A sign of the times and/or a sign that you have attracted a disproportionate amount of ideological followers. Nuance should be seen as positive tho, I wish more people were willing to piss off their audience in favour of honesty.
-
-
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @SkepticReview89 and
Are you a liberal lefty? You sound like a liberal lefty. If so, this is all aimed primarily at you.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @SkepticReview89 and
Unsure afte previous confusion if this is aimed at me. If it is, I’d say I’m a centre left person. Certainly not far left.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @HPluckrose and
Chris--pro-science, tho, means you cannot scientifically determine motives/agendas/biases of the researchers. Just focus on the research. Let it stand. Is it true?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SkepticReview89 @HPluckrose and
That isn’t what being pro-science means. Of course you address the content of research but you don’t have to blind yourself to the agenda of the researchers. Also, as Helen and others acknowledge the hoax wasn’t science it was activism.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @SkepticReview89 and
That doesn't work. We wanted to show something and I think we did. It wasn't a controlled study. But it does show the problems we intended to show. Look at the hundreds of sources we cited in order to be able make the claims we did & at how we were directed in review.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @C_Kavanagh and
We are showing what is there. That is in the service of advocating for evidence-based epistemology and consistently liberal ethics but it will only convince people who already value those and needed convincing that these fields lacked them.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @C_Kavanagh and
I just don't understand why Chris won't agree that a work can stand on its own merit without analyzing the characters behind it. We can't agree, and his views on the 3 characters are subjective.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @SkepticReview89 @HPluckrose and
I have said repeatedly you can and should assess ‘the work’ on its merit. My argument is that you don’t have to stop there where there are relevant contextual factors. I can point out scientific flaws in creationist paper and note that the authors behind it are tied to ...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @C_Kavanagh @SkepticReview89 and
... an evangelical organisation lobbying for intelligent design to be added to curriculum. You can do BOTH. Arguing latter is irrelevant isn’t true because it will inevitably influence scholarship. You don’t always have such info (day when acting as reviewer) and that’s fine...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Well, you can do that if you wish. I'm not going to defend our characters or motivations. There is no defence against assumptions. We have set our motivations out and I know the character of all of us. I think you'd approve but you'll have to make your own mind up.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @SkepticReview89 and
Fair enough. Appreciate the discussion.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.