I don't agree with your conflation. I DO agree, however, that in as much as any curator will be biased (because, human), best to have many.
-
-
Replying to @Christakou
So many is... just like every other field within a single curator, right?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Christakou
So you're agreeing linguistics was/is pathological when in the grip of a single curator/dictator because they are inevitably biased?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Christakou
I think we've come a to good agreement then.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
If you say so. FWIW, there are countless talented young academics who will never fullfil their potential; this problem is domain general.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @o_guest @Christakou
You think more curators are good and for example, cog neuro has way more "big figures" than linguistics did/does.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Christakou
And I posit that allows for more ideological discussion and theoretical expansion than a single person who gets to decide what is good.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @Christakou
You seemed to agree with that notion and even proposed it, hence why I said we agree. But maybe I'm wrong and we don't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
χαχα νάναι όχι νάνε 
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.
