If a narrative has an effect, then it has evidence. But I think we are off the rails on a semantic argument, where everyone is close in meaning but using different definitions
It's the concepts which need to be kept separate. What is evidenced and what is emotionally/morally resonant. The whole post-truth problem is about confusing these.
-
-
I think I am following, it seems I the whole Harris Peterson debate got stuck because they wanted to use the same word to mean two different things.
-
Not really. They established they were using truth differently early on and tried to find common ground on the concepts. Still, no. Peterson favours pragmatics over facts. So do others but they do them differently to support different ends. Feminism is a main culprit.
-
My epistemology is based on what is established as true through evidence. We worked on meaningful narratives that bonded people for most of history. It didn't work well.
-
I still like narratives. I'm a literature student not a scientist for that reason but this doesn't make the ones which are helpful to me true. It's important to recognise that.
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.