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.
-
I took this as starting point, because from a hermeneutic stance the very idea that readers share assumptions with authors is ill-conceived.
but it also doesn’t feel like a response to my post, which really wasn’t focused on outlining premises.Hmm, I mean, the focus is on defence of clarity norms. If it turns out those norms cannot involve too many premises outlined, what’s lost?
-
-
Clarity depends always on background assumptions and these can vary among readers. Is "Two Dogmas" a *clear* text? I find Rorty clearer.
-
I’d actually think of Two Dogmas as a paradigm case of a paper that fails to be clear, lol
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.