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 personally think it would be better if you could look at the work as whether it is valid or not--the personalities behind it are really not something we can know as true. If you judge all work by the person behind it you will miss a lot.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
I don’t think it’s an either/or thing. Judge a work on its own merits but consider the agenda/biases of the author. Even in empirical research the ideology people approach a question from very often defines the answer they receive.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @SkepticReview89 and
Consider the Sokal squared hoax in their promo video the flat out say that when they initially failed to get the answer they wanted they worried they had wasted their time. But then they found a better way to get their desired outcome. That’s not science that’s advocacy.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Yes, they wrote at length about their motivations, and I don't think they were claiming to do a scientific study. They did a sting operation - like young-looking undercover cops trying to prove an establishment sells alcohol to underage customers.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Sure and they had success but people should recognise the event for what it is- advocacy. To say it is non-political and non-ideological is naïve. Boghossian might say he is just pro-science/critical thinking but his actions suggest otherwise or at least broader motives.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @ArthurCDent and
If anyone says that, it shows they haven't read the Areo write-up where we say very clearly that we're advocating not only for evidence-based epistemology but also consistently liberal ethics. We've said it pretty much everywhere else too. We've been writing about this for years.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ArthurCDent and
You don’t think I could have read the Areo piece and arrived from a different view than what you explicitly tell me to think? Wow I guess I’m reading articles wrong. I usually don’t accept on faith the authors framing. I would refer you to the article by
@Musa_alGharbi for...2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @ArthurCDent and
Huh? What does this relate to? I was agreeing with you. You said its naive to think we don't have an ideological and political agenda when we clearly do and I'm saying you're right. You now disagree that we that do or disagree with something else?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ArthurCDent and
It might be just the way the threading worked. I read the response as suggesting that I had not read your Areo article if I did not agree that the hoax was entirely non-ideological/political.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I see. Maybe conversation possible then. But that wouldn't be agreeing with us. Its not us claiming not to be advocating a political & ideological stance. In that piece we set out what it is. I was saying that our own words support your correct reading of the situation.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @ArthurCDent and
I appreciate that. I’m not trying to misrepresent your position or to dismiss your efforts. Caustic sarcasm is side effect of personality and being Northern Irish.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.