If you “don’t see anything salient”, then identify a flaw in my argument. Otherwise, you’re just saying, “I can’t find any problems with your argument, but I choose not to update anyway.”
I’m sympathetic to this, but I’m not sure it’s entirely fair. It probably just means you’re talking past each other. It’s very difficult to identify specific flaws in an argument when you just don’t see how it is supposed to be relevant to the supposed conclusion.
If this were a fair criticism of Vladimir, then I think it would also be a fair criticism of you. I’ve provided what I view as extensive, and convincing (to me! (and to Amartya Sen)) criticisms of your argument, to which you general response has been, not to point out a flaw in my argument, but instead to say “I don’t see how this is relevant”.
This is incredibly frustrating to me, just as Vladimir’s response probably seems frustrating to you. But I’d like to think it’s more a failure of communication than it is bloody-mindedness on your or Vladimir’s part.
Fair enough. It sounded to me like Vladimir was saying something like, “I think your argument is all right; but now I want another argument to support the case for actually applying your argument”.
I haven’t read that paper you referenced yet. If you have others that are behind firewalls, I can likely get a copy for us.
I’m sympathetic to this, but I’m not sure it’s entirely fair. It probably just means you’re talking past each other. It’s very difficult to identify specific flaws in an argument when you just don’t see how it is supposed to be relevant to the supposed conclusion.
If this were a fair criticism of Vladimir, then I think it would also be a fair criticism of you. I’ve provided what I view as extensive, and convincing (to me! (and to Amartya Sen)) criticisms of your argument, to which you general response has been, not to point out a flaw in my argument, but instead to say “I don’t see how this is relevant”.
This is incredibly frustrating to me, just as Vladimir’s response probably seems frustrating to you. But I’d like to think it’s more a failure of communication than it is bloody-mindedness on your or Vladimir’s part.
Fair enough. It sounded to me like Vladimir was saying something like, “I think your argument is all right; but now I want another argument to support the case for actually applying your argument”.
I haven’t read that paper you referenced yet. If you have others that are behind firewalls, I can likely get a copy for us.