A little mini-thread about the grievance studies hoax, responding to concerns from @ConceptualJames that the emphasis of my initial set of responses may have been in someway misplacedhttps://twitter.com/briandavidearp/status/1056611677251272706 …
-
-
More broadly: there is an underlying assumption that RCTs, math, "hard science" are the gold standard for producing reliable knowledge. This assumption in turn is based on a realist metaphysical stance which philosophers of science like Popper pointed out is simply a preference.
-
Well, is the computer that you’re using to say these words designed based on the “gold standard” or the supposed “other ways of knowing?”

-
Also, I find it quite fascinating, from an anthropological perspective that only yesterday, I heard the exact opposite criticism of James, Peter, and Helen’s work—in other words that it was flimsy and unreliable because it “isn’t scientifically rigorous.” Very strange.
-
I'm not saying I'm not a realist; and to build computers we use a lot of metaphors like information but we don't have to believe that computers are made of information. I find it fascinating that the debate seems to be proceeding without reference to philosophy of science.
-
So, you don’t see feminist theory as falsifiable?
-
I'm not sure- but like all knowledge it's certainly fallible.
-
Fallible, I can agree with. Falsifiable? I doubt it.
- 2 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.