Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'epistemology'.
Found 1 result
Sooooo, in policy debate, much like in IRL, most people are sycophants and will imitate whatever other people do. Because of this, absurd social norms can develop over time: like ass-to-mouth or Capitalism. In policy debate one such absurd social norm is misusing the words "ontology" or "epistemology". I do not think many on this site have done this, but in debate rounds its rampant. It doesn't bother me, because I get what you "meant to say", but saying words correctly is important I feel like. To place them in to your context properly so that those concepts contain similar relational metaphors as the connections between those concepts in other people's contexts. Would be the closest to a definition of "interpersonal intelligence" as one can get. What does it look like? "Reject them because of their epistemology" What should it look like? "Reject them because they have bad epistemological foundations" or "Reject them because they re-ingrain a faulty episteme" Why? Because -logy means "study of"!!!!!!!!!! Or "Science of" depending on who you ask, because the word is clearly coming from "logos". So "Epistemology" translates as "study of knowing" or maybe "study of knowledge". So... When you say "reject them because of their epistemology" that translates to "reject them because of their study of knowing" They didn't engage in a study of knowing. YOU are the only one engaging in a "study of knowing" by making problematic the epistemological stance of the aff. Did that all make sense?