Regarding this recent @dailynous piece: imho, the number of hidden premises for any argument is potentially infinite. @lastpositivist
-
-
Replying to @FrueheNeuzeit @dailynous
Aye, salience judgements are required.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lastpositivist @dailynous
But salience decisions are made by readers, not by authors.
#reviewer2 teaches a valuable lesson there.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FrueheNeuzeit @dailynous
You do your best, get feedback, etc. It’s no part of my proposal that we could automate, or perfect, adherence to our own standards.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lastpositivist @dailynous
This boils down to the suggestion to lay out some premises. Isn't that a non-starter?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @FrueheNeuzeit @dailynous
I don’t think it boils down to that, but even if it did why is it a non starter?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @lastpositivist @dailynous
You start from a diagnosis: current stuff is sloppy with premises. We need more premises!
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
You now concede that not all premises are created equal. Some are more salient than others.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
... and secondly the focus of the post was more about arguments in favour of conventional standards, rather than outlining the standards.
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.