Of course, but I never want to assume. Definitions are important
-
-
Replying to @iDanSimpson
Indeed. Clarifying what someone means is important.I hate getting bogged down in semantics tho. What is meant is more important
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose
How can I tell what someone means without asking? Am I supposed to assume?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @iDanSimpson
Not sure a street epistemology approach works for challenging a pragmatic argument. Better looking at reasoning & circumstance?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Not sure I agree. SE helped me understand James' original statement. He clarified along the way and told me why he believes it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @iDanSimpson @HPluckrose
SE style works equally well on all claims, but the quality of exploration of the validity of justification for certainty of belief often >
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @iDanSimpson
I think it can but when between two ppl who both know how this works, a less formal 'can you explain your reasoning?' better?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @iDanSimpson
Coz the assumption is there that someone requires an intervention to instill doubt re: an unsubstantiated truth claim.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @iDanSimpson
So its a bit uneven for when two people suspect they might have different opinions on strategy re: outcome of an election?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @iDanSimpson
Think that kind of conversation works best on comparing arguments. In this case, it cld be pragmatics vs principles. Not sure.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
If so, both ppl cld argue why their approach is best overall or find that they don't actually disagree at all in process.
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.