I misread this in haste when I responded yesterday. https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/1054886048625541120 … It is not the empirical & generally reasonable scholars who are responding in deranged & vitriolic ways. Those opposed tend to respond by ignoring our point & referring to a number of extraneous factorshttps://twitter.com/clairlemon/status/1054883200525230081 …
-
-
Charitably, I'd say they perceive this as a daffy but relatively harmless alternative form of scholarship to empirical research & consistent ethics and so should be included as part of the productive diversity of ideas.
Show this thread -
If so, I'd agree it's daffy, disagree that it's harmless, agree that it is an alternative epistemology and ethical system that should be part of the academic conversation but that the productivity of ideological diversity comes from robust argument & criticism not accepting all.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.