3 ms·
I don't see a problem with the author using a more modern terminology for "cause" than would have existed at the time, to describe what anyone working with lime
by pengaru 6y ago
I don't see a problem with the author using a more modern terminology for "cause" than would have existed at the time, to describe what anyone working with lime plasters appreciates on a basic level; the stuff stays exceptionally white and clean.
Personally I don't like their saying just that it kills off bacteria. It's an antimicrobial/fungicide in general because of its elevated Ph.
I'd prefer the article take the opportunity to educate me about the practical value of lime plaster than restrict itself to the limited education of medeivil minds.
- cgriswald 6y agoYou might not see the problem, but it's factually inaccurate because there is an attribution error. Oddly in this case where the author could have made a correct attribution he used the word "which" which does not ascribe a cause. If he had simply switched "which" and "because" we probably wouldn't be having this conversation, because the sentence wouldn't have been false. It makes me wonder if the author swapped around the rest of the sentence after writing it originally. I don't think anyone is suggesting reducing the information content. Even wanting more is just fine and dandy, but the proper way to do that would be to correctly attribute the reasoning of the time, and then add something along the lines of "which we know today does $x."
- xapata 6y agoEither way, I'm glad we can agree that it's important to be precise with words. Thanks for making my day a little brighter.