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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @HPluckrose and
... a neutral third party. They are colleagues and I would expect friends who you agree with on a lot of issues. So that you would read sympathetically their actions/comments isn’t surprising.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I know them very well. We are close friends too. James and I frequently write together because we see eye to eye on our current problem. And James and Peter have on defeating Trump etc. I'm English but would also like to see that happen.
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.