It has become clear Brian's disagreement wasn't a simple misunderstanding of our claims as comparative and consequently in need of a control. Since clarifying that one, he's indicated an approval of Butler, an ambiguity on objective truth & the potential for approving our papers.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames
Helen I’d felt our exchange was charitable till now. I indicated that an insinuation that Butler’s corpus was of no value whatsoever seemed too strong, that I would need to know what specific claim a person was making about the notion of scientific objectivity (not ‘objective
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
... truth’) before I could evaluate whether the claim had any merit, and that, as is generally the case, merely knowing the punchline of a paper written in bad faith without carefully reading it is not enough for me to conclude in advance its argument cannot have had any value.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
Yes, it's a different objection. Surely you see that? Methods to content. Of course, people can disagree on either or both but you gave no indication of disagreement with our assessment of the fields before, just how we went about doing it.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames
The 3 things u said I indicated were not things I indicated. I’ve tried 2 discuss a specific issue re methodology; I’ve also repeatedly said I saw certain problems in gender studies etc. I *also* said that I think ur appraisal of those fields could have been more charitable
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @briandavidearp @ConceptualJames
I'm charitable in the sense that I accept that they're probably trying to do good and believe what they're saying. We've said this repeatedly. That is what charitable means. We have epistemological and ethical disagreements which I have set out and argued for.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames
I see being charitable as actually trying to see the value in what someone is doing even if you don’t agree with all or even most of their conclusions or methods, not saying “I believe they are sincere, yet deluded”
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
It's not like they just blindly assumed the epistemology in some of these fields lacks objective value. They suspected it, then they became experts in the relevant fields to the degree that they got 7 papers accepted in reputable journals before making this claim.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Intrinsic29 @briandavidearp and
Maybe you should try aiming some of the charity you're advocating to this project.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
If you read my original string of tweets, you will see that a good proportion of them are devoted to saying the things about which I agree with the authors and the aspects of their hoax I saw as relatively good potential evidence of a special problem in the target fields
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
You will see I told Helen what I saw as fair in her responses & left initial conversation on friendly note. I haven’t said much abt this issue at all since then. Today I was prodded, out of nowhere, to clarify what of my original tweets I ‘stood by’. I tried my best to do so
-
-
I just thought calling out their alleged lack of charity was somewhat ironic in itself.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.