Two problems with this argument. First, the flat-earth example is a straw man. A more telling example is creationism. A large advocacy operation, complete with scientific-sounding papers and lectures, has built up around "Creation Science." (Christopher Rufo got his start at one of those organizations, the Discovery Institute). No, it is not good science. But the ultimate decision-makers at universities are frequently not academics but business or political leaders serving as president or trustees. They are not familiar with, and frequently not capable of adhering to, the "epistemic norms" that this article believes will protect us from zealots and idiots. They will cave in to pressure and convince themselves that they are embracing science and viewpoint diversity.
Second, this article dangerously ignores where the command for viewpoint diversity may actually emanate, and who will judge whether it is being followed. In two weeks the U.S. Department of Education launches a a re-write of the rules on federal recognition of college accreditors, recognition that is linked to student financial aid. Previously, accreditors have served as a bulwark against federal intrusion into academic issues. But Trump has cited his recognition authority as his "secret weapon" to exert Victor Orban-style control over higher education. If Trump decides what is illegal orthodoxy, which religious schools are exempt, and what constitutes valid science, God help us.
I plead with HxA to get your head out of the beach volleyball court and recognize that the real threat right now is federal and fascist, not campus and collegial. Otherwise you will wake up in two years and say (to yourself, because it will be unsafe to say it publicly), "Golly it never occurred to me that the epistemic norm would not hold." You have been warned.
"The real threat is federal and fascist" is nonsense. The feds want to get rid of DEI - cause of innumerable cancellations and censorings over the last decade - which is the major strategy of the neomarxists.
Do enlighten us. We need the point of view of “nationally acknowledged experts “ like yourself ( just ask yourself for this accreditation) who thoroughly and charitably read diverse points of view as you did with the original post and respond directly to them and never ever use expressions of them online in order to attach their own agendas skew to the original topic and depart with assertions of logical fallacy to any objection which are never supported so they will look convincing to others of your ilk who also always throughly evaluate and charitably respond to what they read.
Love the article, but there’s a problem: not all academics or university administrators share the conviction that universities are about “evidence and excellence”. The refutation of flat earth theory or creationism requires a commitment to empirical research and critical analysis as the antidote to superstition, yet many universities actively champion the inclusion of similar faith-based theories - such as Indigenous “ways of knowing” - and demand they be incorporated into curriculum. Would those who use the flat earther scenario to oppose viewpoint diversity be willing to extend that critique to other beliefs that are already being promoted at their institutions?
"It depends". I don't think that's a good example, because the phrase covers a lot of ground, from classic right-wing racism, to left-wing noble savage, to people who just want to talk about how hunter/gathers reason about their environment. I tend to get a little suspicious whenever someone wants me to denounce something in a way that's associated with literally centuries of racism, even if some anti-racists are over-correcting. It just doesn't seem comparable to the massive assault on, well, sanity, coming from conservative these days. You might indeed have a point, but the approach puts me on guard.
It sounds like you’re saying that the vibes are off? Of course it’s fine if you personally feel that way about any idea or argument, but if we start from that as a way to reason, then we’re basically saying that arguments that make us uncomfortable are always wrong, or at least not useful. We need a better standard than that.
But I said the exact opposite of "are always wrong", I said "might indeed have a point". However, yes, absolutely, I get bad vibes when something sounds uncomfortably close to bash anti-racists concerned about fighting a massive colonialist racist narrative (and I know that's jargon, but in the same point about vibes, it's accurate phrasing). The rhetorical counter-argument, which can trip up people who haven't been through this, is to say that the anti-racists have made wrong claims (noble savage ideas), therefore one is obligated to furiously bash them alongside a right-wing pile-on heavily featuring exactly that racist narrative. And that also looks like an attempt to morally equivalence orders of magnitude worse stuff like having the Secretary of Health being an anti-vaccine lunatic who is damaging a whole scientific research program.
Truth being independent of politics is different from trying to make that a requirement to pretend all of this political context does not exist.
No need to reach for the hypothetical right-wing historians, just look at the composition of actual economics depts. Are the same smug leftists willing to concede that "economic reality has a right-wing bias"? Of course not. They simply claim discrimination and suppression in that one area. Heads they win, tails you lose.
Two problems with this argument. First, the flat-earth example is a straw man. A more telling example is creationism. A large advocacy operation, complete with scientific-sounding papers and lectures, has built up around "Creation Science." (Christopher Rufo got his start at one of those organizations, the Discovery Institute). No, it is not good science. But the ultimate decision-makers at universities are frequently not academics but business or political leaders serving as president or trustees. They are not familiar with, and frequently not capable of adhering to, the "epistemic norms" that this article believes will protect us from zealots and idiots. They will cave in to pressure and convince themselves that they are embracing science and viewpoint diversity.
Second, this article dangerously ignores where the command for viewpoint diversity may actually emanate, and who will judge whether it is being followed. In two weeks the U.S. Department of Education launches a a re-write of the rules on federal recognition of college accreditors, recognition that is linked to student financial aid. Previously, accreditors have served as a bulwark against federal intrusion into academic issues. But Trump has cited his recognition authority as his "secret weapon" to exert Victor Orban-style control over higher education. If Trump decides what is illegal orthodoxy, which religious schools are exempt, and what constitutes valid science, God help us.
I plead with HxA to get your head out of the beach volleyball court and recognize that the real threat right now is federal and fascist, not campus and collegial. Otherwise you will wake up in two years and say (to yourself, because it will be unsafe to say it publicly), "Golly it never occurred to me that the epistemic norm would not hold." You have been warned.
"The real threat is federal and fascist" is nonsense. The feds want to get rid of DEI - cause of innumerable cancellations and censorings over the last decade - which is the major strategy of the neomarxists.
If I am not mistaken your response, despite its brevity, contains at least two logical fallacies.
Your entire argument is bumf. And I'm not mistaken.
Do enlighten us. We need the point of view of “nationally acknowledged experts “ like yourself ( just ask yourself for this accreditation) who thoroughly and charitably read diverse points of view as you did with the original post and respond directly to them and never ever use expressions of them online in order to attach their own agendas skew to the original topic and depart with assertions of logical fallacy to any objection which are never supported so they will look convincing to others of your ilk who also always throughly evaluate and charitably respond to what they read.
Love the article, but there’s a problem: not all academics or university administrators share the conviction that universities are about “evidence and excellence”. The refutation of flat earth theory or creationism requires a commitment to empirical research and critical analysis as the antidote to superstition, yet many universities actively champion the inclusion of similar faith-based theories - such as Indigenous “ways of knowing” - and demand they be incorporated into curriculum. Would those who use the flat earther scenario to oppose viewpoint diversity be willing to extend that critique to other beliefs that are already being promoted at their institutions?
Correct.
"It depends". I don't think that's a good example, because the phrase covers a lot of ground, from classic right-wing racism, to left-wing noble savage, to people who just want to talk about how hunter/gathers reason about their environment. I tend to get a little suspicious whenever someone wants me to denounce something in a way that's associated with literally centuries of racism, even if some anti-racists are over-correcting. It just doesn't seem comparable to the massive assault on, well, sanity, coming from conservative these days. You might indeed have a point, but the approach puts me on guard.
It sounds like you’re saying that the vibes are off? Of course it’s fine if you personally feel that way about any idea or argument, but if we start from that as a way to reason, then we’re basically saying that arguments that make us uncomfortable are always wrong, or at least not useful. We need a better standard than that.
But I said the exact opposite of "are always wrong", I said "might indeed have a point". However, yes, absolutely, I get bad vibes when something sounds uncomfortably close to bash anti-racists concerned about fighting a massive colonialist racist narrative (and I know that's jargon, but in the same point about vibes, it's accurate phrasing). The rhetorical counter-argument, which can trip up people who haven't been through this, is to say that the anti-racists have made wrong claims (noble savage ideas), therefore one is obligated to furiously bash them alongside a right-wing pile-on heavily featuring exactly that racist narrative. And that also looks like an attempt to morally equivalence orders of magnitude worse stuff like having the Secretary of Health being an anti-vaccine lunatic who is damaging a whole scientific research program.
Truth being independent of politics is different from trying to make that a requirement to pretend all of this political context does not exist.
No need to reach for the hypothetical right-wing historians, just look at the composition of actual economics depts. Are the same smug leftists willing to concede that "economic reality has a right-wing bias"? Of course not. They simply claim discrimination and suppression in that one area. Heads they win, tails you lose.
some truths are beyond doubt. So why heterodox them.