But behind that, there's some signal that moves us forward.
I'm not sure which of two things you're saying. Are you arguing that 1) people should avoid talking abstractly (cont)
-
-
(cont) about the science of logic, like what the various fallacies, are or how to use statistics? (cont)
-
(cont) Or that 2) people shouldn't criticize others' studies/evidence on political etc topics unless asserting own opinion?
-
The second is the problem I am concerned with. OB people have created and formalized a language of "objection" that denies responsibility
-
(This is, incidentally, one reason I associate them with the political right)
-
Instead of having arguments over object-level issues and values, we have an "objectively" framed language of condescension.
-
After all, if I'm just virtue signaling by opposing the travel ban, who cares if it's a good idea or not?
-
Some months ago one of your 800, 3,000 word posts was a careful dissection of all the evidence for and against DJT's racism.
-
But DJT's racism is not an issue of scholarly interest, its manifestation on the object level is an issue of immediate concern to millions
End of conversation
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.