... whether they are amateurs: they will often have 2 learn a little about statistics first, or collaborate with someone who can run some of the basic tests; but as I wrote in my thread, the standard way of using stats in medicine & psychology produces loads of type 1 errors ..
Well, let's see. Helen has written here & there about how gender and critical studies *is* her area. Paul is, as I understand, a professional philosopher. Combined, that gives neighboring competence in the basics of a lot of the target fields. What counts as 'unrelated'? ...
-
-
I published a paper recently in a law journal, co-authored with a historian, though neither of us is formally trained in law (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2986449 …). I'm not sure how to read your God's Green Earth claim, accounting for interdisciplinarity and basic scholarly competence
-
If you had to deal with the legal history around the link between bans on circumcision & anti-semitism, you’d struggle, even though circumcision is your hobby-horse. Noting, of course, that the hoaxers had no particular hobby-horse & scattered their papers across several fields.
-
That's true, I would certainly have struggled if that were the focus of my paper. This gives me a better idea of what you were referring to in terms of the degree or kind of unrelatedness of discipline.
-
The legal history is the reason why you are not winning this argument & will likely never win it. I’ve read a lot of your papers & I like Robert’s work, but the use of bans on circumcision to attack Jews looms large; it goes back to the Bar Kochba revolt in 135 AD.
-
I don't call for a ban, and have explicitly argued against doing so in various venues. Most of my work presents moral arguments that I hope people will find persuasive. I'm not sure what measure you are using for 'winning this argument' though I must say
-
It’s just as well you don’t call for a ban, shall we say.
-
I'm really not sure what this comment as saying ... it feels vaguely threatening, but perhaps I am misreading it
-
Your argument would be much weaker if you did call for a ban, but as it is the moral arguments are probably only persuasive to people who are half-way to being on your side already (like me).
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
His name is Peter.
-
Oops, sorry about that, I mixed him up with Paul Boghossian, a philosopher at NYU. I knew that Peter was not that Paul. Rather, I just mixed their names up. I do apologize.
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.