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.
-
-
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 @C_Kavanagh and
Apologies. I took you for someone pointing out a fact to people who have missed it. I had no idea you were hostile & would respond with indignant snark & mindreading or I'd not have attempted talking to you. I'll leave you to condemn the version of us you have invented.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ArthurCDent and
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?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @ArthurCDent and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ArthurCDent and
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...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.
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.