Critical theory is a communicable memetic mental disorder.
By the very implied claim that you make that mental disorders exist, you also imply that there is such a thing as ordered mental states, correct patterns of thought, and healthy logical reasoning. This is a bold claim! You would do well to have less black-and-white reasoning.
The "nearly" that I am exempting is for those things which are logically deduced from other things alone. While a person might reason incorrectly based on faulty premises, they are nonetheless using reason to do so, and applying it in a logical fashion (cf "formally formal" logic proofs). The right lesson to take away, I think, is that being logical, being consistent with empirical observations, and being uncontradicted by dialectic evidence, are three distinct things, and none of them are the truth, if the truth even exists.
Is a purely deductive field and have no connection to reality, it's all about dealing with pure mathematical objects.
> physics
Exists within a strong empirical framework, which allows us to verify models, not just construct them.
Critical theory gives no verification framework whatsoever to prove or omit its statements.
You may be interested in Aumann's Agreement: If two reasoners disagree, then either their reasoning differs, or their prior observations differ. It seems to me that typically it is the priors that differ. So why stigmatize folks for differing reasoning? Perhaps there is no good reason.
When I use a regular expression, I have an intent to model an understanding. Some people may not have that vocabulary at all - my spouse, for instance. Some may be far more fluent than I. The point is: I have observed my understanding to be disordered or incomplete. I further observe that is the default state until I apply a degree of attention.
"Stigma" is an inaccurate model for when we don't have the resources to align another's goals with our own - goals which must include a baseline of wellbeing for every other. Persons suffering harmful hallucinations - or other harmful mental states - should be treated for them, but "stigma" is a blunt indicator to avoid conferring responsibility on those persons - I hold it an error to involve hatred or indifference. Our deficiencies in understanding are pervasive. I would not ask my spouse to develop a regular expression. They would not ask me to perform a phrase from a Mozart sonata.
Nope. There are scientific, verifiable, objective things (and nobody cares about epistemological problems).
As other post told: rockets fly, internet connects etc.
And there are subjective matters, like ethics, aesthetics, art, beauty.
Now, subjective doesn't mean bad. What I really dislike is things like philosophy (which critical theory is part of), which tries to cover subjective opinions with obscure rhetoric to make them appear as facts.