Wait, it isn’t? Do you (or anyone else reading this comment) know if there was a particular reason why not?
I’m not sure what “it” is supposed to refer to.
Also, I didn’t know Motte and Bailey was controversial in the rationality community, I’d be interested in reading links of people opposing it if you have any.
I’m not sure what “it” is supposed to refer to.
See Against Motte and Bailey by ozymandias
And thanks
You’re welcome.
“It” was supposed to refer to the article “All in All, Another Brick in the Motte.”
I have no idea why it isn’t included.