I’m referring to a general trend amongst those who claim to be rationalists/skeptics/etc. It’s more of an online phenomenon than academic one but there are academics who pander to that crowd. Id include Boghossian amongst them. I say this as someone who identifies as the above.
-
-
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?
-
Lots of liberal lefties do. We wrote that in Areo piece. They feel that to criticise scholarship into social justice issues for women & minorities is to be against social justice for them. Our job is to persuade them this works better on rigorous epistemology & consistent ethics
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Up to you. As far as I can judge, I’m being no more hostile or snarky than you and co-hoaxers are regularly to those you disagree with. Is it possible to have different assessment of your actions and do so in good faith for legitimate reasons?
-
I try not to snark but I can be sarcastic when insulted. I was taken back by yours because I was agreeing with you. You can think my motivations different to those I express but you'd be wrong and I think you'd see that if you read my stuff regularly.
-
I’ve read some of your stuff, there is a reason that I separated out the positions of the three authors and did not include you when talking about typical biases of classical liberalism. I know you will defend co authors too but I am sure you would also agree you aren’t...
-
I'm not a classical liberal, no. I'm a left liberal. Also there is a language difference across the Atlantic with liberal, progressive etc. We all share values tho.
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.