6 ms·

> I know some who ‘do not belive in truth’ This is such an important point that it needs to be emphasized. Large chunks of the humanities and social sciences o

> I know some who ‘do not belive in truth’ This is such an important point that it needs to be emphasized. Large chunks of the humanities and social sciences operate under a completely different epistemology. This epistemology rejects reason. And I don't mean that as a jab, I mean it literally rejects the philosophical concept of Reason itself. Everything is about ideology. It has at it's core the notion that there is no objective truth, and that any assertion of truth is merely the application of power of one group over another. Under this epistemology, lying, contradiction, hypocrisy, fallacy, and rhetoric are all acceptable and even encouraged. Dig a little in to post-structuralism, postmodernism, critical theory and deconstruction and so much of the Social Justice movement will make sense. You'll start to find very little about Social Justice is about social justice.

etrautmann 8y ago
I had previously associated that with the right wing partisan media like Fox News and infowars. Surprised to hear that this may be relevant in academic social sciences as well
- mises 8y ago
  I'd say they are a little different. Infowars et al are basically just running their mouths for tabloid headlines. Academics adopting this "alternative epistemology" is more concerning. Stupid blowhards will be stupid blowhards, but the should-be bastions of clarity and reason doing this based on a rejection of all Western philosophy is concerning.
WaxProlix 8y ago
I'm not an expert but I think this is a pretty gross mischaracterization of these philosophical bents, sort of like quoting "I think therefore I am" and going about telling people that Descartes was purely a solipsist. There's something to it, but it's not the whole truth, and in a sometimes-violent climate of name-calling (and worse) I think it can be damaging when misinformation is wielded as a club against political opponents like this.
- PinkMilkshake 8y ago
  > gross mischaracterization of these philosophical bents Could you please explain? I don't think I misrepresented anything, but I'm open to correction. I'm no expert either, but I have explored these ideas and I feel like I gave fair summary. > but it's not the whole truth True, it was a summary of what I felt were the relevant points. > misinformation I don't think what I said is even particularly controversial, least of all misinformation. It's just not well known. Most of what I said is explicitly stated by the people who hold those beliefs.
- torstenvl 8y ago
  Explain, then, the epistemology that leads someone with a degree in international relations and economics to say that being morally right is more important than being factually correct? I agree that misinformation can be wielded like a club; I disagree that GP is the one doing so.
  - greesil 8y ago
    Isn't that a false dichotomy?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - jackvalentine 8y ago
    If you're going to throw quotes or references to news in to conversations out of nowhere at least source them. For those playing at home: he's quoting stripped of context Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Watch the video here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cortez_people_being_more_concerned_about_me_being_factually_correct_than_morally_right.html?jwsource=cl http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cor...
    - leereeves 8y ago
      What about that context contradicts torstenvl's interpretation? It seems to me that saying that Washington Post fact-checkers are "more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right" is one step away from saying they are morally wrong, an example of the "post-fact" attitude that holding the right position is more important than reality. I suppose it was inevitable that when fact-checkers became inconvenient for politicians, politicians would attack them. How long until the same thing happens in academia and STEM is attacked for caring more about facts than being "morally right" according to someone's personal definition of morality? People who still care about facts need to stand up to those who don't, lest facts cease to matter entirely. Edit: In response to the claim that the WaPo is being "pedantic" and "petty", I should include their response: > The first problem here is that Ocasio-Cortez is really minimizing her falsehoods. Four Pinocchios is not a claim that Glenn Kessler and The Post’s Fact Checker team give out for bungling the “semantics” of something. It’s when something is a blatant falsehood. It’s the worst rating you can get for a singular claim. ... > What might be most problematic about Ocasio-Cortez’s defense, though, is the idea that people should care less about specific facts and more about being “morally right" — as if this is a zero-sum game in which the two can be weighed against one another. She’s practically saying, “Well, maybe I was wrong, but at least my cause is just.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-very-bad-defense-her-falsehoods/?utm_term=.620d814d33d3 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/alexandri...
tomlock 8y ago
Interestingly the field that talks most about epistemology and different epistemologies, is philosophy, which I'm pretty sure is part of the "grievance studies" bloc the authors wish to push a narrative about. It is absolutely the field you'd go into if you wanted to dissect and examine different epistemologies. > post-structuralism, postmodernism, critical theory and deconstruction I've worked in the pre-eminent enemy-of-the-right organisation in Australia, GetUp. I also am/was a postgrad philosopher. I can confidently say I've not heard a single left-wing activist talk about any of those 4 areas in my time working at that organisation, or, truly, in any other activist context. Additionally, to read these four areas and to then claim that they form the basis of "identity politics" demonstrates a fundamental misreading. Perhaps this misreading is a motivated one.
- danieltillett 8y ago
  A couple of questions 1. How big is GetUp here in Australia? How many full time staff? 2. How can you be a postgrad philosopher in both the present and past tense?
  - tomlock 8y ago
    1. The information you seek... is found in the first Google result. 2. Counter-question: Is it possible to simultaneously hold a post-graduate degree, and be studying one?
    - danieltillett 8y ago
      1. I would prefer to hear the answer from someone with personal knowledge as not everything you read on Google is true. 2. Yes, but that was not my question.
      - tomlock 8y ago
        Ok, and ok.
- TheOperator 8y ago

etrautmann 8y ago

I had previously associated that with the right wing partisan media like Fox News and infowars. Surprised to hear that this may be relevant in academic social sciences as well

mises 8y ago
I'd say they are a little different. Infowars et al are basically just running their mouths for tabloid headlines. Academics adopting this "alternative epistemology" is more concerning. Stupid blowhards will be stupid blowhards, but the should-be bastions of clarity and reason doing this based on a rejection of all Western philosophy is concerning.

WaxProlix 8y ago

I'm not an expert but I think this is a pretty gross mischaracterization of these philosophical bents, sort of like quoting "I think therefore I am" and going about telling people that Descartes was purely a solipsist. There's something to it, but it's not the whole truth, and in a sometimes-violent climate of name-calling (and worse) I think it can be damaging when misinformation is wielded as a club against political opponents like this.

PinkMilkshake 8y ago
> gross mischaracterization of these philosophical bents Could you please explain? I don't think I misrepresented anything, but I'm open to correction. I'm no expert either, but I have explored these ideas and I feel like I gave fair summary. > but it's not the whole truth True, it was a summary of what I felt were the relevant points. > misinformation I don't think what I said is even particularly controversial, least of all misinformation. It's just not well known. Most of what I said is explicitly stated by the people who hold those beliefs.
torstenvl 8y ago
Explain, then, the epistemology that leads someone with a degree in international relations and economics to say that being morally right is more important than being factually correct? I agree that misinformation can be wielded like a club; I disagree that GP is the one doing so.
- greesil 8y ago
  Isn't that a false dichotomy?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- jackvalentine 8y ago
  If you're going to throw quotes or references to news in to conversations out of nowhere at least source them. For those playing at home: he's quoting stripped of context Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Watch the video here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cortez_people_being_more_concerned_about_me_being_factually_correct_than_morally_right.html?jwsource=cl http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/01/06/ocasio-cor...
  - leereeves 8y ago
    What about that context contradicts torstenvl's interpretation? It seems to me that saying that Washington Post fact-checkers are "more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right" is one step away from saying they are morally wrong, an example of the "post-fact" attitude that holding the right position is more important than reality. I suppose it was inevitable that when fact-checkers became inconvenient for politicians, politicians would attack them. How long until the same thing happens in academia and STEM is attacked for caring more about facts than being "morally right" according to someone's personal definition of morality? People who still care about facts need to stand up to those who don't, lest facts cease to matter entirely. Edit: In response to the claim that the WaPo is being "pedantic" and "petty", I should include their response: > The first problem here is that Ocasio-Cortez is really minimizing her falsehoods. Four Pinocchios is not a claim that Glenn Kessler and The Post’s Fact Checker team give out for bungling the “semantics” of something. It’s when something is a blatant falsehood. It’s the worst rating you can get for a singular claim. ... > What might be most problematic about Ocasio-Cortez’s defense, though, is the idea that people should care less about specific facts and more about being “morally right" — as if this is a zero-sum game in which the two can be weighed against one another. She’s practically saying, “Well, maybe I was wrong, but at least my cause is just.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-very-bad-defense-her-falsehoods/?utm_term=.620d814d33d3 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/01/07/alexandri...

tomlock 8y ago

Interestingly the field that talks most about epistemology and different epistemologies, is philosophy, which I'm pretty sure is part of the "grievance studies" bloc the authors wish to push a narrative about. It is absolutely the field you'd go into if you wanted to dissect and examine different epistemologies. > post-structuralism, postmodernism, critical theory and deconstruction I've worked in the pre-eminent enemy-of-the-right organisation in Australia, GetUp. I also am/was a postgrad philosopher. I can confidently say I've not heard a single left-wing activist talk about any of those 4 areas in my time working at that organisation, or, truly, in any other activist context. Additionally, to read these four areas and to then claim that they form the basis of "identity politics" demonstrates a fundamental misreading. Perhaps this misreading is a motivated one.

danieltillett 8y ago
A couple of questions 1. How big is GetUp here in Australia? How many full time staff? 2. How can you be a postgrad philosopher in both the present and past tense?
- tomlock 8y ago
  1. The information you seek... is found in the first Google result. 2. Counter-question: Is it possible to simultaneously hold a post-graduate degree, and be studying one?
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    1. I would prefer to hear the answer from someone with personal knowledge as not everything you read on Google is true. 2. Yes, but that was not my question.
    - tomlock 8y ago
      Ok, and ok.
TheOperator 8y ago