Academic commentary

Andrew Mason · 02 Dec 2010, 14:50 · 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: Thu, 2 Dec 2010 14:50:32 +0000
Subject: (urth) Academic commentary
Message-ID: <AANLkTik74RnPrKVV00FOv3zNF5D9PJBdVTTcsf35=jzG at mail.gmail.com>

Thomas Bitterman wrote:

> It is not legitimate. ?It is a logical fallacy to judge the validity
> of an argument by referring to the motivations of the person who makes
> the argument.

That is a fallacy, without question. However, I remain unconvinced
that anyone here is doing it. If someone were to argue 'Wright has
such and such motives; therefore he is wrong', that would be
fallacious. But what I think people are actually saying is 'Wright is
wrong' (for reasons that have been extensively discussed over a period
of years - they don't convince everyone, but they exist). 'Now, how
can we explain his coming to this wrong conclusion?' At this point
motives become relevant.

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