You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
What I’m saying is that surely there is at least one of the signatories who can also be afforded this charity. That they are painted with such a broad brush while Carl is defended without any evidence that his defenders have themselves read his work, is the nut of my issue.
What kind of researcher accuses a fellow researcher of such behavior without citing any actual specific misdeeds or any evidence in support? What does your posterior say about their standards of rational discourse?
They made specific citations, of the sorts of analytic and category errors on which they based their judgement. They also request an impartial review of his published work. I don’t think they need to publish a treatise on their objections in order to be considered serious.
That said, I’m no researcher, so maybe my provincial take misses some nuance. On the face of it the criticism of the letter seemed overly uncharitable.
They made no citations at all, and nothing specific/concrete was stated, neither was there a link to anything. I don't understand at all your position. Their behavior is NOT typical of academic disagreement. That is usually resolved thru debate in scholarly outlets.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
