Pants-of-dog wrote:I see.
You are incorrectly assuming that any criticism of the scientific method, correct or not, logically demands that the critic must dismiss the scientific method at any point where there is conflict regardless of anything else.
That is an unrealistic and illogical assumption.
Certainly mere criticism is not enough. However, an outright rejection is a different matter isn't it?
One can criticize the scientific method yet still think it's the best epistemic approach we have figured out this far.
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, this caricature of standpoint epistemology that you use is based on unrealistic and illogical assumptions, such as the assumption that people who use it think it is 100% accurate all the time.
It is ridiculous to assume that CRT scholars do that.
You still did not answer the question, though. What does the fact that standpoint theory can lead to concluding two mutually exclusive claims are true say about its quality as an epistemic approach?
In that situation, I would just do away with it and turn to a different one to be able to tell which claim is actually true, or to say if I can't take a position on their veracity, explaining why.
PataOneil wrote:I did answer your question. I said I don't know.
Then why would you claim it's widespread in American society, perhaps even incurable?
PataOneil wrote:So, what kinds of language and terms would a judge have to use to convince you that s/he were pursuing a pattern of systemic racism through law?
I'll give it a thought as it may depend on the situation but you could perhaps infer it if the judge is using over the top stereotyping (for instance, and even more so if it goes against how judges are require to reason their rulings), but it's not necessarily about language is it? You may also see if there are any differences in the judge's opinions for similar situations but for defendants and plaintiffs of different races.