I don’t even know where to start. I only have some basic philosophical knowledge, especially when it comes to the philosophy of science, and even I can see what a bunch of hogwash and strawman-building this is:
- The OP states that feminist thinking is “typically hostile to science and mathematics”, no evidence given. There are some radically postmodern feminist groups who believe that science and its methodology only show certain consistent results because they were done and invented by mostly (white, cis, hetero) men (and therefore should be discarded), but no one, not even other feminists take them this seriously. They make for good strawmen of “all feminists” though. Don’t get me started on all the ways that anti-progressives deny science…
- Objective knowledge of the world IS impossible, by the simple fact that we are bound by our senses, the comprehension abilities of our mind and the rather specific circumstances of our environment (both terran and universal). But that’s not what science is about in the first place! In contrast to religions, science only ever makes approximate, not truth statements. We can create models which somewhat explain and predict how the world works, but we do know that these models are not the objective truth, that’s why we continue to research after all! We are constantly improving our models, but we are aware that they will never be “the full and absolute truth”. And that’s absolutely fine.
- I have yet to find any anti-progressives showing “rigorous scholarship”. Feminism, as in “men and women having equal rights” is not an idea that “cannot sustain itself”. That’s just what you want it to be. “Emotional manipulation”, ah yes. Here the “entirely rational” line of thought would falter anyway, since human beings are never entirely rational. Believing differently is folly at best, hubris at worst (and this guy obviously thinks of himself as “rational”, so it’s the latter). Of course there is much emotion in identity politics, they are after all mostly about the discrimination someone experiences as part of a marginalized group. But in what way is that emotional manipulation?
- No, objective truth being impossible to discern doesn’t mean that suddenly anything goes. We humans can prioritize and classify after all. Theories can still be tested if they are scientific, or at least logically thought about using philosophical methods. If they are obviously contrary to Occam’s razor and our empirical methods and models we can still prioritize other theories with more evidence.
- And ultimately this whole screed boils down to the fallacy of seeing ones own ideology and actions as purely rational while those you don’t agree with as emotional and irrational, while not engaging with their arguments at all. But what did I expect from someone who believes to be objectively right.
Anyone know whether the OP is an objectivist? Some of it sounds suspiciously like their train of thought. Don’t know why it’s such a popular philosophy in the US, here in Europe it is usually laughed out of philosophy classes.