4 ms·

I’m very interested in the discipline of respectful enquiry but this passage rang some alarm bells: > Street Epistemology started life as a method to discuss r

I’m very interested in the discipline of respectful enquiry but this passage rang some alarm bells: > Street Epistemology started life as a method to discuss religious belief in the 2013 book A Manual for Creating Atheists. Is it just me, or is there (or was there) an agenda here that’s in conflict with its claims about creating understanding? With apologies for the pun, were they “good faith” conversations?

guerrilla 4y ago
They've discussed the ethics of this a few times on the live show. Some practitioners think the attitude is wrong, other's don't... but now it's spread so much that background viewpoints are pretty diverse anyway with even Christians doing it, ironically due to their evangelism. On the other hand, I think Anthony Magnabosco[1] doesn't hide it well sometimes in his interviews, which I think some of his interivewees pick up on and it harms the process. In any case, I think this is the most important kind of activism their is and nobody needs to be part of their original community to do it or do it for the same reasons. 1. https://www.youtube.com/c/AnthonyMagnabosco210 https://www.youtube.com/c/AnthonyMagnabosco210
sasaf5 4y ago
Essentially "I am rational therefore I am right". Another passage that rings a bell: > Today the method has a life of its own, driven by a community of people interested in discussing difficult topics, seeking truth and reflecting on the methods we use to arrive at our deep convictions.
- feet 4y ago
  >Essentially "I am rational therefore I am right". Sounds like basically the entirety of philosophy
  - avs733 4y ago
    not really. It is a specific school of philosophical thought - and the basis of a lot of the critiques of science, positivism.
  - ww_wpg 4y ago
    > > Essentially "I am rational therefore I am right". > Sounds like basically the entirety of philosophy That's the opposite of the experience I've observed. The starting point for a lot of philosophy students is learning the teachings of Plato and Socrates, among which the most famous is likely "I know that I know nothing"
    - nescioquid 4y ago
      The spirit of searching interrogation is there, along with Socrates' daemon who, Socrates said, prevented him from saying anything untrue (I'm hamming it up here). The philosophical prototype of Socrates also gives license to be a gad-fly, piss people off for a good cause, etc. Instead of offering to pay a modest fine when he was found guilty of corrupting the youth, Socrates was so certain of his rectitude he told the court he should instead be awarded free meals for life like the Olympic champions. Now there's someone with chutzpah.
  - collegeburner 4y ago
    There are plenty of schools of thought that start with "I am not likely rational" or "I can't know if I'm rational".
- Self-Perfection 4y ago
  What is alarming in this passage? Seems innocuous to me.
otikik 4y ago
If you see religion as something good, or even neutral, to humanity, then of course there is (I would probably say was) a mismatch between the claims and the objectives. If you see religion as an overall bad influence - more specifically, as "the opposite of understanding", then both are (were) aligned.
swayvil 4y ago
Even if you are biased, striving for truly rigorous arguing can lead to much insight about arguing itself. Dissecting your own philosophy as well as that of your "opponent".
robobro 4y ago
Peter Boghossian was an old instructor of mine at PSU. As a B or C-tier "new atheist" who wasn't quite on tenure track, it was interesting seeing how he tried to get attention. He was pretty solid in his lectures outside of politics and religion -- he was generally well-read and was very entertaining, but seeing him trying to "trigger" people on those topics made a lot of students groan. He had a small group of students who would follow him around everywhere and he would ask the class and his clique to promote and astroturf him on Reddit, Wikipedia, et al. Which is valid... I guess it's better if his students are doing it than him? A few times on campus, he was seen coaching students who were later identified by a local antifascist group as being linked to "the Daily Stormer" -- which I have mixed feelings about; I truly believe everyone deserves to have tools for better thinking, but you're right to suspect Boghossian as possibly having agendas. In a direct response to your last question, he did get in some hot water for bad faith academic publishing that produced questionable benefits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair I'll say that people criticizing RMS doesn't make the libre software movement bad, and it doesn't invalidate his accomplishments.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  I had him as well in 2012. He was fun back then, but I think a little bit of fame has gotten to his head. I think he wants to get people to really think about their beliefs, why they have them, and if it's reasonable to have them, but his methods are indistinguishable from bad faith trolls that are "just asking questions" (aka, JAQing off). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxvyeZa1YSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxvyeZa1YSI
  - a9h74j 4y ago
    I took his book as disingenuous. "How to have difficult conversations" ... to change the minds of people who are wrong per definition.

guerrilla 4y ago

They've discussed the ethics of this a few times on the live show. Some practitioners think the attitude is wrong, other's don't... but now it's spread so much that background viewpoints are pretty diverse anyway with even Christians doing it, ironically due to their evangelism. On the other hand, I think Anthony Magnabosco[1] doesn't hide it well sometimes in his interviews, which I think some of his interivewees pick up on and it harms the process. In any case, I think this is the most important kind of activism their is and nobody needs to be part of their original community to do it or do it for the same reasons. 1. https://www.youtube.com/c/AnthonyMagnabosco210 https://www.youtube.com/c/AnthonyMagnabosco210

sasaf5 4y ago

Essentially "I am rational therefore I am right". Another passage that rings a bell: > Today the method has a life of its own, driven by a community of people interested in discussing difficult topics, seeking truth and reflecting on the methods we use to arrive at our deep convictions.

feet 4y ago
>Essentially "I am rational therefore I am right". Sounds like basically the entirety of philosophy
- avs733 4y ago
  not really. It is a specific school of philosophical thought - and the basis of a lot of the critiques of science, positivism.
- ww_wpg 4y ago
  > > Essentially "I am rational therefore I am right". > Sounds like basically the entirety of philosophy That's the opposite of the experience I've observed. The starting point for a lot of philosophy students is learning the teachings of Plato and Socrates, among which the most famous is likely "I know that I know nothing"
  - nescioquid 4y ago
    The spirit of searching interrogation is there, along with Socrates' daemon who, Socrates said, prevented him from saying anything untrue (I'm hamming it up here). The philosophical prototype of Socrates also gives license to be a gad-fly, piss people off for a good cause, etc. Instead of offering to pay a modest fine when he was found guilty of corrupting the youth, Socrates was so certain of his rectitude he told the court he should instead be awarded free meals for life like the Olympic champions. Now there's someone with chutzpah.
- collegeburner 4y ago
  There are plenty of schools of thought that start with "I am not likely rational" or "I can't know if I'm rational".
Self-Perfection 4y ago
What is alarming in this passage? Seems innocuous to me.

otikik 4y ago

If you see religion as something good, or even neutral, to humanity, then of course there is (I would probably say was) a mismatch between the claims and the objectives. If you see religion as an overall bad influence - more specifically, as "the opposite of understanding", then both are (were) aligned.

swayvil 4y ago

Even if you are biased, striving for truly rigorous arguing can lead to much insight about arguing itself. Dissecting your own philosophy as well as that of your "opponent".

robobro 4y ago

Peter Boghossian was an old instructor of mine at PSU. As a B or C-tier "new atheist" who wasn't quite on tenure track, it was interesting seeing how he tried to get attention. He was pretty solid in his lectures outside of politics and religion -- he was generally well-read and was very entertaining, but seeing him trying to "trigger" people on those topics made a lot of students groan. He had a small group of students who would follow him around everywhere and he would ask the class and his clique to promote and astroturf him on Reddit, Wikipedia, et al. Which is valid... I guess it's better if his students are doing it than him? A few times on campus, he was seen coaching students who were later identified by a local antifascist group as being linked to "the Daily Stormer" -- which I have mixed feelings about; I truly believe everyone deserves to have tools for better thinking, but you're right to suspect Boghossian as possibly having agendas. In a direct response to your last question, he did get in some hot water for bad faith academic publishing that produced questionable benefits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair I'll say that people criticizing RMS doesn't make the libre software movement bad, and it doesn't invalidate his accomplishments.

Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
I had him as well in 2012. He was fun back then, but I think a little bit of fame has gotten to his head. I think he wants to get people to really think about their beliefs, why they have them, and if it's reasonable to have them, but his methods are indistinguishable from bad faith trolls that are "just asking questions" (aka, JAQing off). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxvyeZa1YSI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxvyeZa1YSI
- a9h74j 4y ago
  I took his book as disingenuous. "How to have difficult conversations" ... to change the minds of people who are wrong per definition.