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.
-
-
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 @HPluckrose and
Skeptic Review Retweeted Chris Kavanagh
It was a paraphrase. Sorryhttps://twitter.com/C_Kavanagh/status/1054524963695128577 …
Skeptic Review added,
Chris Kavanagh @C_KavanaghReplying to @ArthurCDent @SkepticReview89 @CathyYoung63Sure 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.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SkepticReview89 @HPluckrose and
Fair enough, I can see why you would read my point that way but what I meant to suggest was that those are the only motivations he acknowledges & represents his opinions as being based on but I think that is inaccurate. I am pro-science and empiricism but have not reached...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @SkepticReview89 and
... the same conclusions. So does that mean I’m doing things wrong or maybe that not all Boghossian’s stances are as science based as he suggests. My vote is on the latter, but others free to disagree.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @SkepticReview89 and
On what? There's the epistemology - science and there's the ethics - politics,/ideology.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @C_Kavanagh and
I asked what epistemology he could use that would prove that your motivations were other than your stated ones, because he thinks there is a hidden agenda of sorts.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Confronting bias, Chris said. He might think we're open enough to certain SocJus ideas.
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.