[/quote]
Yes it is
I was very interested in your post. I find it, not an attack on academia, but certainly not supportive of the institution. So, I have two questions:
1. If we do not support "scientific and evidence based" analysis of the issues, and perhaps the reaching of conclusions based on those methods, what methods to use? Empirical? Non-evidence based? Assume that your assertion that "they have never expressed an interest" in these issues (bold above) is correct and true. If they are now expressing such interest, isn't that progress? Should we not, at least explore those venues?
2. What if this group is the one that is right? Or do we depart from the default mode that they are wrong, and CANNOT be correct? Wouldn't we be, in doing so, proving them right? The PC, CSJ position is so entrenched that we cannot even discuss (or they cannot offer) a position in which we question the actions innate to PC/CSJ? To me, it becomes borderline Gödelian: CW, an organization that questions Cancel Culture, has to be declared irrelevant
a priori and their position must be cancelled and not heard of because they go against PC/CSJ/Cancel Culture as part of their platform.
I find academia to have something that very few other institutions can claim: a verifiable track record of progress over the time-span of its existence (universities since their foundations). If I were a betting man, I would not bet against our methods. So far, they have been very successful.
Off Topic
I left half the stew marinating some more. I am, to say the least, very interested in your position.
[/quote]
I apologize for not being around the last 24 hours or so. Work interfered.
I am still marinating myself and struggling to articulate a response that actually makes sense. My apologies. But I am not ignoring you.
Translation
