This is a thread about the link between values and knowledge production.

I have values (A) and as a scholar, evidence (B).

When A and B contradict, I follow A.

What you see me tweet is almost always when A and B are present.

(1/13)

A and B are time-ordered and causal.

A leads me to ask certain questions, leading me to B.

This is not bias.

This is a set of values leading you down a particular path of inquiry.

(2/13)

Example: I believe in lowering inequalities between individuals in society (A).

I've been reading quite a few texts about the outdated meritocratic values we have and how they are damaging (B).

I tweet A and B -> We need equality of outcomes at a basic human level.

(3/13)

Example: I have sympathy for people with mental health and addiction issues (A).

I've researched the negative impacts of cyberbullying on kids and (for personal reasons) the impact of poor parenting on kids as adults (B).

I tweet A and B -> words can be violent.

(4/13)

Example: I believe science should focus on human flourishing, not capitalism or the military (A).

I have read things showing how funding in science is heavily skewed towards these ends at the expense of basic science (B).

I tweet A and B -> Science is biased.

(5/13)

Some people cling to (in my view) a naive notion of the institution of science, the scientific method, and knowledge production, and will see this process as a scholar "cherry-picking" or being "biased".

(6/13)

I too say this sometimes as a way of dismissing projects that I think are damaging to society.

For example, my belief about the overall project of Lindsay and Pluckrose is that it is damaging, based on my values.

I say they are "biased" by their politics.

(7/13)

In a way, they are (they are explicitly political).

But the best explanation is that they are doing A and B.

They start with values "classical liberalism", then ask a certain array of questions e.g. ("how is this scholarship going against these values") which then...

(8/13)

...leads them to produce answers ("Cynical Theories").

I am not sure if they are so self-aware, but they should be, as anyone who advances far enough in academia will understand this process.

(9/13)

I bring up these two because the phenomena surrounding them are emblematic. I get the sense that fans of Lindsay and Pluckrose assume that they are producing the "truth" and suspend their critical faculties - Lindsay and Pluckrose ask the questions they want answered.

(10/13)

This is also why John McWhorter and Glenn Loury get a heavy following amongst many right and center white folks, but far fewer black folks (who are leftish). This allows them to generate claims that are accepted readily.

So the question may be what is "truth" then?

(11/13)

The answer in the hard sciences is easy, as the laws of the natural world are external do not care about our values. There is (I believe) a "search for the truth".

I think in the soft sciences, the truth is a "meandering negotiation" contextualized by power and values.

(12/13)

Thus, there should be many approaches and perspectives so that many questions are asked. We need positivist, interpretive, and critical approaches, employed by people from many different identity groups and backgrounds.

This will give us the most A's and the most B's.

(13/13)