shokwave comments on The Neglected Virtue of Scholarship - Less Wrong

177 Post author: lukeprog 05 January 2011 07:22AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (153)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 05 January 2011 05:07:13PM 3 points [-]

(nods) Fair enough, and agreed throughout.

I stand by my response in and of itself, but I sheepishly admit that it's not actually a response to you at all. Rereading your comment, I conclude that I was overtrained on the kind of objections I responded to, which you didn't actually make... sorry about that.

Comment author: shokwave 05 January 2011 05:14:32PM *  0 points [-]

Doesn't bother me in the slightest. In fact, I almost included another parenthetical:

(Hard scientists probably do think hard is good and soft is bad, but that's because they're hard scientists. Soft scientists are probably sensitive to the negative connotations the hard scientists attach to these terms, because there is something of a rivalry between hard and soft science.)

I guess you've studied some kind of soft science at a college or university?

(I feel like I have overused the terms, though. I make sound as if there is a strict divide, when in my mind it's an evenly distributed spectrum.)