That's not even close to what I'm suggesting... I get the impression that you think I'm arguing against you somehow... but I'm arguing *for* you. I agree with everything you've said. I'm defending your work here
-
-
Replying to @agoonforhire @tweetertation and
I don't necessarily think you're against us! You made it clear you weren't from the start. I think you've misunderstood the scope of our project and am trying to set out very clearly why we couldn't do what you suggest.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @tweetertation and
I think I was a little bit off on the scope of your project.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @agoonforhire @tweetertation and
Yes. I apologise if I kind of machine-gunned you in explaining this. I've been told I do this although I am aiming to be clear and comprehensive rather than aggressive and this is clearer when you can hear me rather than reading me.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @agoonforhire and
But I did feel the need to break down why it doesn't make sense to ask why we didn't send papers to other fields to demonstrate grievance studies alone has problems. It's coz we can only get these papers in journals which accept them & are not claiming GS alone has problems.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @agoonforhire and
People keep asking this & I don't think this would happen if we were researching, say, dubious data about the harmfulness of fat. People would understand the need to focus on journals which published things about fat & not assume a claim that this is the only problem that exists.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @agoonforhire and
I'm not sure why this is happening because we targeted this field but I suspect it is because it is politically loaded and people suspect bad motivations, feel defensive and resort to whataboutism. Other fields have problems too! I'm not suggesting you are doing this.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @agoonforhire and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @agoonforhire and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.