4 ms·
> Can you clarify how this isn't what you mean? How is what you're saying different from what I interpreted it as meaning? No, because that’s just an argument
by klodolph 3y ago
> Can you clarify how this isn't what you mean? How is what you're saying different from what I interpreted it as meaning?
No, because that’s just an argument about “who said what” and nobody cares about that stuff.
If you had some response you wanted to make about the content of what I said, then I missed it. I don’t know what your viewpoint is at all, except about what the definition of “quackery” is, which is apparently important. If you made some kind of response to the content what I wrote, I missed it.
- keiferski 3y agoThis conversation is entirely unproductive. I’ve said twice now that the phenomenon you described (and mislabeled as quackery) is called “talking past each other” and it’s a common criticism. I then linked you to a paper discussing this, and I agreed with you that this is a problem. The definition of quackery is relevant here, because it implies that philosophical works exist which are deliberately “fake” or pretending to be philosophy when they aren’t. A doctor that is unproductive and wastes everyone’s time isn’t a quack, they’re just unproductive. The phenomenon you described is therefore not quackery, it’s just being unproductive in a way often referred to as “talking past one another.” This is just a rehashing of the exact same thing I already said. I cannot make this any more clear.
- dse1982 3y agoYou do care obviously, and understandably, since you want to be recognized as competent regarding language and communication. But then you should react more openly and be grateful for the feedback you get, since it enables you to improve your communication-skills. Not correctly using a term or not knowing a better one does not make you any less in any meaningful way.