Interesting case! Paper was posted on bioArxiv, which invites open peer review. Your primary concerns are with Kriegeskorte’s lack of tact, and with content of his review. Hence you leave an open rebuttal. Correct? Is it better in the open? What should not have been open?
-
-
Yeah, that sounds like an interesting philosophical tangent :)
-
I think it's' central to
@ProfData's blog post though. How well do you know your English history?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F … -
In my opinion, you are now comparing a call for (violent) action in an explicit or thinly veiled way to a reviewer sourcing views from other scientists after critical scrutiny. The latter is not invited by the source, whereas the former is.
-
So now you have read into my words (a metaphor) something other than the point I was making. Am I responsible for how you just read my words?
-
No, your intention might have been very different than my reading. What you and Kriegeskorte have in common is that neither of you expressed an explicit wish for a particular thing to be. (BTW, this distinction is an interesting legal issue! It often limits what free speech is.)
- 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.
