3 ms·
OP isn't implying she is incompetent. OP is implying she may not really believe what she wrote.
by waqf 10y ago
OP isn't implying she is incompetent. OP is implying she may not really believe what she wrote.
- nkurz 10y agoI understand. I'm arguing against the original poster's logic, not their conclusion. As I understand it, the argument is that any IP lawyer who believes what is written in that op-ed could not possibly be competent. I'm asserting that this is false, and that the world is full of competent and successful people who believe things that others find to be incomprehensible, and that their beliefs are not evidence that are incompetent. I don't don't know whether Hurst is a true-believer in this case. I do know that there are many smart and talented people who have convinced themselves of things that seem absurd from the outside. Some humans have an amazing ability to align their beliefs with their self-interests. Even in the face of beliefs that can scientifically be proven to be false, this often has surprisingly little negative effect on their competence in their field.
- macmac 10y agoI think this comes down to the definition of competent. I was using using the word in the - perhaps loose - sense, of being able to perform a correct legal analysis of the implications of the outcome of the case. For many purposes your definition is certainly valid, and clearly better explains that she will clearly not be out of a job just because she published what I maintain is a completely invalid analysis.