BD seems to sideline PKM, but is using the underlying ideas to further his claim that we're forgetful, so capturing thoughts on paper is worthwhile. Seems a bit disingenuous. Maybe sideline the "religious zeal" and take what you need to build your argument here instead?

The colloquial use of the word "ain't" here very specifically pegs James Bruce, the author, as writing his argument for an audience of Christians in the Southern part of the United States. It's even more stark as most of his review is of a broadly scholarly nature where the word "ain't" or others of its register would never be used.

How does the shift in translation really negate room for Jesus? If it was a truism that it stood for Jesus, then couldn't one just as simply re-translate the New Testament to make sure that the space for him is still there? Small shifts in meaning and translation shouldn't undermine the support for Jesus so easily as Bruce suggests, otherwise there are terrible problems with these underpinnings of Christianity.

If one follows Bruce's general logic, then there's a hell of a religion based on Nostradamus' work we're all going out of our way to ignore.

What would historical linguistics have to say about this translation?

This site is not about evolution per se, but is an apologist platform for creationism. Possibly interesting as a study in creative memetics for culture influence campaigns.

amplifying, modifying, contradicting...

what other means of argumentation/conversation could one enumerate here with respect to a greater conversation?

One can make links between ideas more explicit using words like x ["supports", "contradicts", "supports", "challenges", "extends", "contradicts", etc] y. However it can be even more useful and beneficial to not only state the connection in the loosest of terms, but to explore and develop what that connection is and how it works. The more explicit one can be, the better.

If it's a metaphor, analogy, or abstraction, how far can one push those relationships before they collapse? Can the abstraction be encompassed in a mathematical sense that one case completely consumes another?

If you don't want version control, then that's your choice, but admit it (ideally out loud for others to hear, but failing that then at least to yourself) that that's what you're about.

Shorthand notations or symbols in one's notes can be used to provide help in structuring arguments. Small indicators like "see: x", "see also: y", or "but see: z" can be used for adding supporting, comparison, or contradictory material respectively.

https://www.thesing-online.de/blog/zettelkasten-hypertext-linearity-sequentiality

Linearity of ideas and arguments is a means of building toward something.

no

Maybe this is just a regional thing, but something I really began to notice several years ago is that (a) what Jamie is saying is true, but (b) it's evident that people actually love the unfalsifiability aspect of non-concrete claims—it's safe refuge that they actively seek out.

Two opposing examples from real life that particularly stuck out: * "Slow down. [You're going too fast.]" * "[...] since you always take so long"

(These were two different instances/contexts with, I think, a year+ in between them; it wasn't the contrast between them that made me notice the phenomenon. Rather, I recognized each one at the time as being part of this phenomenon. They just serve as good examples because of how easily they could be made concrete—and therefore falsified in light of the facts: "without defining exactly what 'too fast' means, what is an acceptable speed?", "without defining what it means to take too long, what is an acceptable amount of time to take?"—both arising from wholly disingenuous complaints that were forms of externalized gut reactions rather than anything that would hold up under scrutiny...)

Right. If there are two ways to take a statement, one which is absurd because it's inconsistent with actual fact and another which isn't, it's a bad idea to make an argument that hinges on it being the former—that would mean you're insisting on an absurdity.

Example of focusing on your weakest critics and choosing not to confront the strong arguments against your position.

contradicted later

John Vervaeke on Socrates becoming set of psychotechnologies to internalize and augment metacognition. Agues agumentation become central for Plato, whereas confrontation itself become central for Antisthenes. They're disagree about how the cause of the transformation through the Socratic approach

Unclear is stoics take up Plato's mantle of argumentation orientation, but they at least seem distinct from the Cynics (Antisthenes & teach Diogenes

Aporia is moment of shock from experience that you're radically transformed. Could be from Diogenes' provocative performance art or through discourse a la Plato & Socrates

Nietzche may have favored Cynics approach over stoic/Socratic. Possible parallel in left-hand path and right-hand path. Quick & risky vs. slow & steady

In that case: great! no problem, then—just use the original wording, since by your own argument they are not significantly different; the original is sufficient.

The question "how many archangels could dance on the point of a needle" was an argumentation exercise, and not the sort of frippery we imagine it to be today.

Surely Sayers would be appalled by the current state of political argument... The "Sunday Shows" are full of talking points and all of the wrong sorts of "rhetoric" without much, if any basis in fact.

The Technique of Controversy: Principles of Dynamic Logic by Boris B. Bogoslovsky https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Technique_of_Controversy/P-rgAwAAQBAJ?hl=en

What was Dewey's contribution here?

The Gospel of Technology by C. E. Ayers https://archive.org/details/americanphilosop00kall/page/24/mode/2up

Harris, Joseph. Rewriting: How To Do Things With Texts. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2006. https://muse.jhu.edu/book/9248

Joseph Harris' text Rewriting: How to do things with texts (2006) sounds like a solid follow on text to the ideas found in Sönke Ahrens (2017) or Dan Allosso (2022).

The Tolumin model is an evidence based method of teaching argumentation.

Obnoxious.

As someone recently pointed out on HN, it's very common nowadays to encounter the no-one-knows-else-what-they're-doing-here refrain as cover—I don't have to feel insecure about not understanding this because not only am I not alone, nobody else understands it either.

Secondly, if your code is hard to understand regarding its use of this, then your code his hard to understand. this isn't super easy, but it's also not hard. Your code (or the code you're being made to wade into) probably just sucks. The this confusion is making you confront it, though, instead of letting it otherwise fly under the radar.* So fix it and stop going in for the low-effort, this-centric clapter.

* Not claiming here that this is unique; there are allowed to be other things that work as the same sort of indicator.

Corner, A., Hahn, U., & Oaksford, M. (2011). The psychological mechanism of the slippery slope argument. Journal of Memory and Language, 64(2), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.10.002

Argumentation mapping as a way to surface alignment in complex problem scenarios like climate change could be worth exploring in massive collaboration ecosystems.

This directly contradicts the earlier claim that irreducible complexity is the culprit behind the size of the node_modules directory.

35 MB → "a couple hundred kilobytes"? Clear evidence of not just reducibility but a case of actual reduction...

Yeah, why has this become so normalized? It's gotten to the point where people will respond to something by posting nothing but an attempt at false attribution by rewording the other—typically in the most convenient, pithy, hackneyed, and strawmannish way—and then putting quotes around it while drowning in plaudits from those who already agree—often for reasons no better than shameless tribal affiliation.

The basic precondition to summarizing the other's position in order to refute it is that the other side actually agrees that it's an accurate summary of their position. If you don't have that, then you don't have anything.

Hey, look, it's an actually good example of the "steep learning curve".

(I never understood why people insist that referring to it as a steep curve is wrong; clearly the decisions about your axes are going to have an impact on the thing. It seems that everyone who brings this up is insisting on laying out their graph the wrong way and implicitly arguing that other people need to take responsibility for it.)

ReconfigBehSci [@SciBeh]. (2021, November 26). Clearly we haven’t “kept borders closed forever”—Most borders have been open for many months now. The question is whether we urgently close a particular border now. “kept borders closed forever” = straw man (and I say this as a researcher on fallacies of argumentation) [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1464131447799922689

I know people are really fond of this talking point, but it doesn't hold up.

if you come to work at my sandwich shop, and you show up every day to make sandwiches, and then payday comes and I stiff you, then I have definitely stolen from you.

The strongest retort to this is that this would be an instance of fraud, since in the sandwich shop we probably came to an agreement beforehand that I would pay you e.g. $15 per hour, but in the case of IP, this is incomparable because we never agreed to anything. This is pretty straightforwardly addressed by the observation that we live in a society where IP laws are in effect, so regardless of how any one person feels about IP in the abstract, we're all bound by the rules that are known at the outset. Because your decision as the creator to move forward and create the thing was predicated on an understanding that the rules are such as they are, then I actually do have an obligation to observe them just the same as my obligation not to stiff you for making my sandwiches. I don't get to start a game of Parcheesi with you under the pretense that we're going to play fair and then reveal midway through that I won't be governed by all the rules on basis that I don't believe that they're entirely justified. Fairness cannot follow from false pretense.

The one way that it would be fair would be if I made my position known from the beginning and then everyone agreed to play anyway under my augmented ruleset, but it's important to observe that the obligation lies with me. What this doesn't mean, in a society with IP laws, is that it would be sufficient for me to declare (e.g. in a manifesto posted to my blog, or in an Internet message board comment, or whispered into the night) that I don't agree with IP and then proceed to fill up on all the stuff that I'd like. What proceeding with my augmented Parcheesi ruleset looks like is disengaging from the society where IP law is in effect and moving to Russia or Shenzhen or the habitat I've set up on the edge of Schiaparelli crater.

Case study in equivocation.

Pilditch, T. (2021). Why scientific evidence is no longer enough in public debate [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/98v2n

The quote that begins about halfway through this trailer in full is, "He tells a lie, and people go to track this down, and by the time you've responded to that, he's told three others. It's a sheer exercise in fatigue."

Speaker is Jelani Cobb.

Aarts, A. A. (2021). Psychological Science replicates just fine, thanks. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/h4byg

White-Sullivan. C., (2019) Retrieved from https://twitter.com/Conaw/status/1278609573973127169

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1314493024072863744

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter: “having spent a few days looking at ‘debate’ about COVID policy on lay twitter (not the conspiracy stuff, just the ‘we should all be Sweden’ discussions), the single most jarring (and worrying) thing I noticed is that posters seem completely undeterred by self contradiction 1/3” / Twitter. (n.d.). Retrieved September 23, 2020, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1308340430170456064

ce passage est extrêmement intéressant, je pense qu'il mériterait d'être un peu développé pour rendre plus évident le lien avec le récit.

Il serait intéressant d'expliciter un peu plus peut-être en quoi les deux cultures se ressemblent.

Project background – Critical Analysis Project. (n.d.). Retrieved July 10, 2020, from http://critical-analysis.org/project-background/

il semble que tu réponde à la question dans la note.

cette référence je pense a davantage sa place dans le cours du texte

peut-être expliciter ici, ce que tu comptes en faire, si le traiter pourquoi, sinon pourquoi également.

Argument Quality in Real World Argumentation. (2020). Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 24(5), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.01.004

je ne suis pas sûre de la rhétorique de cette phrase

c'est une note relativement longue, peut-être intégrer une partie dans le texte ?

je pense qu'il faudrait développer un peu cette association à l'anamorphose, selon la définition de Servanne, parce quand on pense à l'anamorphose on y pense dans le cadre des arts visuels

cela me fait penser (mais tu l'as certainement développé), au déplacement du grain de beauté d'Albertine lorsque le narrateur la regarde dormir

peut-être préciser dans les rapports au sens (juste dans cette phrase) la dimension érotique : ce n'est pas n'Importe quel rapport au toucher,etc...

je proposerai d'intégrer ce contenu au texte

à quoi cela se réfère ? si c'est à la citation de la note, mieux vaut intégrer la citation en retrait dans le texte

Je pense que cette note est trop longue et pourrait être inclue dans le texte.

peut-être développer un peu plus cette idée

je ne suis pas sûre de bien comprendre ici le rapport au silence

Peut-être que cette phrase, très stylisée, arrive un peu vite et qu'elle aurait besoin d'être un peu plus introduite par des phrases plus dans l'explication concrète

peuut-être citer la frence qui l'atteste

il manque, je trouve, des phrases prmettant de lier les idées dans cette fin de paragraphe, cela va un peu vite

peut-être citer des extraits

peut-être faudrait-il introduire ce témoignage par une phrase

peut-être nécessaire à définir rapidemment

Je ne comprends pas le lien entre le texte et la note.

peut-être développer un peu cette association avec un exemple.

je pense qu'une courte définition ici serait la bienvenue

peut-être une référence sur ce point ? il y a des études qui ont notamment parlé du 4e mur et de l'importance de la distance du public à la scène pour que le théâtre "agisse".

peut-être insérer une note explicative qui présente l'oculus rift ?

Pourquoi cette précision avec parenthèse ?

peut-être développer davantage cette idée de constellation

peut-être faut-il mieux exprimer l'apparente incohérence dans l'association : image intime / dispositif extérieur ?

clarté dans quel sens ?

est ce qu'il y a un fait étonnant à ce qu'il le fasse ?

quelques références de pages exemplaires ?

peut-être développer un peu cette idée ? ou la lier davantage à l'idée qui suit ?

l'idée de propre n'est pas claire ici pour moi (mais certainement cette idée est développée dans l'introduction).

je pense qu'il faudrait peut-être développer un peu plus cette idée de sédimentation.

pourquoi stérile ?

ce "également" n'est pas évident je trouve dans la suite des paragraphe. je propose de l'enlever

je dirai qu'il manque peut-être un fil liant la fin de ce paragraphe et le paragraphe suivant.

rassurante parce que calculable ?

peut-être que cette dimension immersive est à relativiser selon un contexte d'audience: le visionnage de L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat a vraiment fait peur aux spectateurs qui avaient l'impression qu'un train leur fonçait dessus.

Peut-être développer un peu plus l'assimilation, le développement précédent se fait davantage sur le rapport à une réalité et moins sur les accointances entre ce rapport et la vision cinématographique. (cela demeure mon avis)

peut-être qu'ici il manque une transition entre photographie et image en mouvement

Accepter la pluralité de point de vue

One element of this is persuasion and argumentation

The author makes it clear that she will be explicating her thesis via the example of Emma. In this sentence, she connects Austen's approach to reading, writing, and readership to the notion of literary fiction. Again, I'm not sure if the following paragraphs do live up to the expectation she sets up here.

In this sentence, the author makes a transition between Austen's expectations for her readership's literary knowledge and reading practices and the notion of literary influence. Here, she argues that Austen's requirement for "judicious, critical, ingenuous reading" is necessary for the reader to understand how influence operates in Austen. I am not quite sure if I agree with this assessment. In the later paragraphs, I do not feel that the author's argument explicitly shows that informed readership is necessary to understand influence in Emma. Rather, the audience gives more of a plot summary and information about the reading practices within the novel, not those required for its audience.

This coincides with the notion of influence from the beginning of the article that claims that influence occurs with a misreading or revision of the original work.

The author claims here that Emma was inspired by the 1814 novel Discipline by Mary Brunton, which surely is not part of the male literary canon laid out earlier in the article. The author outlines the main themes of Discipline and explains the relationship between the two authors.

I feel like a broken record here, but again, this seems to be a very tenuous point without computational analysis. The author's own language belies this tenuousness as she says that the novel's inspiration "seems to have been a straightforward reaction" to another novel. The word "seems" does not inspire confidence.

Here, the author ties Austen's education in with her expectations of her readership.

In this brief introduction to the next section of the paper, Murphy challenges existing scholarship that aligns Emma with Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. Rather, the author outlines the parallels between Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. I find the connection somewhat tenuous as it almost ignores all of the gender bending and performance of Twelfth Night. While the author's later claim that "the broader themes of deliberate misrepresentation and self-serving delusions" are the tie between the two plays, I find that ignoring the aspects of performance and disguise is problematic.

I also think that this takes away from Murphy's main argument, which is that Austen's view of influence is broader than the historically main canon, evidence by her parody of Brunton's novel. This section seems to show the opposite, which is a parallel between Austen and Shakespeare.

Here, Murphy makes the connection back to readership and the characters of Emma.

This, incidentally, made me think of the quote on the new British ten pound note: "I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading!" which was certainly a satirical denotation.

Much like Catherine in Northanger Abbey!

This is a key point as Murphy argues that while Austen is influenced by Brunton, it does not mean that she endorses her work. Rather, as Murphy states later, Emma is a direct rejection and parody of Brunton's "didacticism" (106).

This is a key section. Here, the author claims that Jane Austen's Emma is influenced by the rather unremarkable and certainly much less well known novel Discipline. This is in contrast to the existing tradition. Murphy cites and agrees with Ballaster's argument that 18th century women authors situated their own work within the male tradition and did not seek recognition for the influence of other female authors. However, Murphy argues that Austen makes obvious the connection to Brunton.

Here, the author summarizes her paragraph on education and access to literature to bolster her argument about Austen's assumptions about the knowledge level of her readership. I believe that this is an important point, as it shows WHY and HOW Austen was able to have such high expectations for her readers.