Let me selectively quote below from Richard Kennaway. It reminds me of epistemic failures that occur in model UN -like competition of ideas that lack a ground truth. See also: competitive debate, (parts of) academic philosophy, etc. Since there is no ground truth there is selection for different kinds of signal: (the appearance of) virtue, ‘nuanced thinking’, ‘transgressive thought’, etc.
(...) Then there are “perspectives” and “extraordinary complexities”, but as far as I can see, no idea of trying to move towards knowledge and away from ignorance. There is only endless discussion, and responses to ideas, and confrontation of this view by that view, and so on. There is no evidence, only suggestive stories, real or imaginary. Nothing is ever disproven, nothing is subjected to any experimental test, there is nothing but an endless game of ideas in which the moves are motivated only by the prize of social power.
This is, however, the usual form that thinking takes in the humanities. It is not the sort of thing that can lead towards knowledge and away from ignorance. The very idea seems out of bounds.
I like this concept a lot. I wish you would expand it. It feels there is more here.
Let me selectively quote below from Richard Kennaway. It reminds me of epistemic failures that occur in model UN -like competition of ideas that lack a ground truth. See also: competitive debate, (parts of) academic philosophy, etc. Since there is no ground truth there is selection for different kinds of signal: (the appearance of) virtue, ‘nuanced thinking’, ‘transgressive thought’, etc.
What is the source of this quote? I’d like to read more, and some searching has not revealed it.Found it, sorry.