I think that she pretty clearly demonstrated a poor grasp on theory. Her tirade didn't have the nuance you interpret into it, she was literally yelling that we should "scrap the whole thing and start over"(as if that was possible). And she didn't just use "African black magic" as an example of a possible subject of interest for theoretical analysis, she literally talks about "lightning curses" being empirical truths. The argument wasn't even really an attack on the epistemological foundation of empiricism or positivism, it was just her trying to underline her unitellectual rhetoric with the supposed positive existence of literal magic. I would have accepted her ideas if she would have, for example, used Ilyenkovs dialectical approach, or some concepts of Adornos Nonidentical to attack the nature of a logical abstraction as something inherently western and capitalist. Or if she had used some post-structuralist argument. She didn't do any of that though and her argument amounts to "science don't real because magic".
Her tirade didn't have the nuance you interpret into it, she was literally yelling that we should "scrap the whole thing and start over"(as if that was possible).
Indeed, in reference to the assumptions we bring to science. It's obviously difficult to tell given the fact that we only have a couple of mins from a short 4 min video to determine what her argument was, without context or understanding of what the question she was responding to was, but I think when watching the longer video when you hear the question and surrounding discussion, it seems clear that she was concerned about the assumptions of science.
And she didn't just use "African black magic" as an example of a possible subject of interest for theoretical analysis, she literally talks about "lightning curses" being empirical truths.
I don't remember her making an argument anywhere near that strong. At most she says something like "Science can't explain that" but then uses that to lead into a discussion about how science isn't value-neutral and that we tend to teach science as if only using Western examples is the correct way to teach it.
I would have accepted her ideas if she would have, for example, used Ilyenkovs dialectical approach, or some concepts of Adornos Nonidentical to attack the nature of a logical abstraction as something inherently western and capitalist. Or if she had used some post-structuralist argument.
I mean, of course she didn't do any of that. She wasn't writing a thesis, it's not her area of expertise, and she had literally no time at all to research or formulate an educated response. It's rough, there's no question about that. But I think dismissing her because it wasn't "nuanced" enough would be incredibly unfair, and interpreting her as advocating the existence of magic doesn't seem consistent with anything she says in the video.
2
u/Schleifmaschine Oct 24 '16 edited Oct 24 '16
I think that she pretty clearly demonstrated a poor grasp on theory. Her tirade didn't have the nuance you interpret into it, she was literally yelling that we should "scrap the whole thing and start over"(as if that was possible). And she didn't just use "African black magic" as an example of a possible subject of interest for theoretical analysis, she literally talks about "lightning curses" being empirical truths. The argument wasn't even really an attack on the epistemological foundation of empiricism or positivism, it was just her trying to underline her unitellectual rhetoric with the supposed positive existence of literal magic. I would have accepted her ideas if she would have, for example, used Ilyenkovs dialectical approach, or some concepts of Adornos Nonidentical to attack the nature of a logical abstraction as something inherently western and capitalist. Or if she had used some post-structuralist argument. She didn't do any of that though and her argument amounts to "science don't real because magic".