Here’s my thread responding to @HPluckrose’s responses to my review. I engaged with some of her responses already, especially on their reading of Fricker. She hasn’t replied to the most recent tweet, linked here.
https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1296166107410300929?s=20[1/n]
The next point of contention concerns their treatment of Kristie Dotson—specifically, whether they attribute to Dotson any beliefs about the epistemic value of witchcraft. See our interaction on this issue here:
https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1296160151607472128?s=20[2/n]
Also, @erikdbwestlund sums up the issue succinctly here
https://twitter.com/erikdbwestlund/status/1296161528190775300?s=20[3/n]
Helen’s next tweet notes that they distinguish postmodernists from “applied postmodernists” and “reified postmodernists.” I acknowledge this in my review. “Nevertheless,” she claims, “all the ones we cited use the principles & themes we set out.”
https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/1296155788067643393?s=20[4/n]
That’s precisely the problem. Charles Mills, whom they call a “Theorist” in their chapter on reified postmodernism, does NOT believe in the “postmodern knowledge principle” or the theme of cultural relativism. Thanks to @jasonintrator for this:
https://twitter.com/jasonintrator/status/1296169597721354242?s=20[5/n]
Finally, the questions about Applebaum and Bailey. For anyone interested in reading the relevant works by them, please DM me and I can get you a pdf. I've read them only for the purposes of writing an accurate review of their treatment in the book.
https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/1296156036714438656?s=20[6/n]
Pluckrose suggests we read p102-105 of Applebaum where Applebaum “defends the rule that students will not disagree with the premises.” I’ve attached screenshots of those pages. I can’t find such a defense. 
https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/1296156406899445760?s=20[7/n]
Note that Pluckrose does not actually respond to my criticism of their interpretation of Applebaum, which I attach in full here: [8/n]
Finally: the Bailey article. Here’s what Helen says, and here’s a clip of her giving an erroneous explanation of Bailey’s article in an interview. (Yes, I do my research.)
https://twitter.com/HPluckrose/status/1296157157172355079?s=20[9/n]
But what counts as a shadow text depends on context. Bailey’s distinction between disagreement and privilege-preserving epistemic pushback is explained in the screenshots attached to this tweet:
https://twitter.com/deonteleologist/status/1293538425937653762?s=20[10/n]
I think that’s everything. Let me know if I missed something and I’ll address it. Your move, @HPluckrose. And maybe @ConceptualJames can participate, if he can figure out how to stop acting like a child on this website. [fin]
Just accidentally liked and then instinctively unliked this, but decided to re-like it. Because integrity is important, and I like this thread.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
