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 all!" > > 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. --And.