4 ms·

I'm saying the author's analogy is not nuanced enough, and the analogy I presented is a better fit. I also fail to see how his informal, throw-away analogy anal

I'm saying the author's analogy is not nuanced enough, and the analogy I presented is a better fit. I also fail to see how his informal, throw-away analogy analogy could possibly undermine the arguments presented in the remainder of the paper. Those arguments and the empirical data that follows are exactly why I think my analogy is better, but it seems silly to dismiss the remainder of a paper based on that flawed analogy.

calf 4y ago
I'm not dismissing the paper, I still have it bookmarked. But I already don't like an author who can't write the first 9 pages convincingly and then require the reader to read the rest of it. I'm also seeing this paper circulated on social media so I automatically start squinting when random people start promoting it that way. A quick search on Google shows that the author has had a 10 year long back and forth disagreement with cognitive linguists such as Chomsky's colleagues. That's a bit of omitted context that this social media amplification does not help with when portraying ongoing research debates.