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.
-
-
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 -
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.