If you want to know why the Woke ignore statistics, science, facts, and reason, And instead use feelings, emotions, intuition, and "lived experience" then you need to know what the woke mean by "ways of knowing.'
So let's talk about it
A THREAD🧵
2/ Ways of knowing refers to one of the ways the woke think about "epistemology."
Epistemology is the study of human knowledge. That is, the person doing epistemology wants to know what "knowledge" is, how we get knowledge, and what knowledge can be used for.
3/ In the liberal tradition we think knowledge is a belief that is:
1. Truth. (The belief corresponds to reality) 2. Justified. (The person is "justified" or has good reasons to hold the belief.
In the liberal tradition our epistemology revolves around science and reason...
4/ That is, for the enlightenment liberal, if you want to know about the world, you would use the scientific method, and the faculty of reason to determine whether or not a belief is true.
Further, in the liberal tradition. any belief is open to challenge and "falsification."
5/ This means any belief can be challenged by other people and no belief is off limits.
Thus I may argue a belief is false no matter how sacred that belief is to you, and I may try to "falsify" it by showing that the belief is false.
6/ Along with those principles the enlightenment liberal holds to the law of non-contradiction: That contradictory beliefs cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time (if two beliefs contradict they cannot both be true in the same sense, one of them must be wrong)
7/ These beliefs added together provide us a picture of something like "objectivity," which is the idea that ideas, beliefs, and propositions about the world can be "objectively true or false. That is, they are true or false regardless of what anyone says. And that means...
8/ a belief like "The earth goes around the sun" is true regardless of what anyone says or thinks. The belief "the earth goes around the sun" isn't RELATIVE to anyone's opinions, and was true even back in the 12th century when people thought the sun went around the earth...
9/ Because the truth does not depend on what people think. Enlightenment liberals think people in the 12th century who thought the sun went around the earth were OBJECTIVELY WRONG because the TRUTH is the earth goes around the sun, and that was true in the 12th century too.
10/ The result is the enlightenment liberal epistemology uses science and reason to determine objective truths about the world. the enlightenment liberal believes success of the scientific method in allowing us to make predictions about the world is a demonstration of it's...
11/ validity and claims to be an objectively correct method of determining which beliefs about the world are true, and which are false.
So, if you want proof that the scientific method is true look no further then the correct predictions it allows us to make about the world.
12/ This is NOT how the woke see knowledge and epistemology.
The woke have a very different view of what "knowing" is, and as such reject the idea that science ad reason are the best way to know about the world. Let's look at the woke understanding of "knowledge."
13/ The woke understanding of knowledge is different because the woke understanding of truth is different.
In the minds of the woke a statement that is "true" is not considered to be "true" because it accurately describes the world, That is not how they think about truth...
14/ The woke see that people can't agree about how the world really is. Thus, the woke think "truth" refers to the beliefs and ideas that have been elevated by a society or culture to a place of prominence by acclamation or agreement. They see truth as a SOCIAL phenomenon...
15/ So they would say that if critical mass of people in society agree that a certain proposition is the right way to think about the world, then that belief gets bestowed upon it the social status of a "truth." Once that occurs that belief becomes "true" FOR THAT SOCIETY.
16/ So different societies have different views about what is true, and thus each society has different "truths."
This means the woke always consider the fact that each society has a different way of determining what is true and therefore what counts as "knowledge."
17/ Since the woke see "truth" as a matter of social agreement, they see the production of knowledge as being a social, and therefore political, process that is ultimately about power. After all, whoever decides what society thinks is true determines the direction of society.
18/ For that reason the woke always see claims to knowledge as claims to power. That is, if you can persuade society to accept your claims as true, then you can use your claims to put your policies, rules, laws, and procedure into place; and this allows you to wield power.
19/ For this reason the woke think that the enlightenment liberal science and reason are merely the method white european males agree with each other use to decide which beliefs are true (and thus who gets to wield power). The woke would say that the white european way of...
20/ deciding what society believes and who should have power only applies to white European culture. The woke think when enlightenment liberals tell other cultures science is the correct way to know things, the liberals are forcing their culture on other people, colonizing them.
21/ Why do they think that? Because they think the reason liberals tell other cultures science is the correct way to know things is so liberals can use the white European way of knowing to decide white European beliefs are "true" for society, to give the power to white Europeans.
22/ In other words the woke would look at science and say "you are only saying science is the way to know what is true so that you can force your white European beliefs on other cultures and then be in charge of them by deciding what everyone believes."
23/ The woke think the answer to this is to legitimize "other ways of knowing" so that white people don't go around trying to control all the other societies by claiming that science is the way to get things right. Let's look at an example...
24/ Liberals might say the theory of evolution is true, and we can use that theory to set policy with regard to forests. The woke would say "you're just using the theory of evolution to justify controlling indigenous hunting lands." The woke solution would be to....
25/ elevate the indigenous creation myth and say that the indigenous creating story is as true and valid as the theory of evolution, and therefore the theory of evolution can't be the arbiter of forest policy.
See how it works?
26/ Everytime we make laws, rules, or policy in the west we try to figure out what is objectively true (in the liberal sense) so we get the policy that best matches reality. The woke think that we are not being honest with them, or ourselves, when we say that...
27/ They think we're playing a game they see right through, and what is REALLY going on in our example has nothing to do with the best policy. Rather it's just an excuse to control the forest and thus the indigenous hunting lands; a power grab to control indigenous people.
28/ So the woke say the indigenous creation story is as valid and true and the theory of evolution, that way we can't use evolution as an excuse to set forest policy.
Thus the woke say indigenous creation stories and the theory of evolution are equally valid 'ways of knowing'
29/ The point of "ways of knowing" is to pluralize the term used to discuss knowledge. Rather then talking about "epistemology" which indicates there is a study of knowledge with one proper conclusion, "ways of knowing" implies many different but equally valid conclusions.
30/ This means the woke don't believe any method to gain knowledge is objectively correct. There's just different, equally valid "ways of knowing".
This puts emotions, feelings, dreams, stories, and myths on the same level as science for understanding things like cancer research.
31/ So when you see "ways of knowing" this is what they have in mind: declaring that there is no way to decide that one epistemology (way of knowing) is objectively better at producing statements that correspond to the external world than any other epistemology "way of knowing."
32/ This means the woke believe all truth is subjective and in some sense relative.
That's no way to run cancer research, a Covid-19 lab, or for an engineering firm. However, it is what is being taught in our universities, and that should be a wake up call for all of us
/fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/ on racist resentment against white people and racialist identity politics, complete with the racist stereotyping.
This shows a continuity of thinking over a period of a decade, and there has been no take back, or explanation for the disgustingly racist tweets she made.
3/ Chris said he didn't care if she was fired, the point was to use her posts to force the New Yorker to choose between equal enforcement of bans on hiring racists who make racist content, or to be explicit that racism against Jews and whites is allowed...
The game being played by the "sex is a spectrum" people is to engage in a sleight of hand between the ontological question (what makes this thing what it is), epistemological question (how do we know this thing when we see it), and linguistic question (how do we define the word)
The tactic is to attack the definition by blurring the lines between the primary features that make the object what it is and define its function and the secondary features we use as proxy's for identifying the object when we encounter it "in the wild".
For example, the primary features of a pencil are the fact that it has a graphite tip that can be used to write erasable and that it is sized correctly for handwriting.
The secondary features are that it is yellow (on the shaft) and pink (on the eraser)
1/ Leftist activism uses exactly this dynamic as a strategy. The goal is to create hot-takes that generate enormous outrage (IE: Syndey Sweeney ads are fascist) which bait people into reacting by writing response pieces or by dunking on it
2/ By using the negative engagement and dunking as free advertising, the leftists is able to provoke more outrage.
They repeat this process until people have outrage fatigue, and the hot take no longer provokes strong reactions, and stating the hot-take no longer causes outrage.
3/ Once the hot-take no longer causes outrage, leftists repeat it until people are sick of it and it becomes background noise. At this point the hot-take becomes banal, and people begrudgingly accept that the hot take is now just another part of the landscape of public opinion
If you hang around leftist circles enough you'll hear the "nazi bar" parable, and this explains how they think about everything.
They don't see themselves as part of being a social movement based on highly controversial and hotly disputed ideas...
...Leftists think their moral values, and social views are just uncontroversial expressions of what is morally right, and leftism is just what you get when everyone is "being kind" and "being a good person."
In their heads, they are the regular crowd at the bar.
They see leftism as the natural, normal, and healthy state of affairs that occurs when everyone is "being kind," they don't realize that leftism is a worldview and political ideology that is hotly contested, and that's built on a set of social values that are highly controversial
The claim that it is an undue burder to ask women to put any effort at all into their relationships with men is a load bearing pillar of woke feminism.
This paper claims that asking women to interpret what men say is a form of "hermeneutic labor" which harms women.
The paper argues that hermeneutic labor is the emotionally taxing requirement that women should interpreting what men say and how they feel. It also argues that women act as men's therapists by telling men how they feel, and that women do all the relationship maintenance.
The premise of the paper is that women do all the work of interpreting how both people in the relationship feel, and then expressing that so they can both understand. The author basically says that women have been acting as mens' therapists for centuries.