That's the problem, yes. Other 'ways of knowing' which don't require evidence, testing or reason. Bad epistemologies.
Oh for goodness sake. I can't explain this in tweets if you really don't understand. Got company. I'll get back to you,
-
-
You said subjective views "shouldn't be claimed to be true." I say that's a straw man. If you show me who said that, I'll also dispute.
-
You are spectacularly missing the point. They assert things like 'sexual jealousy arose as a result of a crisis of masculinity in 17th C'
-
It's not that we are attacking subjective claims. We are challenging belief that subjective experiences are more valid than data.
-
More valid in an objectively verifiable sense? No, subjective claims are not.
-
Precisely. But, postmodern approaches view them as equally valid forms of evidence. Fox News style debate where conviction = evidence.
-
I might have said such a misleading thing in the 1990s. They are not equally valid forms of evidence but, rather, different ways of knowing.
-
Knowing means have a true belief. Many people believe they "know" that climate change is not real. Are their beliefs valid?
-
I take a broader stance of what knowing is.
- 3 more replies
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.