They don't need to look into what justification an expert gives for her opinion or compare it with any others. Expert = bad.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
Which is not at all what you mean. You're referring to a healthily sceptical attitude which requires further investigation.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Yeah, I just tweeted a thread out in explanation.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev
I know what you mean. Wasn't sure you realised ppl hear that phrase most often from postmodernists & anti-intellectuals.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
And you got me thinking abt how to define the difference between the two principles of distrust.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I know what you mean, I think, and it's not easy!
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @christianjbdev
I think the best way is to stress the difference in intention. Pomos want to argue that knowledge is an illusion. Subjective
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @christianjbdev
Whereas scientists want to attain knowledge & fear being led astray. Their distrust has opposing aims.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
You know, us scientists aren't perfect. We're subject to all the usual prejudices and biases. The *system* keeps us honest.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @christianjbdev @HPluckrose
Sure, they're human. But the diff in intention is important.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The underlying methodology, yes. Do pomo right & you have chaos. Do science right & you find out useful things.
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.