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 @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 -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @HPluckrose and
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @SkepticReview89 and
I don't know what that means. Too vague.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @SkepticReview89 and
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..
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
OK bit still too vague for me to say anything about. You haven't said what you think they are.
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.