But for an academic actually doing that analysis (not that I’m necessarily calling EY an ‘academic’), one must invoke the principle of charity, which necessitates assuming she’s saying things that are reasonable, justified, and truthful, as far as you can push it.
Argue against the belief, not the person—if you can wrestle out some truth from what someone’s saying, count that as a win even if they oppose you.
But for an academic actually doing that analysis (not that I’m necessarily calling EY an ‘academic’), one must invoke the principle of charity, which necessitates assuming she’s saying things that are reasonable, justified, and truthful, as far as you can push it.
Argue against the belief, not the person—if you can wrestle out some truth from what someone’s saying, count that as a win even if they oppose you.