4 ms·

This is not responding to the point. It's fine to know where your information is coming from and what biases might motivate that information. It's not fine to

This is not responding to the point. It's fine to know where your information is coming from and what biases might motivate that information. It's not fine to imply that because someone studies a topic they are necessarily untrustworthy on that topic - which is how I read your earlier comment. If you use the "I can't trust X because he studies on this" line of thinking then anything outside of the mainstream will be hard to take seriously. Amateurs advocating weird idea X won't be taken seriously because their advocacy will be amateur. Experts will be dismissed because they have a career interest in X.

swatcoder 4y ago
Huh. That’s interesting that you standing by that reading of my original comment. I assumed you just misread it and so tried to respond constructively regardless. It’s certainly not the intent of what I wrote, nor something that I would even take credit for saying generally. I don’t really even see it there now, but I guess that’s the nature of reading one’s own writing. It’s easy to read it the way you meant, and can be hard to see all the different angles others might take on it.
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  You wrote that the author is "trying to make a living" off of things like crop circles and that this fact suggests the author "could be more motivated by making sales" than honest inquiry. I'm surprised you had another meaning in mind apart from trying to discredit the author for the subject of his study.
  - swatcoder 4y ago
    You seem to be completely ignoring the words “self-published”, and the followup comment re-emphasizing how that’s critically relevant in case you missed it. You also seem to be ignoring where I’m very careful not to discredit the author or the work, saying that neither his source of income or mode of publication speaks authoritatively against the actual veracity or quality of the work, and that they are simply things to be aware of as one personally interpret the work. Since I agree with you, I’m happy to hack at the strawman with you (“expertise comes in many forms and shouldn’t be rejected simply because there are other incentives involved!”), but it really just doesn’t feel like you’ve been engaging with what’s actually in the text as written.

swatcoder 4y ago

Huh. That’s interesting that you standing by that reading of my original comment. I assumed you just misread it and so tried to respond constructively regardless. It’s certainly not the intent of what I wrote, nor something that I would even take credit for saying generally. I don’t really even see it there now, but I guess that’s the nature of reading one’s own writing. It’s easy to read it the way you meant, and can be hard to see all the different angles others might take on it.

ALittleLight 4y ago
You wrote that the author is "trying to make a living" off of things like crop circles and that this fact suggests the author "could be more motivated by making sales" than honest inquiry. I'm surprised you had another meaning in mind apart from trying to discredit the author for the subject of his study.
- swatcoder 4y ago
  You seem to be completely ignoring the words “self-published”, and the followup comment re-emphasizing how that’s critically relevant in case you missed it. You also seem to be ignoring where I’m very careful not to discredit the author or the work, saying that neither his source of income or mode of publication speaks authoritatively against the actual veracity or quality of the work, and that they are simply things to be aware of as one personally interpret the work. Since I agree with you, I’m happy to hack at the strawman with you (“expertise comes in many forms and shouldn’t be rejected simply because there are other incentives involved!”), but it really just doesn’t feel like you’ve been engaging with what’s actually in the text as written.