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...
-
-
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 @C_Kavanagh and
I'm sorry Helen. I know it gets exhausting when you are such an honest, transparent and open scholar and writer.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SkepticReview89 @C_Kavanagh and
I try to be! I don't mind if people think I'm evil for what I actually think. But it seems that Chris and I were at cross-purposes anyway.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @C_Kavanagh and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SkepticReview89 @HPluckrose and
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @SkepticReview89 and
Good. He's definitely not anti-science. You can detect his biases and ideological agendas best through reading him write about them tho or listening to him talk about them.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @SkepticReview89 and
For instance, on his discussions with Stefan Molyneux? Would you recommend that as a good resource for folks interested?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
No, coz it has Molyneux in them. Peter talks to many people. I kind of admire that and I hope I am also receptive to widely diverse ideas but I don't see much to gain by talking to Molyneux.
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.