Ancient Alexandria as imagined by the 16th-century Netherlandish painter Maarten van Heemskerck, via Short History. |
Wingnuts went crazier than usual when Alexandria Ocasio-Córtez seemed to be saying that after overwhelming Democratic majorities pushed through the New Deal the Republicans stopped FDR from winning a third election by passing term limits, which makes no sense (how could they, if Democrats had overwhelming majorities?) and is also historically not true (that's the part the wingnuts noticed). Hahahaha, is your cute congresswoman really that ignorant?
Sadly, no, as a great blog team used to say. She's not perfect, but what she did was to blow a line she's been using correctly since well before her election:
First Semester Report Card @AOC— Eric Bolling🇺🇸 (@ericbolling) March 31, 2019
US History F
Econ 101 F
Math 101 F
Meteorology F
Interpretive Dance A https://t.co/lkM1PCTkLe
She knows perfectly well what happened, as she has noted before at her Facebook page. https://t.co/8lGzxUIH1F This is a trivial flub, not ignorance. pic.twitter.com/v5dJqCxDYF— Collusion Delusion (@Yastreblyansky) March 31, 2019
@AOC also gave me an opportunity to introduce the Radio Yerevan joke to Twitter, thanks to Some Dude's interpretation of a group temper tantrum by Jordan Peterson and colleagues over the famous dictum from the introduction to Margaret L. Andersen and Patricia Hill Collins, eds., 1992, Race, Class, and Gender: An Anthology,
the idea that objectivity is best reached only through rational thought is a specifically Western and masculine way of thinking -- one that we challenge throughout this book—which may be good feminism but isn't good postmodernism, by the way, with its presupposition that some kind of pure objectivity is attainable and desirable, or good Popperianism either, I think, in which we believe objectivity is a mirage, not a property of humans at all, and the aim is toward a kind of perfect intersubjectivity where we all agree on what is definitely false and the standards for further progress.
Peterson, of course, is unaware of any modern or postmodern epistemology at all, to say nothing of the intellectual context of this statement or its origin in the Reflections on Gender and Science of Evelyn Fox Keller, 1985, who had no intention of repudiating objectivity, quite the opposite:
Ruth Watts, 2013, Women in Science: A Social and Cultural History. |
I responded:Watch this remarkable exchange to understand, why some people like @AOC think that personal subjective experiences and thoughts emerging from such experience can replace objective science based on data analysis when discussing #ClimateChangehttps://t.co/18Tk6KkdM7— Ned Nikolov, Ph.D. (@NikolovScience) March 30, 2019
It's LUNACY!
...the only well-attested example I can find of people substituting subjective experience for objective inquiry is a 2014 study https://t.co/95IEoaLHF7 where people in cold climates denied research findings pic.twitter.com/zQ2aLv0Fzj— Collusion Delusion (@Yastreblyansky) March 31, 2019
And second of all, objective scientific inquiry doesn't usually get submitted to peer-reviewed journals under pseudonyms as Dr. Nikolov that later have to be withdrawn https://t.co/IoEZ28kHaG#RadioYerevan pic.twitter.com/jdSwgFiDDA— Collusion Delusion (@Yastreblyansky) March 31, 2019
And third of all, I'm pretty sure AOC herself hasn't done any of those things, correct me if I'm wrong.— Collusion Delusion (@Yastreblyansky) March 31, 2019
No comments:
Post a Comment