hard in the mid-late 2000's? I do. I worry that a lot of what we've seen in the past few years is largely because the new atheist movement was *too* successful... that the religion hole was filled with... something else
-
Yes and no. I think we were overconfident that if we made religion withdraw, people would become more reasonable and less ideological. I think this correlation does hold true to a certain extent but that we'll still find other outlets.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.