3 ms·

> and the "grievance scholars" are slowly convincing the rest of academia that real scholarship consists not of neutral methods and honest argument, but agreein

> and the "grievance scholars" are slowly convincing the rest of academia that real scholarship consists not of neutral methods and honest argument, but agreeing with the grievance scholars in all things, and finding ways to inject it whether it's relevant or not. What degrees or disciplines would you characterise as "grievance scholars", and what evidence do you have that suggests the influence those disciplines have over scholarship is increasing? The amount of degrees awarded in women's studies over the last 10 years has significantly dropped.

Sniffnoy 8y ago
So, first off, "grievance studies" isn't my term. But as for evidence... well, I don't have statistics; it's more of a "look around you" thing. It's not clear to me why I would care about the number of degrees awarded in women's studies; that doesn't at all seem a reliable proxy for what I do care about, i.e., to what extent the academy is becoming less free and more ideological.
- tomlock 8y ago
  So, is it fair for me to say that your criticism of "grievance studies", a criticism of its unscientific and fallible nature, is anecdotal?
  - Sniffnoy 8y ago
    ...yes? Although, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it seems to me that you've entirely mistaken what my complaint is; as best as I can tell you're trying to imply that my complaint is hypocritical by lacking large-scale statistics, when I'm not complaining about a lack of large-scale statistics at all, but rather such things as argument from consequences, lack of freedom of argument, etc.
    - tomlock 8y ago
      But if your argument kind of hinges on the idea that these disciplines axiomatically believe in their righteousness due to their lack of scientific data, wouldn't it be quite strange to say you believe they're making scholarship more ideological, without the data to back that axiom up?
      - Sniffnoy 8y ago
        > But if your argument kind of hinges on the idea that these disciplines axiomatically believe in their righteousness due to their lack of scientific data But that's not my argument at all? My argument is that these disciplines have destroyed the preconditions, the negative feedback loop, that keep a group of people truth-tracking, which includes norms of free inquiry and free argument, a basic understanding of what is and is not an argument (e.g. ad hominem and argument from consequences are not arguments), and have instead fallen into the positive feedback loop that results when these are removed, allowing tribal effects to dominate. I haven't said anything about lack of large-scale data. I mean, yes, large-scale data is important when possible, but it's hardly the most important thing. And indeed these fields often do have large-scale data, they just lack coherent arguments that this data supports their claim (data rarely bears directly on the claim being made, so you still need argument!).
        tomlock 8y ago
        Which tribal effects do you think dominate? I can make a guess at what thinkers you may be following, given some of the words you've used here. I'm assuming this, but lets just say for a moment you believe that these disciplines uncritically believe that trans women are "real" women. This is simply, untrue. There are debates about both the semantics and broad claims in that specific case in these fields of study. I often find that criticisms of these fields lack a nuanced understanding of the actual content and behavior of the fields, and instead come from a malformed reading of the field that is readily accepted by the reader. Are there other specific beliefs in these fields that you're more concerned about?
        Sniffnoy 8y ago

Sniffnoy 8y ago

So, first off, "grievance studies" isn't my term. But as for evidence... well, I don't have statistics; it's more of a "look around you" thing. It's not clear to me why I would care about the number of degrees awarded in women's studies; that doesn't at all seem a reliable proxy for what I do care about, i.e., to what extent the academy is becoming less free and more ideological.

tomlock 8y ago
So, is it fair for me to say that your criticism of "grievance studies", a criticism of its unscientific and fallible nature, is anecdotal?
- Sniffnoy 8y ago
  ...yes? Although, perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but it seems to me that you've entirely mistaken what my complaint is; as best as I can tell you're trying to imply that my complaint is hypocritical by lacking large-scale statistics, when I'm not complaining about a lack of large-scale statistics at all, but rather such things as argument from consequences, lack of freedom of argument, etc.
  - tomlock 8y ago
    But if your argument kind of hinges on the idea that these disciplines axiomatically believe in their righteousness due to their lack of scientific data, wouldn't it be quite strange to say you believe they're making scholarship more ideological, without the data to back that axiom up?
    - Sniffnoy 8y ago
      > But if your argument kind of hinges on the idea that these disciplines axiomatically believe in their righteousness due to their lack of scientific data But that's not my argument at all? My argument is that these disciplines have destroyed the preconditions, the negative feedback loop, that keep a group of people truth-tracking, which includes norms of free inquiry and free argument, a basic understanding of what is and is not an argument (e.g. ad hominem and argument from consequences are not arguments), and have instead fallen into the positive feedback loop that results when these are removed, allowing tribal effects to dominate. I haven't said anything about lack of large-scale data. I mean, yes, large-scale data is important when possible, but it's hardly the most important thing. And indeed these fields often do have large-scale data, they just lack coherent arguments that this data supports their claim (data rarely bears directly on the claim being made, so you still need argument!).
      - tomlock 8y ago
        Which tribal effects do you think dominate? I can make a guess at what thinkers you may be following, given some of the words you've used here. I'm assuming this, but lets just say for a moment you believe that these disciplines uncritically believe that trans women are "real" women. This is simply, untrue. There are debates about both the semantics and broad claims in that specific case in these fields of study. I often find that criticisms of these fields lack a nuanced understanding of the actual content and behavior of the fields, and instead come from a malformed reading of the field that is readily accepted by the reader. Are there other specific beliefs in these fields that you're more concerned about?
        Sniffnoy 8y ago