4 ms·

What radical idea he was teaching?

titanix2 8y ago
Probably something like the existence of only two sexes.
gumby 8y ago
If you read his work: that religion is as epistemologically valid as the physical sciences. I assume this is why he was dismissed from the tenure track early in his career there.
- basetop 8y ago
  That is discussed in every philosophy department. Epistemology isn't a "settled topic" and open to debate and discussion. Claiming that religion is just epistemologically valid as physical science isn't controversial. No more than saying mathematics is just as epistemologically valid as physical science. Or art is just as epistemologically valid as physical science. Why would anyone be dismissed from a tenure track for that? Pretty much every philosophy professors argues for that position.
- swebs 8y ago
  That's not what he said at all. From the paper linked above: https://sites.duke.edu/evancharney/files/2014/09/Liberal-bias-and-the-five-factor-model.pdf https://sites.duke.edu/evancharney/files/2014/09/Liberal-bia... Statement 1 of the "open to experience" section of a popular personality test is the following: >1. I believe that we should look to our religious authorities for decisions on moral issues. (Agree: Openness score goes down) He claimed this introduced a political bias, stating: >Statement 1 reflects a liberal ideological bias against religion. Is reliance upon scientific authorities, for example, close-minded? Granted, the question concerns moral decisions (so let us assume that science cannot resolve questions of right and wrong). Why, then, is reliance upon religious authorities as opposed, for example, to philosophical or ethical authorities or, simply, moral experts, singled out as an instance of close-mindedness? Academics often rely upon authorities when making decisions on moral issues (e.g., the authority of John Rawls when considering matters of distributive justice), although they would likely be uncomfortable characterizing this as reliance upon an authority (even if it is)
  - gumby 8y ago
    This is how I interpret his statement “Statement 1 reflects a liberal ideological bias against religion. Is reliance upon scientific authorities, for example, close-minded?” And in fact it’s a false dichotomy as the term “authority” in religious contexts (catholic and Protestant Christianity, non-orthodox Judaism, hinduism, Islam and Buddhism at least and likely others)has an assertive meaning utterly different from the same term used for scientists (not that such a term is particularly used in the sciences anyway) I don’t know enough to say whether dropping his contract might be legit or not, I was simply answering the op question. Given how conservative his employer is, there are quite likely more problems than he alluded to.

Probably something like the existence of only two sexes.

If you read his work: that religion is as epistemologically valid as the physical sciences. I assume this is why he was dismissed from the tenure track early in his career there.

basetop 8y ago
That is discussed in every philosophy department. Epistemology isn't a "settled topic" and open to debate and discussion. Claiming that religion is just epistemologically valid as physical science isn't controversial. No more than saying mathematics is just as epistemologically valid as physical science. Or art is just as epistemologically valid as physical science. Why would anyone be dismissed from a tenure track for that? Pretty much every philosophy professors argues for that position.
swebs 8y ago
That's not what he said at all. From the paper linked above: https://sites.duke.edu/evancharney/files/2014/09/Liberal-bias-and-the-five-factor-model.pdf https://sites.duke.edu/evancharney/files/2014/09/Liberal-bia... Statement 1 of the "open to experience" section of a popular personality test is the following: >1. I believe that we should look to our religious authorities for decisions on moral issues. (Agree: Openness score goes down) He claimed this introduced a political bias, stating: >Statement 1 reflects a liberal ideological bias against religion. Is reliance upon scientific authorities, for example, close-minded? Granted, the question concerns moral decisions (so let us assume that science cannot resolve questions of right and wrong). Why, then, is reliance upon religious authorities as opposed, for example, to philosophical or ethical authorities or, simply, moral experts, singled out as an instance of close-mindedness? Academics often rely upon authorities when making decisions on moral issues (e.g., the authority of John Rawls when considering matters of distributive justice), although they would likely be uncomfortable characterizing this as reliance upon an authority (even if it is)
- gumby 8y ago
  This is how I interpret his statement “Statement 1 reflects a liberal ideological bias against religion. Is reliance upon scientific authorities, for example, close-minded?” And in fact it’s a false dichotomy as the term “authority” in religious contexts (catholic and Protestant Christianity, non-orthodox Judaism, hinduism, Islam and Buddhism at least and likely others)has an assertive meaning utterly different from the same term used for scientists (not that such a term is particularly used in the sciences anyway) I don’t know enough to say whether dropping his contract might be legit or not, I was simply answering the op question. Given how conservative his employer is, there are quite likely more problems than he alluded to.