Do you mean academics or others? I think it's reasonable for us to have a professional focus on ideas within the academy, rather than politics. But switching to politics, you'll notice the right does get a lot of mileage out of 'PC gone mad' issues, stemming from the academy.
-
-
That is exactly what is happening. Your agenda is in doubt, but I don't have a clear answer as to what that other secret nefarious agenda is.
-
It depends where the other person is coming from. Usually, its that we're secretly reactionary rightists but after the socialists came out in support of us and we condemned Hungary's shutting down of gender studies, we've been accused of being Marxists & libtards again.
-
A sign of the times and/or a sign that you have attracted a disproportionate amount of ideological followers. Nuance should be seen as positive tho, I wish more people were willing to piss off their audience in favour of honesty.
-
Are you a liberal lefty? You sound like a liberal lefty. If so, this is all aimed primarily at you.
-
Unsure afte previous confusion if this is aimed at me. If it is, I’d say I’m a centre left person. Certainly not far left.
-
Chris--pro-science, tho, means you cannot scientifically determine motives/agendas/biases of the researchers. Just focus on the research. Let it stand. Is it true?
-
That isn’t what being pro-science means. Of course you address the content of research but you don’t have to blind yourself to the agenda of the researchers. Also, as Helen and others acknowledge the hoax wasn’t science it was activism.
-
Perhaps. I find it as a proof that has raises serious questions.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Apologies. I took you for someone pointing out a fact to people who have missed it. I had no idea you were hostile & would respond with indignant snark & mindreading or I'd not have attempted talking to you. I'll leave you to condemn the version of us you have invented.
-
I'm sorry Helen. I know it gets exhausting when you are such an honest, transparent and open scholar and writer.
-
I try to be! I don't mind if people think I'm evil for what I actually think. But it seems that Chris and I were at cross-purposes anyway.
-
He's very polite but he won't agree that he can know biases and agendas through probabilities and that particularly Boghossian is anti science, so we had to leave it there.
-
Just for the record that’s not what I’ve said. I haven’t said Boghossian is anti science and I’ve only said it is possible to identify biases and ideological agendas through applying normal skepticism/critical thinking. Ignoring all context isn’t being pure and objective.
-
It was a paraphrase. Sorryhttps://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1054524963695128577 …
-
That's a mistake if Chris thought Peter denied having any political, ideological motivations. We all wrote the Areo piece where we set them out. And we've done a few talks on it.
-
But Chris doubts the stated motivations. That's where we get crosswise. I even asked what reliable epistemology would there be for him to determine your true motivations?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Again, I think it’s an artefact of the threading. You commented on my post so I assumed the comment was in reference to the content of that post but seems not. I’m not arguing for ‘mind reading’ just arguing for people to apply critical thinking.
-
Yes. OK. I hope its now clear that we agree that we have an agenda. We're the ones who know we have. You are right to say it. Areo is where it is written up explicitly in relation to the project and also many other pieces there setting it out including James & my manifesto.
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.