On 2 Dec 2014 09:05, "Patrik Austin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> If you knew the first thing about Davidson, you'd have understood by now
that doing logic and philosophy with disrespect to the principle of charity
is of no value. This means in practice that while you're looking for a
quick way to refute what I just pointed out above, you should realise that
whatever yeah-buts you may find, it's too dangerously likely to be
something I've figured out long ago.
> It's also too easy to call someone's theory names. "Strange." "Idiotic."
"Stupid." As if: "Look at this guy: he's so dumb he can't even spell his
own name right, and yet he's back waving his so called research like a red
rag only to be beaten again… Let's finish this nonsense for once and for
> It may seem to some people as if you're having a strong case, but the
reality is that the only single argument you've come up with so far is ad
populum, repeated ad nauseam in different ways.

It is you who has thoroughly failed to exercise the principle of charity,
in imputing unreason to Alex's wholly reasonable criticisms.

Alex (and Ray and me and Logan) spelt out multiple criticisms explicitly.
The harshness and stridency of the criticism from Alex (and me) has been
compelled partly by the poor quality of the work (but this would in other
circumstances be forgivable for someone only just at the start of a PhD on
largely uncharted territory), but primarily by your inability to use the
criticism to remedy the faults criticized and improve your work; and also
by the inconsiderateness of the video (-- I no longer had the goodwill
necessary to spend the time checking it out, and am glad to have saved
myself the time).

In the realms of conlanging and academia you're unlikely to find people
with more interest and expertise in the ostensible subject of your research
than you have in Alex, Logan and me (tho for each of us it's a long or long
long long way from our central research interests), and furthermore your
ideas have been received here with not only more interest and more
expertise but also more charity than they are likely to receive elsewhere.

Free time is scarce and precious to me, and in the previous threads
involving your work I have ended up not writing what I had to say, because
I had so little trust that you would heed it. In taking the trouble to
respond frankly to you, Alex was being generous to you in a way I was no
longer willing to.