The claim - that you can dismiss what is asserted without evidence - is itself asserted without evidence. Therefore, by its own terms...
-
Yes, you keep repeating that. My point: your insistence that only your interpretation is correct is highly uncritical.
I think we might have had this conversation before... it's ringing a few bells. I think my interpretation is entirely reasonable! :)
-
-
Um, yes, but what you think abt it is neither here nor there. Critical thinking ≠ being satisfied that one’s opinion is critical.
-
Right, but discussions about the purview of critical thinking are somewhat undermined by a 140 character limit! :)
-
Poor excuse. One can have a discussion over more than one tweet, you know? Kind of like we’ve been having right now, w you replying 5 times.
-
It's a perfectly reasonable excuse! We're not really discussing anything. We're talking past each other.
-
More specifically: you are not engaging w my criticism that your interpretation is unreasonably narrow. You just repeat your assertion.
-
Right, because I don't think what you think is my interpretation is my interpretation, but I don't want to spend 20 tweets figuring it out!
-
You cld have tried to figure it out in one of your 7 tweets so far, but for some reason you didn’t even try. Which baffles me.
-
Why does it baffle you that somebody wouldn't think Twitter is the best medium for this sort of thing?
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I mean, wld it hurt to acknowledge that there’s a broader meaning of “can” than just physical possibility? & that “evidence”=pars pro toto?
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.