But in context he was defending himself for having mentioned Bentham, and it was an appropriate argument in that context. He had just previously been accused of showing off scholarship, and his defense (appropriate to the charge) was that it does not require scholarship to know who Bentham is. He wasn’t trying to set up groups.
And I think he’s right. It does not require scholarship to know who Bentham is. By scholarship he mean something specific, expressed here:
Scholarship is excellent, but it is also expensive. It takes a long time to catch up to the state of the art, even for a narrow subject.
I recently read 90% of the literature on machine ethics, a recent and small field of inquiry, and it took me about 40 hours to find all the literature, acquire it, and read (or skim) through.
It does not require reading through 90%, or even 50%, or even 10% of the literature on utilitarianism to know who Bentham is. I know who Bentham is and I haven’t read more than probably a thousandth of one percent of the literature on utilitarianism.
I did not claim he was trying to. Nor do I think he was.
And I think he’s right. It does not require scholarship to know who Bentham is. By scholarship he mean something specific, expressed here:
...
It does not require reading through 90%, or even 50%, or even 10% of the literature on utilitarianism to know who Bentham is. I know who Bentham is and I haven’t read more than probably a thousandth of one percent of the literature on utilitarianism.
I did not mention scholarship in my post so I can not tell what point of mine you are responding to.
I can not tell what point of mine you are responding to.
You were criticizing his use of “everybody knows”, and your attack did not take into account the context. You just took the phrase in isolation and talked about it. I was defending his use of the phrase as having been appropriate in the context in which he used it.
I was commenting on a phase in abstract sense and how it can often have certain effects and hence why some people interpret it as signally scholarship and implying prestige.
I took the phrase in isolation because I was only commenting on the phrase and not the context. Nothing was supposed to reflect directly on the person who made the original comment.
If you have a method of altering my original statement to communicate that more explicitly please share.
But in context he was defending himself for having mentioned Bentham, and it was an appropriate argument in that context. He had just previously been accused of showing off scholarship, and his defense (appropriate to the charge) was that it does not require scholarship to know who Bentham is. He wasn’t trying to set up groups.
And I think he’s right. It does not require scholarship to know who Bentham is. By scholarship he mean something specific, expressed here:
It does not require reading through 90%, or even 50%, or even 10% of the literature on utilitarianism to know who Bentham is. I know who Bentham is and I haven’t read more than probably a thousandth of one percent of the literature on utilitarianism.
I did not claim he was trying to. Nor do I think he was.
...
I did not mention scholarship in my post so I can not tell what point of mine you are responding to.
You were criticizing his use of “everybody knows”, and your attack did not take into account the context. You just took the phrase in isolation and talked about it. I was defending his use of the phrase as having been appropriate in the context in which he used it.
I had no intent of attack.
I was commenting on a phase in abstract sense and how it can often have certain effects and hence why some people interpret it as signally scholarship and implying prestige.
I took the phrase in isolation because I was only commenting on the phrase and not the context. Nothing was supposed to reflect directly on the person who made the original comment.
If you have a method of altering my original statement to communicate that more explicitly please share.
I think you’ve clarified it at sufficiently at this point, so no need.