Yep.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
-
Do you think top physics journals should publish articles that debunk papers in other fields that are predicated on basic misunderstanding of physics? I don't think so and I don't see why it should be any different for philosophy. This doesn't mean that it's not important work.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Even if it were true that debunking common fallacies were the best use of philosophical expertise (I doubt it), that doesn't mean that it'd be a good idea to have top journals publish this sort of thing. Very few non-academics read top journals, and they're used for diff purposes
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I wrote a paper debunking a widely abused fallacy that you are intimately familiar with. Does it count?https://medium.com/@n.k.h.73908513321516/the-murray-fallacy-and-the-heritability-of-bias-c20c2381fe27?source=linkShare-af2b8fd0529a-1538805450 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Plus, philosophy is mainly a journal based field but not completely. Some things are best left to book-length treatments especially if the questions at hand are of interest to non-philosophers.
End of conversation
-
-
-
"Studies" is not philosophy, which is just another "system of oppression" It's not effective to analyze modernism by citation to the classics These things are taken beyond the objective, into matters of taste The only thing for it is to demonstrate how it corrupts the palate.
Thanks. 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.