<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
 <rdf:RDF xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/" xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/">
  <channel rdf:about="http://pinboard.in">
    <title>Pinboard (Vaguery)</title>
    <link>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/public/</link>
    <description>recent bookmarks from Vaguery</description>
    <items>
      <rdf:Seq>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12850?campaign=woletoc&amp;ai=-1&amp;ui=4zbui&amp;af=H"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://stateofnatureblog.com/adam-kotsko-political-theology-neoliberalism/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/neoliberalsim-donald-trump-george-monbiot"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.6714"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/too-beautiful-to-be-real/"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/25/988523/-Michele-Bachmann-rejects-the-whole-of-conservative-economic-theory-in-one-typed-sentence"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/02/10/how-to-be-wrong-continued/"/>
      </rdf:Seq>
    </items>
  </channel><item rdf:about="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12850?campaign=woletoc&amp;ai=-1&amp;ui=4zbui&amp;af=H">
    <title>Expert or Esoteric? Philosophers Attribute Knowledge Differently Than All Other Academics - Starmans - 2020 - Cognitive Science - Wiley Online Library</title>
    <dc:date>2020-08-29T12:43:34+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.12850?campaign=woletoc&amp;ai=-1&amp;ui=4zbui&amp;af=H</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Academics across widely ranging disciplines all pursue knowledge, but they do so using vastly different methods. Do these academics therefore also have different ideas about when someone possesses knowledge? Recent experimental findings suggest that intuitions about when individuals have knowledge may vary across groups; in particular, the concept of knowledge espoused by the discipline of philosophy may not align with the concept held by laypeople. Across two studies, we investigate the concept of knowledge held by academics across seven disciplines (N = 1,581) and compare these judgments to those of philosophers (N = 204) and laypeople (N = 336). We find that academics and laypeople share a similar concept of knowledge, while philosophers have a substantially different concept. These experiments show that (a) in contrast to philosophers, other academics and laypeople attribute knowledge to others in some “Gettier” situations; (b) academics and laypeople are much less likely to attribute knowledge when reminded of the possibility of error, but philosophers are not affected by this reminder; and (c) non‐philosophy academics are overall more skeptical about knowledge than laypeople or philosophers. These findings suggest that academics across a wide range of disciplines share a similar concept of knowledge, and that this concept aligns closely with the intuitions held by laypeople, and differs considerably from the concept of knowledge described in the philosophical literature, as well as the epistemic intuitions of philosophers themselves.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>sociology philosophy sociology-of-philosophy academic-culture worldview looking-to-see</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:fd4014136698/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology-of-philosophy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worldview"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:looking-to-see"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://stateofnatureblog.com/adam-kotsko-political-theology-neoliberalism/">
    <title>Adam Kotsko The Political Theology of Neoliberalism - state of nature</title>
    <dc:date>2018-10-01T11:39:49+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://stateofnatureblog.com/adam-kotsko-political-theology-neoliberalism/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Neoliberals do rely on libertarian rhetoric, but libertarianism is basically neoliberalism for fools. When neoliberals are talking amongst themselves, they always acknowledge that a strong state is absolutely necessary to their agenda. This is because markets do not spontaneously arise in the absence of state interference, or in other words, markets are not natural. They must be artificially constructed, and so one way of defining neoliberalism is as a project to use state power to cultivate or create markets so that people will be forced to be free in the neoliberal sense.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>neoliberalism interview quotes hey-I-know-this-guy to-write-about fascism political-economy financial-crisis capitalism worldview</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:ba988e40d35a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:neoliberalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:interview"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:quotes"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:hey-I-know-this-guy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:to-write-about"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:fascism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:political-economy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:financial-crisis"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:capitalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worldview"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/neoliberalsim-donald-trump-george-monbiot">
    <title>Neoliberalism: the deep story that lies beneath Donald Trump’s triumph | George Monbiot | Opinion | The Guardian</title>
    <dc:date>2017-01-15T12:44:18+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/neoliberalsim-donald-trump-george-monbiot</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[As I warned in April, the result is first disempowerment then disenfranchisement. If the dominant ideology stops governments from changing social outcomes, they can no longer respond to the needs of the electorate. Politics becomes irrelevant to people’s lives; debate is reduced to the jabber of a remote elite. The disenfranchised turn instead to a virulent anti-politics in which facts and arguments are replaced by slogans, symbols and sensation. The man who sank Hillary Clinton’s bid for the presidency was not Donald Trump. It was her husband.

The paradoxical result is that the backlash against neoliberalism’s crushing of political choice has elevated just the kind of man that Hayek worshipped. Trump, who has no coherent politics, is not a classic neoliberal. But he is the perfect representation of Hayek’s “independent”; the beneficiary of inherited wealth, unconstrained by common morality, whose gross predilections strike a new path that others may follow. The neoliberal thinktankers are now swarming round this hollow man, this empty vessel waiting to be filled by those who know what they want. The likely result is the demolition of our remaining decencies, beginning with the agreement to limit global warming.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>populism neoliberalism politics worldview</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:17c621a8308a/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:populism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:neoliberalism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:politics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worldview"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.6714">
    <title>[1411.6714] The Digital Humanities Unveiled: Perceptions Held by Art Historians and Computer Scientists about Computer Vision Technology</title>
    <dc:date>2014-11-27T11:51:51+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.6714</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[Although computer scientists are generally familiar with the achievements of computer vision technology in art history, these accomplishments are little known and often misunderstood by scholars in the humanities. To clarify the parameters of this seeming disjuncture, we have addressed the concerns that one example of the digitization of the humanities poses on social, philosophical, and practical levels. In support of our assessment of the perceptions held by computer scientists and art historians about the use of computer vision technology to examine art, we based our interpretations on two surveys that were distributed in August 2014. In this paper, the development of these surveys and their results are discussed in the context of the major philosophical conclusions of our research in this area to date.
]]></description>
<dc:subject>digital-humanities sociology sociology-of-science academic-culture worldview rather-interesting philosophy</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:98fcabb96d43/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:digital-humanities"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:sociology-of-science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:academic-culture"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worldview"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:rather-interesting"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:philosophy"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/too-beautiful-to-be-real/">
    <title>Too Beautiful to Be Real | Unreal Nature</title>
    <dc:date>2014-07-03T11:22:02+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://unrealnature.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/too-beautiful-to-be-real/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA[… Napoleon’s biography is not only true but probable. On the other hand, one would say that the world of the Iliad, whose temporality is that of tales and where gods enter into human affairs, is a fictional universe. Indeed; but Madame Bovary truly believed that Naples was a different world from our own. There happiness flourished twenty-four hours a day with the density of a Sartrean en-soi. Others have believed that in Maoist China men and things do not have the same humble, quotidian reality that they have here at home; unfortunately, they take this fairy-tale truth for a program of political truth. A world cannot be inherently fictional; it can be fictional only according to whether one believes in it or not.

]]></description>
<dc:subject>belief worldview cultural-assumptions narrative literary-criticism his</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:049702d0e6bd/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:belief"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worldview"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:cultural-assumptions"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:narrative"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:literary-criticism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:his"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/25/988523/-Michele-Bachmann-rejects-the-whole-of-conservative-economic-theory-in-one-typed-sentence">
    <title>Daily Kos: Michele Bachmann rejects the whole of conservative economic theory in one typed sentence</title>
    <dc:date>2011-07-03T12:10:38+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/25/988523/-Michele-Bachmann-rejects-the-whole-of-conservative-economic-theory-in-one-typed-sentence</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><description><![CDATA["What to make of all this? First of all, it means that Michele Bachmann is a Keynesian. No, Michele, not a Kenyan: a Keynesian, an adherent to an economic theory loathed by conservatives but recognized as common sense by most others, and which supposes the need for government policy interventions in otherwise free markets. This very nearly makes Bachmann a Communist, according to her own party: luckily, Tea Party conservatives can count on the remarkable vapidity of their supporters in order to dodge such sticky political contradictions."]]></description>
<dc:subject>culture-clash conservatism worldview economics public-policy all-words-are-water</dc:subject>
<dc:source>https://pinboard.in/</dc:source>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:ede0dd401211/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:culture-clash"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:conservatism"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worldview"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:economics"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:public-policy"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:all-words-are-water"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/02/10/how-to-be-wrong-continued/">
    <title>Seth’s blog » Blog Archive » How to Be Wrong (continued)</title>
    <dc:date>2008-02-18T00:55:08+00:00</dc:date>
    <link>http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/02/10/how-to-be-wrong-continued/</link>
    <dc:creator>Vaguery</dc:creator><dc:subject>bias research explanation data exploration exploitation models science worldview</dc:subject>
<dc:identifier>https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/b:3ddbc211993d/</dc:identifier>
<taxo:topics><rdf:Bag>	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:bias"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:research"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:explanation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:data"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:exploration"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:exploitation"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:models"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:science"/>
	<rdf:li rdf:resource="https://pinboard.in/u:Vaguery/t:worldview"/>
</rdf:Bag></taxo:topics>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>