Usually when someone claims an question under active discussion has a simple and "obvious" answer then in reality THEY are making an appeal to authority. The fact that the question is under active discussion demonstrates that it's not obvious to everyone what the correct answer is, and the person claiming it is in essence saying that readers should trust them to be right -- and by extension the people to disagree to be wrong.
And the reader should do this in the complete absence of any actual evidence.
But in the absence of evidence, there's no rational way to evaluate which of two or more conflicting claims is right and which is wrong.
Might it be that the problem is downstream of there being too many claims of evidence, and very few people equipped to judge between them? Child gender "medicine" is a good example...
Normie: Surgically transition my child?
Genderists: We have studies! The science is settled!
Normie: How is this different from lobotomies and hysterectomies?
Genderists: It's different this time! Pinkie promise.
Normie: But the Cass Report!
Genderists: But the Cass Report has been DEBUNKED due to Methodological Errors!
How does the normie decide? There are studies on both sides, and claims and counterclaims couched in academic language. What we believe has to be down to how much we trust the person doing the study, and whether the results seem to match common sense, mostly meaning falling back on confirmation bias.
In this context, the sin of science is not that it changed its mind so many times, but that in the past Serious Men in White Coats have been jolly certain about some pretty extreme things with very bad results.
I cannot help noticing that many of your detractors are simply not at your level. Neither am I, but when you write "the problem is not with empirical methods themselves but with replacing them with the same perceptual lens and ideological bias that makes reliance on lived experience unreliable" it is not a casual observation, it is backed up by your years of study and hard work that make you an authority on the subject. And this is why I enjoy and respect what you write. And there are always some simpler take-aways, like "One cannot demand that science change its mind when wrong and simultaneously fault it for new findings contradicting previous findings". Thank you for that one. And for your books, especially ‘Critical Theories’ which was a revelation for me.
Usually when someone claims an question under active discussion has a simple and "obvious" answer then in reality THEY are making an appeal to authority. The fact that the question is under active discussion demonstrates that it's not obvious to everyone what the correct answer is, and the person claiming it is in essence saying that readers should trust them to be right -- and by extension the people to disagree to be wrong.
And the reader should do this in the complete absence of any actual evidence.
But in the absence of evidence, there's no rational way to evaluate which of two or more conflicting claims is right and which is wrong.
I really liked this. Followed.
Thank you, as always, for having the courage to ‘think honestly in public’. Please keep up such incredibly important work.
Might it be that the problem is downstream of there being too many claims of evidence, and very few people equipped to judge between them? Child gender "medicine" is a good example...
Normie: Surgically transition my child?
Genderists: We have studies! The science is settled!
Normie: How is this different from lobotomies and hysterectomies?
Genderists: It's different this time! Pinkie promise.
Normie: But the Cass Report!
Genderists: But the Cass Report has been DEBUNKED due to Methodological Errors!
How does the normie decide? There are studies on both sides, and claims and counterclaims couched in academic language. What we believe has to be down to how much we trust the person doing the study, and whether the results seem to match common sense, mostly meaning falling back on confirmation bias.
In this context, the sin of science is not that it changed its mind so many times, but that in the past Serious Men in White Coats have been jolly certain about some pretty extreme things with very bad results.
I cannot help noticing that many of your detractors are simply not at your level. Neither am I, but when you write "the problem is not with empirical methods themselves but with replacing them with the same perceptual lens and ideological bias that makes reliance on lived experience unreliable" it is not a casual observation, it is backed up by your years of study and hard work that make you an authority on the subject. And this is why I enjoy and respect what you write. And there are always some simpler take-aways, like "One cannot demand that science change its mind when wrong and simultaneously fault it for new findings contradicting previous findings". Thank you for that one. And for your books, especially ‘Critical Theories’ which was a revelation for me.
Something related, perhaps, on the claim by left wing women’s rights campaigners that ‘There is no evidence that people seeking refuge are more likely to commit acts of sexual violence’. https://open.substack.com/pub/mattgoodwin/p/why-wont-they-talk-about-these-crimes?r=23ix4k&utm_medium=ios
I saw the same article and wanted to write a response piece, but you said it better than I could have!
I agree with your view on evidence though I am uncertain that your view of the position you’re contesting is what the author holds.
Why?