It draws attention to unspoken, concealed premises and makes it possible to question them and question the validity of thought based on them
-
-
Replying to @fronxer @HPluckrose
So you could argue that it fits right in with reason and science, because arguments with explicit premises are more reliable
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
It in general: maybe not. But e.g. Butler analysing the feminist political subject did a pretty good job at it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
Butler did? Did she not say the subject is in always in state of flux and then essentially leave us in the mess?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
I'd say the mess was there before. She just pointed at it. It's not surprising if the land of unspoken premises tends to be incoherent.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @fronxer @HPluckrose
Showing contradictions (e.g. in the White woman as a subject of liberation) shouldn't undermine respect for values.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer @HPluckrose
It might be helpful to turn the question around and ask how respect for science could be undermined, if you tried really hard.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @fronxer
By undermining consensus that the best epistemology is one which relies on evidence and testing. That there are alternative ways of knowing
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
There are, depending on the subject matter. If people learned how to compare and integrate different knowledges, we'd have better science.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I agree with this. It is very easy to say that something is meaningful on a moral, emotional level without saying it is true.
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.