My (Ben's) propositions:
(A) Black Lives Matter is a militant neo-Marxist organization whose real agenda is to replace constitutional democracy & our market-based, mixed economy with intersectional socialism. (B) The central narrative of the Black Lives Matter organization is based on sweeping generalizations about and indictments of systems and groups of people that are in direct contradiction to the findings of the most rigorous quantitative studies. (C) Directly relevant, verifiable facts about propositions (A & B) are directly relevant verifiable facts about propositions (A & B) regardless of who brings them to one's attention. (D) People who disagree about competing claims should be able to agree on consistent standards of evidence by which to evaluate them. (E) If proposition (D) is impossible, then constructive engagement across different perceptions of BLM is probably also impossible and not worth our time and energy.
4 Comments
Jennifer Job
9/14/2020 09:33:57 am
Start with D)
Reply
Ben
9/14/2020 04:01:31 pm
Thanks, Jennifer. Good idea. Let's start with (D) Having an unshakable commitment to equal rights for all human beings, I assume both of us would engage only in consensual interactions with our fellow citizens. Open deliberations about issues of this level of social significance are badly needed and could model the sort of human freedom and conditions of equality I assume we would both like to extend to the world beyond this virtual platform.
Reply
Ben
9/14/2020 04:03:54 pm
#2 I cannot predict whether I will value something I haven’t seen yet. But yes, in general, I believe qualitative studies can be just as rigorous and should be valued just as much as quantitative studies in certain contexts (i.e., not when making sweeping generalizations about entire systems, structures or populations, but when discussing particular cases or as illuminating examples of some social phenomenon we can discuss together). However, I don’t imagine it would be very helpful in our effort to resolve our differences if we attempt to make empirical generalizations about large-scale social phenomena on the basis of appeals to a handful of confirming cases, practical wisdom derived from lived experience, or “received” cultural beliefs. In that case, I think we would both compile a ton of confirming cases but not resolve the problem of what large-scale conclusions to draw from them. Does that sound about right?
Ben
9/14/2020 04:42:29 pm
Note: I should have been more careful making the distinction between the BLM organization and its leadership and many of the people who participate in the movement. I believe the leadership are dangerous people with a disastrous political philosophy. I think many of the people who support the movement did so on the basis of "critical theory" rather than "critical thinking."
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |