Ideologies are like accents. Everyone has one. For some people, that ideology is the rejection of ideologies unconditionally.
693 karma · joined December 8, 2014
That is not Descartes conclusion or my conclusion.
To Descartes, the person as experienced in a priori thought has a special primacy over all other existing things. While "s" may be doubted due to its a posteriori nature, the self is fundamentally undoubtable in its existence, hence "I think therefore I am".
To Descartes, the existence of a priori thought is the building block of all logic and personhood.
I only take it when I feel a twinge in my calf. I figure I'm probably deficient in magnesium or something. Even if it is a placebo, it seems to work.
If you can't clearly define a category, any intrinsic traits of that category are not ascribed clearly to individuals. Any uncertainty, even on the margins, makes the definition uncertain. Clear definition is a lack of uncertainty.
Which ones do you want to discuss the differences, between?
Considering you just invoked appeal to authority, does this seem the slightest bit ironic to you?
> I'm against "science" as a political cudgel. I'm against supporting or rejecting theories based on ideology rather than evidence. I'm against politicians and political activists meddling in science or using selective quoting of unsettled science for political ends.
Awesome. Considering the overwhelming evidence that gender isn't determined in a simple binary fashion, I'm sensing a contradiction here. Have you considered that perhaps you may be wielding a political cudgel of your own?
Science is an authority. It authoritatively endorses the view that climate change is happening, and that gender isn't as simple as just the binary. If you view that as fallacious, you're anti-science.
I think we agree.
Really? Perhaps the author could have dispensed with the use of the term altogether and just talked about...
> their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them.
...and then referred to that as "their concern". But I think the author deliberately reached for the vague, inflammatory and loaded, but convenient name. I think it is simpler to ascribe this to a lack of desire to have a genuine conversation, than a lack of reader charity. Perhaps if the author was attempting to provoke genuine discussion, that attempt would be clear in their choice of words. I'm not particularly keen to write this article for the author in a clearer manner than the one they managed.
What topic? What word choice?
My point stands.
This is because the definition of "political correctness" is different from person to person. It conveniently drifts so people can think they're against some common problem when in reality some people use it to veil homophobia, and others to complain about postmodernism.
It's a convenient term, but useless. You call someone politically correct and they'll say no. You learn nothing about their position, you only get to engage in some petty name calling. Feels good, right? Maybe we should stick to the factual matters, the specifics of what legislation and culture is too "politically correct" for you.
Working for a short time on an outdated technology is not necessarily a red flag.
Organizations should exclude people that have already purchased products from seeing ads for those products - but they almost unanimously do not.
If relevance is what people want, given the data google has about my transport habits, shouldn't I see zero car ads? Or, is perhaps that too creepy? Or maybe, google has no incentive to make advertisers pay less money on useless, irrelevant ads. Or, maybe the marketing manager who paid for the ads doesn't care to optimize their spend because the CMO doesn't care to - both of them want to say they're responsible for the largest budgets and BIGGEST audiences ever (which by the way is the reason TV ad campaigns are still so prevalent, they look good on resumes).
Do marketers have time to understand complex ML models with hundreds of variables? No. Biggest audience possible, please and thank you.
What evidence is this claim based on?
> They were students at one point certainly, but the circumstances and mentalities of every generation of students differs. To claim there's an inconsistency is to claim you know why enrollment in these disciplines might be down (assuming it is), which you don't. And that tells you nothing about the influence of these subjects outside of academia.
Saying "they were students" is meaningless. I am pointing out the decline in student numbers because the claim that these disciplines are increasing in power is inconsistent with that... and you still haven't stated what fields you think are in those disciplines.
> Right, the hoax highlights the poor methodology common in this field,
No it doesn't, it highlights how easy it is to get bad articles into academic journals, which is also true of many other disciplines.
> The results from this field have guided a lot of policy, in government, in industry, and in academia. As but one example, Google has pushed a number of initiatives to improve diversity, initiatives that are logically impossible to implement and that are legally discriminatory (and for which they are now being sued).
Please show how these disciplines and diversity initiatives are causally linked.
> In every case, there has been no legitimate basis, and so those distinctions were torn down.
The change of ideology through history is more complex than you'd like to believe.
> Except we're now reaching a point where factual distinctions are themselves being torn down, because science itself is being questioned. Here be dragons.
There's no evidence of this. This is a conspiracy theory.
> A single calculation error is not the same as a whole field that eschews scientific methodology. Which isn't to say that other fields don't suffer from biases and errors as well, but they have processes in place to rectify them, and your article points out exactly how this happens.
...it seems you believe Art and Creative Writing are "grievance studies".
And your claim was this was "far worse than the replication crisis"... how? Vast economic policy changes versus what, exactly?
> That's not inconsistent.
Yes it is - to claim that these academics (who are accused of being postmodern neomarxists) can recruit corporate, capitalist HR departments, but not recruit more students, is inconsistent.
> Maybe, but that doesn't somehow negate the harm from grievance studies,
What harm? What harm do you think is specifically proven by this hoax or any other paper?
> You've alleged that I said there are thousands of papers that are making this claim, rather than what I actually said, which is that there are thousands of papers, articles, blogs and posts that have debated this claim. The latter is easily verified by looking at google search results without even going into the academic literature. The former is a clear attempt at casting me as unreasonable making absurd and overreaching claims.
Sorry for misreading you. I thought you were making a non-trivial claim that people in academia were debating the scientific method. If you're making the claim that non-academics are debating a subject, that's a pretty trivial thing to say. Flat earth, anyone?
> I agree. And yet, that doesn't negate the evidence that a particular academic field does advance claims that are equally dangerous, nor does it negate the evidence that such a field has influence that isn't congruent with the empirical evidence.
Awesome, lets discuss all the "dangerous claims" that this academic field is making. This hoax has nothing to do with the field's "claims", but I'm happy to talk about specific claims in specific papers, and compare their acceptance and their magnitude. I would much prefer that discussion to one where we allude to a vast academic conspiracy that doesn't exist.
> There is no legitimate "scientific justification" for awful things. Certainly some people have claimed scientific justification for awful things, but that does not entail that such justification actually exists.
See, here's the core of the point. If scientists and presumably, people like yourself, were so sure they'd found scientific knowledge previously, and it "didn't exist", couldn't the same doubt exist for the claims you make today? Who gets anointed to decide what scientific knowledge does, or does not, exist? Perhaps all these academics saying that we must be suspect of anyone who proclaims such a thing have a point.
> That's a very different claim to saying that such myths should be given equal weight as demonstrable facts, and that science has no particularly unique or meaningful claim to truth about the natural world over other views. That's patently false.
I'm happy to discuss papers that you think make those claims.
>The concern, as I have often heard it repeated, is that by being so capricious, unbearable and aggressive, the personality type associated with "grievance studies" will ruin any social goodwill held towards academics, along with their reputation for being more right than the average person.
Lets be entirely honest here. You do think this conspiracy is happening.
It is just name calling and dog whistling. The reason "grievance studies" is used is that just like "sjw" and "politically correct" its an evasive term designed to be loosely defined, so people can read what they want into it.
If you say to someone "you're engaging in grievance studies" they'll say "no". That's the limit of the debate you'll have with them, by your own design.
No amount of "university cringe compilations" or videos on prageru will get anyone close to the truth of what happens on university campuses. To claim that university students in particular, the people that are most likely to be exposed to different disciplines, are broadly unable to recognize their own academic "cultures" is absurd.