You don’t think I could have read the Areo piece and arrived from a different view than what you explicitly tell me to think? Wow I guess I’m reading articles wrong. I usually don’t accept on faith the authors framing. I would refer you to the article by @Musa_alGharbi for...
-
-
Truly, if you don't take a very close look at the project summary and papers in the Google drive, it's hard to understand the magnitude. And it's not an easy or short read either.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
We are showing what is there. That is in the service of advocating for evidence-based epistemology and consistently liberal ethics but it will only convince people who already value those and needed convincing that these fields lacked them.
-
I just don't understand why Chris won't agree that a work can stand on its own merit without analyzing the characters behind it. We can't agree, and his views on the 3 characters are subjective.
-
I have said repeatedly you can and should assess ‘the work’ on its merit. My argument is that you don’t have to stop there where there are relevant contextual factors. I can point out scientific flaws in creationist paper and note that the authors behind it are tied to ...
-
... an evangelical organisation lobbying for intelligent design to be added to curriculum. You can do BOTH. Arguing latter is irrelevant isn’t true because it will inevitably influence scholarship. You don’t always have such info (day when acting as reviewer) and that’s fine...
-
Well, you can do that if you wish. I'm not going to defend our characters or motivations. There is no defence against assumptions. We have set our motivations out and I know the character of all of us. I think you'd approve but you'll have to make your own mind up.
-
Thanks Helen!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.