= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
paper-machine comments on Open thread, Oct. 6 - Oct. 12, 2014 - 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 (332)
ESR's not basing his "analysis" on anywhere near enough evidence. His claim that he is working from "primary sources" is laughable at best.
And your criticism of his analysis is based on...
Would be improved by more explicit comment on what for you would count as enough evidence and using primary sources.
(That isn't a coded way of saying you're wrong.)
There are plenty of comprehensive histories of queerness. ESR just won't read or believe any of them.
Yes, primary sources screen out secondary sources.
If you have enough primary sources relative to what the secondary sources have, and if your overall grasp of the issue is as good as that of the authors of the secondary sources.
On the other hand, if what you have is what the paragraph quoted by paper-machine suggests, and if you've not devoted months of thought and study to the issue (which ESR may or may not have done), it could easily be the case that you'd learn a great deal more if you paid attention to some good secondary sources.
Assuming the authors of the secondary sources are interested in presenting an accurate account, as opposed believing it is there duty to lie for the "greater good".
Yup, assuming that. Or at least assuming you can discern any lies well enough that on balance you still benefit from reading. Which is the same thing as you have to assume when reading anything else.
Just out of curiosity, have you made a careful examination of primary sources in order to tell us that
(as opposed to, e.g., a plausible-sounding description that has been fudged "for the greater good", or that is inaccurate because the selection of sources Eric Raymond happens to have encountered gives a misleading picture, or that is inaccurate because Eric Raymond has misunderstood something or jumped to conclusions that fit his own biases, or whatever)?
... Or is it only people on one side of any argument who should be expected to lie for the greater good, expected not to be interested in truth, and so forth?
Not as careful as Eric but what I have seen agrees with him.
And what sources do you have?