Academic commentary

Andrew Mason · 01 Dec 2010, 22:12 · from 2010-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com (Andrew Mason)
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 22:12:20 +0000
Subject: (urth) Academic commentary
Message-ID: <AANLkTim+D2sh3vfCaG2hPJu6zmvQbWnZvfjKxOxfeJCt at mail.gmail.com>

>James Wynn wrote:
>
>> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote-
>> Thus, while your first statement is necessary it is not sufficient: it
>> is legitimate, and perhaps even necessary, to ask why<critic> ?chooses
>> the methodology s/he does and not some other methodology. The answer
>> to that question is going to be rooted in<critic>'s ideology and
>> metaphysics.
>
> Analyzing an argument by the supposed motives of the arguer can quickly
> go off the rails.

If I understand this discussion correctly, no one is proposing to
analyse an argument by the supposed motives of the arguer.  What is
happening is that people, having decided, by whatever methods are
thought appropriate, that an argument is not a good one, are in
addition speculating about what led the arguer to put it forward.
>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net