3 ms·

> Telling someone to contact the author when the author themself can just...write it down in the initial article is uncharitable. This part of your comment rea

> Telling someone to contact the author when the author themself can just...write it down in the initial article is uncharitable. This part of your comment really amuses me. It's uncharitable of me to suggest reaching out for clarification instead of assuming the author is incapable of clarifying. That's what's uncharitable in this thread. Not the assumption that the author can't clarify their statements, but suggesting reaching out instead of assuming that. I'd ask you to clarify, but you could have just...written it down in your initial comment.

Archelaos 3y ago
I think your interpretation of the meaning of "can't" is excessively sophistical. Of course, if someone does not do something which is to be expected, we can never completely rule out that he might be able to. But this is besides the point here. There is a severe flaw in the author's line of thought, something central he does not clarify. The reader is under no obligation whatsoever to reach out to the author for clarification. The author should have explained it in the first place. The conclusion that he was unable to do so is sound.
- Talanes 3y ago
  Different readers bring different expectations, that's no basis to make any sort of serious argument around.
  - Archelaos 3y ago
    That is too simple. There is a whole academic discipline that makes such serious arguments -- or rather couple of them like the different kinds of literary studies, philologies and philosophical hermeneutics. Not to speak of all sorts of publications, tv talks and other places where people make serious arguments about based on their different perspectives. Tens of thousands of people make a living from that and a lot more study or follow it.
    - Talanes 3y ago
      Tens of thousands of people make a living from debating what authors should expect their readers to already know?

Archelaos 3y ago

I think your interpretation of the meaning of "can't" is excessively sophistical. Of course, if someone does not do something which is to be expected, we can never completely rule out that he might be able to. But this is besides the point here. There is a severe flaw in the author's line of thought, something central he does not clarify. The reader is under no obligation whatsoever to reach out to the author for clarification. The author should have explained it in the first place. The conclusion that he was unable to do so is sound.

Talanes 3y ago
Different readers bring different expectations, that's no basis to make any sort of serious argument around.
- Archelaos 3y ago
  That is too simple. There is a whole academic discipline that makes such serious arguments -- or rather couple of them like the different kinds of literary studies, philologies and philosophical hermeneutics. Not to speak of all sorts of publications, tv talks and other places where people make serious arguments about based on their different perspectives. Tens of thousands of people make a living from that and a lot more study or follow it.
  - Talanes 3y ago
    Tens of thousands of people make a living from debating what authors should expect their readers to already know?