This is what is at the crux of the disagreement. We all agree that the acquisition of knowledge is dependent on developments of human methods like science in society. We disagree on whether there is objective knowledge/truth/facts and whether we can get at them at all reliably.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
No you see this is what leaves you right open to a postmodernist critique. You have to distinguish knowledge (a human product) from the world (which may be a human product (society)). But knowledge of the world is socially constructed. This means any knowledge claim could...1/
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @colwight @HPluckrose
.....be wrong. You have to distinguish how we know things, from what things there are. But we can only know what things there are through our descriptions of them.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @colwight
Absolutely. I don't disagree with that. Distinguishing how we know things from what things there are is absolutely the point. Knowledge is the product tho, not the epistemology, surely?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @colwight
Right. I think we could just accept that we are using words differently but don't actually disagree?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Well no, because you'd have to accept that what we say about words is also subject to truth criteria. So you can't just say "fascist" is someone who loves cats.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @colwight
Huh? You could. Once you understand that 'fascist' means 'cat lover' to someone else, a perfectly coherent conversation about what it means to be a cat lover can happen. If you insist they really mean what you mean by fascist, just confusion will ensue.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
No you couldn't. Meanings are social, not individual. That's why just calling someone a fascist because you disagree with them is wrong. Fascist, and cat lover have social meanings, and you can't just use the meaning that works for you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @colwight
On a broader scale, yes. For the purpose of a coherent conversation, you can exchange any word for any other word as long as both people know what is meant. Being willing to do this is often what stops a conversation stalling on definitions.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
For example, if someone insists that I am a feminist and I insist that I am not, the conversation can go on & on about definitions and never get to the discussion of gender equality. We can prevent this by agreeing to disagree on what a feminist is & talking about gender equality
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.