= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
sixes_and_sevens comments on How to Avoid the Conflict Between Feminism and Evolutionary Psychology? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (97)
That's not what I mean. I am talking specifically about the statement:
If I were feeling less sporting, I would make a jibe about how well-trained in deconstructivism (deconstructionism?) a person would have to be to find gender bias in the list of ingredients on a box of cereal. Literary textual analysis is not seen as a particularly credible method for deducing facts around here.
The wording of the statement is also worrying, in that it's reminiscent of confirmation bias and Type I errors.
I am not making any kind of comment on any gender-politics issue in my response to you. I am simply informing you that the argument you have chosen to use in this case is an extremely poor match for the audience.
My argument doesn't rest on the claim that literary textual analysis is a credible method for deducing facts. It rests of the claim that feminists use literary textual analysis as a method for deducing facts.
It rests on the claim that the fact that feminists find their facts that way is one of the main reasons for the conflict between feminists and evolutionary psychology.
Your problem is that you can't distinguish a descriptive statement about the truth that some people use literary textual analysis to find facts from a value judgement about whether it's good that they do.