... a more in depth examination of the pros and cons and surrounding context of your efforts. I don’t deny you the right to explain your motivation but that doesn’t mean I have to uncritically swallow it.
-
-
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 -
-
-
People in the fields are defending our papers and saying they are sound because they really do work on those premises we are critical of. Our project didn't show that that's a problem. It just showed it to be the case. We have to argue that its a problem.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.