@sarahdoingthing sounds like the author believes that subjective experience as the only reality.
-
-
-
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sarahdoingthing anything else. Science's objectivism. Or culture. Hard to say how any of this may (not) fit with whatever else is said.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sulphuroxide
@sulpuroxide well objectivity and rigor are certainly among his stated aims, and I don't think he failspic.twitter.com/dbDezEFcC1
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sulpuroxide I think we're programmed HARD to immediately equate talk of beauty with epistemic failure, when the opposite is true
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sarahdoingthing hm. Can you elaborate on this point?1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sulphuroxide
@sulpuroxide my own experience has been that talking about beauty tends to cause my same species of nerd to have a seizure
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sarahdoingthing might I suggest this is because the term beauty is too vague for modern pretentions of "rigor" to digest?1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @sulphuroxide
@sulpuroxide it may be vague, but so are many terms - it's mainly just connotationally loaded to trigger the disgust/low-status response
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sarahdoingthing so it sounds like it's just "too easy" to make the claim and jargonists reject for this reason?1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
@sulpuroxide yes - expecting it to be hand-wavy instead of precise (and likely it's often used that way)
-
-
Replying to @sarahdoingthing
@sarahdoingthing that's unfortunate but understandable for academics and intellectuals who are heavily invested in a field0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.