= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
grouchymusicologist comments on How SIAI could publish in mainstream cognitive science journals - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (76)
Agree or disagree with the following statement?
"After publishing the paper in a philosophy journal so that academics would be allowed to talk about it without losing face, you would have to write a separate essay to explain the ideas to anyone who actually wanted to know them, including those philosophers."
Disagree. Pointlessly difficult and jargon-laden writing is not an inevitable feature of academic philosophical writing, just a common one. The best philosophical writing is as technical as it needs to be but also is clear, vivid, and even fun, and surely this should be the standard to aspire to for any SIAI-sponsored effort to produce papers pitched at the academic philosophy community.
Yes × 100.