> A public cycle of criticism Sure. But conversations take time, and always require shared background understanding. A some point, you can't let every conversa

> A public cycle of criticism Sure. But conversations take time, and always require shared background understanding. A some point, you can't let every conversation devolve into rebuilding the foundations of mathematics from axioms. Authors have a responsibility to explain their ideas to a reader with a "reasonable" background of shared knowledge. If a long dialog ensues that reveals that reasonable shared background is neither reasonable nor shared, then great. But if the dialog devolves into a back-and-forth with obstinate readers who both refuse to enter into shared background understanding (e.g. not putting in any work, by not doing suggested background research or flat out disagreeing on basic premises like matter is made of atoms, etc) and simultaneously have really strong opinions, then everything gets derailed. So critics do have some responsibility to know what they are talking about as well.