4 ms·

If I were to make a mathematical argument sloppy enough to be open to hostile mistranslators and then on top of that address reviewer's psychology instead of ho

If I were to make a mathematical argument sloppy enough to be open to hostile mistranslators and then on top of that address reviewer's psychology instead of holes she might tried to poke, text would get outright desk rejection on resubmission. In science the odium lies on the philosopher to put forward his idea robustly. Not on the reviewers to understand it in the most favourable light and then... believe?

mannykannot 9y ago
The scope of mistranslations is boundless, so this will not work - and what principle absolves the willful mistranslators of this obligation, anyway?
- thraway180306 9y ago
  So you advise to scope on the reviewer hypothetical beliefs and personality next time? That is bound to succeed and show my analytical prowess? Even in uncharitable (and possibly mistranslated by me being critiqued!) case her points are baseless and manufactured?
  - mannykannot 9y ago
    Too much willful misinterpretation defeats the purpose of critical analysis, and where would that leave the humanities? - it would leave them wallowing in irrelevant self-referentiality, where everyone is talking past everyone else.
    - thraway180306 9y ago
      You are sidestepping the question, engaging in practice of irrelevance you highlight. Is debating the mistranslator a becoming reply? Moreover you said them making a case somehow casts shadow on the critic's analytical powers, where in fact starting debates around their intents bypassing the issue put forward points the exact opposite.
      - mannykannot 9y ago
        On the contrary, you are sidestepping the issue. There is a difference between, on the one hand, discussing what troubles you about a work, and on the other, attributing that which troubles you to that work (and its author), without justification. On the subject of sidestepping the question, you have still not explained why responders are absolved from the burden of precision that you have put on the creators of original works.
        thraway180306 9y ago
        I didn't notice you posing this problem. Frankly I don't understand the difference you announced you'd be trying to make. 1) Discussing a critique, 2) attributing critique to a work being criticized and its author without justification? What was your point? About the equal standards. You would be shaken to discover reviewers are not held to the them by the journals and this is by design. Because, as I first said, the burden of making the argument robust is on the original work, not on the critics to robustly scrutinize beyond all doubt. I think you ignored what I started with, and then mistranslated me sidestepping anything.
        mannykannot 9y ago
        There's an amusing irony here - you are claiming that I have mistranslated you, but by the claim you made in your first post in this thread, that would be because you have been too sloppy in your statement of your position. In this one case, I might agree with you.
        thraway180306 9y ago
        That's only because I choose to be illustrative with that last sentence. Without me making parallel with that sloppy logic of mistranslation, you'd be just convoluted and shown wrong by the previous ones, and I might as well rest my case on that.
sethrin 9y ago
I'm sure that "odium" isn't too far wrong, but I believe the word you intended was "onus". One should probably not conflate mathematical proofs and empirical evidence in this context. Mathematics allows for certain proofs, where no belief is required, but this is not true for any empirical science. I wouldn't recommend ever betting against the laws of thermodynamics, but at some point you have to take a leap of induction, if not of faith.

mannykannot 9y ago

The scope of mistranslations is boundless, so this will not work - and what principle absolves the willful mistranslators of this obligation, anyway?

thraway180306 9y ago
So you advise to scope on the reviewer hypothetical beliefs and personality next time? That is bound to succeed and show my analytical prowess? Even in uncharitable (and possibly mistranslated by me being critiqued!) case her points are baseless and manufactured?
- mannykannot 9y ago
  Too much willful misinterpretation defeats the purpose of critical analysis, and where would that leave the humanities? - it would leave them wallowing in irrelevant self-referentiality, where everyone is talking past everyone else.
  - thraway180306 9y ago
    You are sidestepping the question, engaging in practice of irrelevance you highlight. Is debating the mistranslator a becoming reply? Moreover you said them making a case somehow casts shadow on the critic's analytical powers, where in fact starting debates around their intents bypassing the issue put forward points the exact opposite.
    - mannykannot 9y ago
      On the contrary, you are sidestepping the issue. There is a difference between, on the one hand, discussing what troubles you about a work, and on the other, attributing that which troubles you to that work (and its author), without justification. On the subject of sidestepping the question, you have still not explained why responders are absolved from the burden of precision that you have put on the creators of original works.
      - thraway180306 9y ago
        I didn't notice you posing this problem. Frankly I don't understand the difference you announced you'd be trying to make. 1) Discussing a critique, 2) attributing critique to a work being criticized and its author without justification? What was your point? About the equal standards. You would be shaken to discover reviewers are not held to the them by the journals and this is by design. Because, as I first said, the burden of making the argument robust is on the original work, not on the critics to robustly scrutinize beyond all doubt. I think you ignored what I started with, and then mistranslated me sidestepping anything.
        mannykannot 9y ago
        There's an amusing irony here - you are claiming that I have mistranslated you, but by the claim you made in your first post in this thread, that would be because you have been too sloppy in your statement of your position. In this one case, I might agree with you.
        thraway180306 9y ago
        That's only because I choose to be illustrative with that last sentence. Without me making parallel with that sloppy logic of mistranslation, you'd be just convoluted and shown wrong by the previous ones, and I might as well rest my case on that.

sethrin 9y ago

I'm sure that "odium" isn't too far wrong, but I believe the word you intended was "onus". One should probably not conflate mathematical proofs and empirical evidence in this context. Mathematics allows for certain proofs, where no belief is required, but this is not true for any empirical science. I wouldn't recommend ever betting against the laws of thermodynamics, but at some point you have to take a leap of induction, if not of faith.