1/ Four ways to evaluate an idea. A quick thread, on four words: history, consequences, support, criticism.

2/ A. Try to understand something of the origin of the idea or thought since all ideas have a history. Where does it come from? What journey did it take to get here? Even if the answer is approximate, a sense of the idea's past is better than assuming it emerged out of thin air.
3/ B. Look at the implications of the idea. Ideas, as Richard Weaver says, have consequences. All thoughts lead to other thoughts, and may end up with specific concrete expressions in the world, too. What does that idea imply? What could it lead to if taken (too) seriously?
4/ C. Try to understand what sort of support or foundation might sustain the idea. This amounts to trying to see the idea in the best light. What research supports it? What arguments have been made? What wisdom has been tested regarding the idea?
5/ D. Look at objections to the idea. Look for (possible) negatives and missed nuances. Is the foundation flimsy? What does it fail to account for? What criticisms can be or have been made of the idea?
6/ Of course, each of these concerns could possibly require a dissertation, depending on the idea in question, but even having a minimum awareness of these dimensions (history, consequences, support and criticism) can help to deepen understanding. Isn't that nice?

More from All

You May Also Like

Tip from the Monkey
Pangolins, September 2019 and PLA are the key to this mystery
Stay Tuned!


1. Yang


2. A jacobin capuchin dangling a flagellin pangolin on a javelin while playing a mandolin and strangling a mannequin on a paladin's palanquin, said Saladin
More to come tomorrow!


3. Yigang Tong
https://t.co/CYtqYorhzH
Archived: https://t.co/ncz5ruwE2W


4. YT Interview
Some bats & pangolins carry viruses related with SARS-CoV-2, found in SE Asia and in Yunnan, & the pangolins carrying SARS-CoV-2 related viruses were smuggled from SE Asia, so there is a possibility that SARS-CoV-2 were coming from
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?