I actually have a completely different explanation based on Basil Bernstein. Scientific claims of knowledge, (along with other modern knowledge claims), are defined precisely by the fact that they are not grounded in the authority of the speaker, but by a standard of rules.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
It's ofc. perfectly fine to point out that there's limits to this sort of knowledge-system, and that it's constrained by all sorts of objective interests and desires, (which is what Marxists were saying all along), but little of that shakes out to the benefit of pseudo-science.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Agreed, and that's what makes pseudo-science an inferior mode of reasoning to both science and ideology, lacking the empirical grounding unique to science, the reflexively critical perspective of ideology, and the system of interpersonal objective standards common to them both.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Nonsense. Science is great (it has a criterion, in experimental testing and distributed criticism). It's Cathedral-monkeys magically invoking the authority of science for their zero-criterion bullshit that's the problem.
4 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
Yes. "Who needs a criterion when you can have a collective?" -- Hegel (roughly)
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.