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.
-
-
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 @HPluckrose and
... a more in depth examination of the pros and cons and surrounding context of your efforts. I don’t deny you the right to explain your motivation but that doesn’t mean I have to uncritically swallow it.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @ArthurCDent and
Ah! You've moved on from disagreeing with people who say we don't have an agenda to disagreeing with us about what we say ours is? Well, I can't do much about that. It never helps to argue with mindreaders. We are the only authority on our own motivations.
3 replies 1 retweet 19 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ArthurCDent and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.