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.
-
-
For instance, on his discussions with Stefan Molyneux? Would you recommend that as a good resource for folks interested?
-
That’s snark. But it’s snark with a point. I don’t think Peter entirely acknowledges his biases. No one does. But different folks make more/less effort to combat them.
-
I don't know what that means. Too vague.
-
Your suggestion to listen to Peter’s talks to hear him identify biases sounds, to be blunt, naive. He does talk about cognitive biases but that doesn’t mean he consistently applies such insight to accurately assess his own positions/biases. Generally people are not great judges..
-
... of their own biases. They are good at pointing out others though. Again, see Sam Harris for endless illustrations of this in action.
-
Too vague.
-
What’s vague? Do you want me to list the usual biases of classical liberals? I would imagine you have encountered them. I asked the Q about Rubin earlier partly to assess whether you recognise such biases exist.
-
Yes. "I suspect this person of having the usual biases of the classical liberal" is too vague. They vary a lot on values but are usually close to libertarians, particularly economically. This is just tribal bias of yours. Look at individuals and what they say.
- 1 more reply
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.