Nothing about a philosopher’s person matters as long as they’re able to put forward coherent philosophical arguments. If a conclusion follows from a set of assumptions and an argument, what does it matter if a five year old or a tree presented that argument?
Sure, if you distrust the source, that invites deeper scrutiny, but it cannot in itself invalidate an argument.
That’s first-order ethics. Some of us have second-order ethics. The philosophical introduction to this is Smilansky’s designer ethics. The wording is fairly odious, but the concept is simple: e.g. Heidegger was a Nazi, and that means that his opinions are suspect even if competently phrased and argued. A common example of this is discounting scientific claims put forth by creationists, intelligent-design proponents, and other apologists; they are arguing with a bias and it is fair to examine that bias.
I’m not continuing the debate, but I’d like to answer your question:
I disagree, the design of technology is political (see Invisible Women) and the use of technology is political (see Marx and I guess the current political era in general).
Only in the absolutely simplest case would I agree, i.e. technology is politically neutral in the sense that a car would still exist if all humans were to vanish tomorrow, and wouldn’t in itself be a political agent, but that’s not really an interesting statement.
Nothing about a philosopher’s person matters as long as they’re able to put forward coherent philosophical arguments. If a conclusion follows from a set of assumptions and an argument, what does it matter if a five year old or a tree presented that argument?
Sure, if you distrust the source, that invites deeper scrutiny, but it cannot in itself invalidate an argument.
That’s first-order ethics. Some of us have second-order ethics. The philosophical introduction to this is Smilansky’s designer ethics. The wording is fairly odious, but the concept is simple: e.g. Heidegger was a Nazi, and that means that his opinions are suspect even if competently phrased and argued. A common example of this is discounting scientific claims put forth by creationists, intelligent-design proponents, and other apologists; they are arguing with a bias and it is fair to examine that bias.
“What do you mean the clock is broken? It’s 12 now, and the clock says 12!”
Thanks!
@SmoothOperator @mountainriver
What’s your position on Codes Of Conduct for free software projects? Just trying to confirm some prejudices here
Could you elaborate? I’m not sure I know what you’re referring to, I’m not a software developer.
@SmoothOperator OK, how do you feel about the statement “technology is politically neutral”?
I’m not continuing the debate, but I’d like to answer your question:
I disagree, the design of technology is political (see Invisible Women) and the use of technology is political (see Marx and I guess the current political era in general).
Only in the absolutely simplest case would I agree, i.e. technology is politically neutral in the sense that a car would still exist if all humans were to vanish tomorrow, and wouldn’t in itself be a political agent, but that’s not really an interesting statement.