4 ms·

You're both engaging in some kind of logical fallacy. The author lacks attention to detail but that doesn't mean their content isn't credible. (I'm not saying i

You're both engaging in some kind of logical fallacy. The author lacks attention to detail but that doesn't mean their content isn't credible. (I'm not saying it is credible, I'm saying credibility is unrelated). I see a lot of this and find it very shallow and uninteresting. It's easy to find typos, it's hard to make substantive criticisms and so people go with what's easy. Related, I've worked with people, scientists, that I've asked to provide useful feedback on the scientific aspects other's work, and who instead have come back with typos and grammar suggestions. This is worse than useless.

Ensorceled 3y ago
You’re projecting. Neither of them made any judgement about the quality of the article other than getting the name wrong annoyed them. I think there’s a logical fallacy for that.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway675309 3y ago
Agreed. It's pedantry at its worst. It has all the intellectual substance and contributive value as somebody who writes the word "First" on a YouTube video.
zarathustreal 3y ago
You're arguing against a strawman, neither of them said the content isn't credible (other than the implied "the name's spelled wrong, so don't take that spelling as correct.") >It's easy to find typos If it's easy to find typos.. what does that say about the author? >Related, I've worked with people, scientists, that I've asked to provide useful feedback on the scientific aspects other's work, and who instead have come back with typos and grammar suggestions. This is worse than useless. I'm assuming the work you're referring to is in a written form? Considering that the purpose of writing is communication, considering the fact that incorrect spelling, grammar, syntax and so on makes it harder for a reader to understand what's being communicated, I'd argue that it is in fact not useless. Granted, sometimes people just aren't proficient in the language they're attempting to use and that's okay! Feedback in that case would presumably be welcome. Now if an author is simply declining to put the bare minimum of effort into their work, such as running it through a spellchecker, I think we have a moral obligation to call that kind of behavior out. Edit: Please note the "if...then" before voting or replying, this comment is a series of logical conclusions, not necessarily a direct commentary on the comments above it in this thread. Some of it may apply here, some may not. Logically sound generalizations are more valuable, as they will apply in more situations, than my personal opinion on these specific individuals and comments in this thread

Ensorceled 3y ago

You’re projecting. Neither of them made any judgement about the quality of the article other than getting the name wrong annoyed them. I think there’s a logical fallacy for that.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

throwaway675309 3y ago

Agreed. It's pedantry at its worst. It has all the intellectual substance and contributive value as somebody who writes the word "First" on a YouTube video.

zarathustreal 3y ago

You're arguing against a strawman, neither of them said the content isn't credible (other than the implied "the name's spelled wrong, so don't take that spelling as correct.") >It's easy to find typos If it's easy to find typos.. what does that say about the author? >Related, I've worked with people, scientists, that I've asked to provide useful feedback on the scientific aspects other's work, and who instead have come back with typos and grammar suggestions. This is worse than useless. I'm assuming the work you're referring to is in a written form? Considering that the purpose of writing is communication, considering the fact that incorrect spelling, grammar, syntax and so on makes it harder for a reader to understand what's being communicated, I'd argue that it is in fact not useless. Granted, sometimes people just aren't proficient in the language they're attempting to use and that's okay! Feedback in that case would presumably be welcome. Now if an author is simply declining to put the bare minimum of effort into their work, such as running it through a spellchecker, I think we have a moral obligation to call that kind of behavior out. Edit: Please note the "if...then" before voting or replying, this comment is a series of logical conclusions, not necessarily a direct commentary on the comments above it in this thread. Some of it may apply here, some may not. Logically sound generalizations are more valuable, as they will apply in more situations, than my personal opinion on these specific individuals and comments in this thread