(August 19, 2016 at 8:15 am)Rhythm Wrote: That's where, I'd say, 99% of things fall apart. People dive into some topic with a paper in their hands that, they think, says x. They lack an understanding of the field, and in many cases they lack the ability the manufacture rigorously valid comments and inferences -based- upon what paper they're holding. Instead of discussing the paper, the science, it becomes a tedious and lengthy exploration into basic propositional structure and mechanics.
All to often..we find this this, rather than the subject of the paper, is what folks really wanted to do anyway. Argue over the meaning of words, argue over the availability of knowledge, argue over the rules of inference.
Bah.
But .. but .. but .. what if there are several phrases which can be interpreted as supporting what you already believe. Isn't that is what is called a "valid inference"? *makes quotations with fingers*