can’t believe I’m leaving this comment as I don’t have the energy to get into this, but as soon as you make the STEM/Straight/curvy distinction like this you give up the game – I’m not wanting airplanes to fall out of the sky either (why always airplanes? he wonders), but by making this distinction we also divorce the ways of knowing from what they end up producing, as if it were some accident that a society built on top of ‘straight knowledge’ ends up with environmental catastrophes, economic collapses, fragmented societies, isolated individuals… Whoops!

By accepting “fit to empirical verifiability” as the ONLY norm for one type of knowledge, one type of knowing, we automatically concede the game, instead of contesting this, situating it alongside the “curvy knowledges” and insisting they live up to the same standards, because in the end, it’s NOT about keeping the plane up in the sky, or not JUST about that.