3 ms·

I didn't claim feminist epistemology made no sense. I merely claimed it abandons objective reality. You seem to disagree with this, I take it? The problem is t

I didn't claim feminist epistemology made no sense. I merely claimed it abandons objective reality. You seem to disagree with this, I take it? The problem is that if objective reality exists, then all accurate beliefs must be nearly identical and all the other stuff can only play a minor role. I.e., two alternate beliefs (regardless of power or anything else) must be nearly identical to each other if they are accurate: |B1 - B2| < |B1 - X| + |X - B2| is the general idea (with B1, B2 being the beliefs and X being objective reality). That's the problem - if you allow objective reality then everything else is anchored near it, preventing anything interesting from happening. Let me guess, there are mysteries hidden in tomes of knowledge you refuse to cite, and you are also unwilling to state anything formally here? Have fun with that act, I'm sure you are fooling everyone else here.

pron 11y ago
> then all accurate beliefs must be nearly identical and all the other stuff can only play a minor role Please, please, try to debate the other side of this. That could be a claim made by feminists (as long as power plays a role). You don't need to read a word about feminist epistemology. Just think of something relating epistemology and power. I can give you some answers, I really, really can, but it would take a long time. The best way is for you to imagine that a genius you admire, say Einstein or Russel, is the one who came up with feminist epistemology (involving power, of course). Try to imagine what he would say, and it has to be really good and really convincing. In fact, pretend they came up with it together, and that their 1951 paper, Feminist Epistemology: How Power Shapes Knowledge is widely regarded their best work. And remember, it is not a work of science but of philosophy, so like good philosophers, they tried to find their hidden assumptions -- and hidden values -- and challenged them at every turn. The result was a work of such simple brilliance, that has helped a whole generation challenge their assumptions and see knowledge in a new light. The reason for that is because to understand something profound that is outside your normal mode of thought you must undergo a process, and it has to be voluntary (because it involves truly challenging your assumptions), and is much more crucial than the process required for learning a new fact within your normal mode of thought. But I can guarantee you one thing: the process will be extremely entertaining and extremely satisfying. You will enjoy it (I know because I had to go through it myself, when I decided to study history after finishing my math degree). You must stop assuming that everyone whom you think you disagree with is an idiot. That is the only way you'll be able to actually understand what they're saying, and only then would your objections -- if still standing -- sound intelligent and pertinent rather than "nah nah nah". Once you do that, I'll gladly fill in the missing pieces to the best of my abilities. If you don't, anything I mention that you don't understand you'll attribute to stupidity, and you'll make every effort not to even try to understand. Since I know that there is no chance in the world that anyone can learn anything if they try their hardest not to, while believing that the speaker is an idiot, I really see no point in me trying. I only have a chance once you have convinced yourself that if there is something that doesn't seem right to you that's because you fail to understand something, so that your impulse is to learn more, not less. And the only way for you to do that is to convince yourself -- even for a short while -- that the other side is really, really smart; smarter than you even, so that you fill the blanks (and there are always blanks) not with stupidities that you attribute to the other side but either with true insight you come up with or with honest questions (instead of taunts presented as questions). There is zero chance of learning anything new otherwise. It would be like trying to teach evolution to creationists. I'm sure you would agree that's a futile task.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  As predicted just above: Let me guess, there are mysteries hidden in tomes of knowledge you refuse to cite, and you are also unwilling to state anything formally here? It would be like trying to teach evolution to creationists. I'm sure you would agree that's a futile task.* In my experience creationists understand evolution just fine. They don't agree, but they understand. That's why we use formal reasoning - the process of following along is mechanistic and does not require revealed wisdom of the sort you are claiming I lack.
  - pron 11y ago
    I told you time and again that I have no intention to teach someone who shows every intention of not wanting to learn. You simply repeated my words; I would hardly call that a prediction. However, while my unwillingness to lay forth my "tomes of knowledge" as you call them is understandable (and explicitly stated) in light of your stance, I can't see any good reason why you would still insist on not learning. I have told you that pretty much every thing you attribute to feminism is false, yet you have no interest in learning the actual claims. I cannot fathom why any person of intellect will only take pleasure in taking down arguments made by demented caricatures born of his misconceptions, while fearing to confront the actual arguments (which, he may find out, he actually agrees with!) What you lack (and it's way more than just a claim at this point) is not wisdom (certainly not of some magical sort) but curiosity. I will match every bit of your formal reasoning, and you will enjoy the process -- I assure you. If mechanistic deduction is your only acceptable mode of thought, that is all that will be required. That brilliant Einstein/Russel paper was entirely written in first-order logic. Hardly a line of prose to it other than the somewhat dry introduction and the surprisingly droll conclusion, neither of which is essential (of course, you would have known that if you had bothered to try). An autistic robot would be convinced. However, a child would not, because as it turns out, children who are preoccupied with their own image have a hard time grasping even logic, formal as it is. P.S. I am a bit surprised, however, that you have brought up formal reasoning in this thread which discusses the philosophy of science. You surely know that regardless of how formal your methods are, short of logical inconsistencies, the results of your efforts largely depend on your axioms, which is what philosophy is (also) concerned with. I am not familiar with a formal method for deriving a set of axioms for humans, only informal ones.

pron 11y ago

> then all accurate beliefs must be nearly identical and all the other stuff can only play a minor role Please, please, try to debate the other side of this. That could be a claim made by feminists (as long as power plays a role). You don't need to read a word about feminist epistemology. Just think of something relating epistemology and power. I can give you some answers, I really, really can, but it would take a long time. The best way is for you to imagine that a genius you admire, say Einstein or Russel, is the one who came up with feminist epistemology (involving power, of course). Try to imagine what he would say, and it has to be really good and really convincing. In fact, pretend they came up with it together, and that their 1951 paper, Feminist Epistemology: How Power Shapes Knowledge is widely regarded their best work. And remember, it is not a work of science but of philosophy, so like good philosophers, they tried to find their hidden assumptions -- and hidden values -- and challenged them at every turn. The result was a work of such simple brilliance, that has helped a whole generation challenge their assumptions and see knowledge in a new light. The reason for that is because to understand something profound that is outside your normal mode of thought you must undergo a process, and it has to be voluntary (because it involves truly challenging your assumptions), and is much more crucial than the process required for learning a new fact within your normal mode of thought. But I can guarantee you one thing: the process will be extremely entertaining and extremely satisfying. You will enjoy it (I know because I had to go through it myself, when I decided to study history after finishing my math degree). You must stop assuming that everyone whom you think you disagree with is an idiot. That is the only way you'll be able to actually understand what they're saying, and only then would your objections -- if still standing -- sound intelligent and pertinent rather than "nah nah nah". Once you do that, I'll gladly fill in the missing pieces to the best of my abilities. If you don't, anything I mention that you don't understand you'll attribute to stupidity, and you'll make every effort not to even try to understand. Since I know that there is no chance in the world that anyone can learn anything if they try their hardest not to, while believing that the speaker is an idiot, I really see no point in me trying. I only have a chance once you have convinced yourself that if there is something that doesn't seem right to you that's because you fail to understand something, so that your impulse is to learn more, not less. And the only way for you to do that is to convince yourself -- even for a short while -- that the other side is really, really smart; smarter than you even, so that you fill the blanks (and there are always blanks) not with stupidities that you attribute to the other side but either with true insight you come up with or with honest questions (instead of taunts presented as questions). There is zero chance of learning anything new otherwise. It would be like trying to teach evolution to creationists. I'm sure you would agree that's a futile task.

yummyfajitas 11y ago
As predicted just above: Let me guess, there are mysteries hidden in tomes of knowledge you refuse to cite, and you are also unwilling to state anything formally here? It would be like trying to teach evolution to creationists. I'm sure you would agree that's a futile task.* In my experience creationists understand evolution just fine. They don't agree, but they understand. That's why we use formal reasoning - the process of following along is mechanistic and does not require revealed wisdom of the sort you are claiming I lack.
- pron 11y ago
  I told you time and again that I have no intention to teach someone who shows every intention of not wanting to learn. You simply repeated my words; I would hardly call that a prediction. However, while my unwillingness to lay forth my "tomes of knowledge" as you call them is understandable (and explicitly stated) in light of your stance, I can't see any good reason why you would still insist on not learning. I have told you that pretty much every thing you attribute to feminism is false, yet you have no interest in learning the actual claims. I cannot fathom why any person of intellect will only take pleasure in taking down arguments made by demented caricatures born of his misconceptions, while fearing to confront the actual arguments (which, he may find out, he actually agrees with!) What you lack (and it's way more than just a claim at this point) is not wisdom (certainly not of some magical sort) but curiosity. I will match every bit of your formal reasoning, and you will enjoy the process -- I assure you. If mechanistic deduction is your only acceptable mode of thought, that is all that will be required. That brilliant Einstein/Russel paper was entirely written in first-order logic. Hardly a line of prose to it other than the somewhat dry introduction and the surprisingly droll conclusion, neither of which is essential (of course, you would have known that if you had bothered to try). An autistic robot would be convinced. However, a child would not, because as it turns out, children who are preoccupied with their own image have a hard time grasping even logic, formal as it is. P.S. I am a bit surprised, however, that you have brought up formal reasoning in this thread which discusses the philosophy of science. You surely know that regardless of how formal your methods are, short of logical inconsistencies, the results of your efforts largely depend on your axioms, which is what philosophy is (also) concerned with. I am not familiar with a formal method for deriving a set of axioms for humans, only informal ones.