I'm sorry, but you can't be serious. My first reaction was to say, yes, Claude has mastered academic slop. Actually to prove such a claim, however, would require that I take the argument seriously and spend time rebutting it. Were I to do so, I would start by inquiring into the essay's lacunae—in particular, the absence of Freud or any consideration of the unconscious, which seems to me of much more moment to questions of "epistemic domination" than anything in Tocqueville or Mill. But how seriously should I take it. I looked up the two cited essays on the notion in footnotes 29 and 30. They don't exist. Irfan Ahmad's essays is not listed on his academia.edu page and it is not included in the Table of Contents of ReOrient 6:2 (2021). As for K. R. Harris in Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 11:1 (2022), the issue does not seem to exist. The current issue listed on the journal's website (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/21612234/current) is vol. 10, no. 4, 2021.
It turns out that Professor Ahmad's paper does indeed exist and had I read more closely or worked harder I might have detected the error, as did Berkeley's Joshua Goldstein, who kindly wrote to point out my oversight.
"It’s called "The Time of Epistemic Domination: Notes on Modernity as an Oppressive Category” and it’s published in ReOrient volume 7, issue 1. Not 6(2) as in the footnote (or at least in the comment’s mention of the footnote)."
Professor Goldstein then goes on to make some interesting points about AI's problems perhaps being more "big picture" than small details—all fascinating, but I hesitate to say more about a persoanl communication without the author's permission.
If only Claude were equally cautious and fastidious!
I'm sorry, but you can't be serious. My first reaction was to say, yes, Claude has mastered academic slop. Actually to prove such a claim, however, would require that I take the argument seriously and spend time rebutting it. Were I to do so, I would start by inquiring into the essay's lacunae—in particular, the absence of Freud or any consideration of the unconscious, which seems to me of much more moment to questions of "epistemic domination" than anything in Tocqueville or Mill. But how seriously should I take it. I looked up the two cited essays on the notion in footnotes 29 and 30. They don't exist. Irfan Ahmad's essays is not listed on his academia.edu page and it is not included in the Table of Contents of ReOrient 6:2 (2021). As for K. R. Harris in Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 11:1 (2022), the issue does not seem to exist. The current issue listed on the journal's website (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/21612234/current) is vol. 10, no. 4, 2021.
It turns out that Professor Ahmad's paper does indeed exist and had I read more closely or worked harder I might have detected the error, as did Berkeley's Joshua Goldstein, who kindly wrote to point out my oversight.
"I looked up the supposedly mistaken reference to Ahmad, Irfan and found, yes, the citation had the wrong volumen number, but no, it was not a hallucination. Here’s the paper url https://www.scienceopen.com/hosted-document?doi=10.13169/reorient.7.1.0072
"It’s called "The Time of Epistemic Domination: Notes on Modernity as an Oppressive Category” and it’s published in ReOrient volume 7, issue 1. Not 6(2) as in the footnote (or at least in the comment’s mention of the footnote)."
Professor Goldstein then goes on to make some interesting points about AI's problems perhaps being more "big picture" than small details—all fascinating, but I hesitate to say more about a persoanl communication without the author's permission.
If only Claude were equally cautious and fastidious!