4 ms·
I think they bring that up as one of the many ways the original author might disguise their amateurism. It's definitely not a bad thing to write "well", but fak
by zymhan 6y ago
I think they bring that up as one of the many ways the original author might disguise their amateurism. It's definitely not a bad thing to write "well", but faking an authoritative voice is a common problem.
- spekcular 6y agoThe use of "we" is not "faking an authoritative voice," it's just a standard feature of a certain kind of formal writing. I'd be happy to pillory the paper for being bad, but let's not fault the author for at least conforming to standard conventions and making it easy to read and dissect. Waggoner's article is actually more bizarre to me on the second read. The claim does not appear to be that the paper bad, just that interested, non-credentialed amateurs don't get to have (public) opinions, no matter how well-reasoned. While I'm highly skeptical of armchair epistemology a priori, there are plenty of criticisms of the (un)linked article that are more interesting and educational than pointing out it's written by someone without a PhD in epistemology.
- vulcan01 6y ago> interested, non-credentialed amateurs don't get to have (public) opinions, no matter how well-reasoned I don't think that's his intended meaning: "There isn’t enough time to evaluate everything on the merits" from the article.
- BiosElement 6y agoBy problem, you mean a requirement for proper form in an academic or professional paper. This was drilled into me time and time again in college, you 'have' to write in such a manner.