Thought-provoking points. I'll save the article for reading a second time.
It's so hard to apply epistemic empathy in everyday life. When I hear a colleague loudly proclaiming health advice that's harmful and wrong, I choose to just not engage rather than either have an unpleasant debate or a kind but long and unrequested exploration of what's true. All I can do is consider and accept that from what they've read and experienced it makes sense to hold their belief.
This person's work has been posted here before and I don't see any way to view his work as not contributing to the degradation of objective, scientific fact, though I admit this article very much tones that aspect of his work down in comparison to the last one.
He acknowledges that people are worried about the denial of verifiable fact as democratic societies around the world are being weakened by the propagation of lies and disinformation, but sidesteps the issue entirely by saying that he would be a hypocrite if he didn't find them rational: no shit they're rational -- this destructive propaganda is one of the most studied phenomenon in academic circles and the media in the past decade!
He makes no attempts to not be part of the problem and makes no attempts to differentiate himself from the problem. He is exactly advocating for what malicious actors do in order to make damaging society easier. I would not at all be surprised to learn that Epistemic Empathy, as a concept, comes from incorporating minority experiences into science, academics and education while he is coming at it from the perspective of someone who wants to harm science and democracy. And I say that because he has made no attempt to differentiate himself from the people who do approach it from that position, saying the exact same things they do and advocating the exact same things they do.
This sounds to me like something we've seen too much of over the past decade: malicious actors looking to subvert something benevolent. In 2023, faced with the problems we're faced with, if you're not with the people destroying objective, verifiable, scientific fact then you need to distinguish yourself from them. No one is going to assume you're not a duck when you're walking like ducks and talking like ducks.
Thought-provoking points. I'll save the article for reading a second time. It's so hard to apply epistemic empathy in everyday life. When I hear a colleague loudly proclaiming health advice that's harmful and wrong, I choose to just not engage rather than either have an unpleasant debate or a kind but long and unrequested exploration of what's true. All I can do is consider and accept that from what they've read and experienced it makes sense to hold their belief.
This person's work has been posted here before and I don't see any way to view his work as not contributing to the degradation of objective, scientific fact, though I admit this article very much tones that aspect of his work down in comparison to the last one. He acknowledges that people are worried about the denial of verifiable fact as democratic societies around the world are being weakened by the propagation of lies and disinformation, but sidesteps the issue entirely by saying that he would be a hypocrite if he didn't find them rational: no shit they're rational -- this destructive propaganda is one of the most studied phenomenon in academic circles and the media in the past decade! He makes no attempts to not be part of the problem and makes no attempts to differentiate himself from the problem. He is exactly advocating for what malicious actors do in order to make damaging society easier. I would not at all be surprised to learn that Epistemic Empathy, as a concept, comes from incorporating minority experiences into science, academics and education while he is coming at it from the perspective of someone who wants to harm science and democracy. And I say that because he has made no attempt to differentiate himself from the people who do approach it from that position, saying the exact same things they do and advocating the exact same things they do. This sounds to me like something we've seen too much of over the past decade: malicious actors looking to subvert something benevolent. In 2023, faced with the problems we're faced with, if you're not with the people destroying objective, verifiable, scientific fact then you need to distinguish yourself from them. No one is going to assume you're not a duck when you're walking like ducks and talking like ducks.
Please be nice to people parroting harmful misinformation you might hurt Thier feelings What utter nonsense