What, really? You don’t have anything specific or technical to say about the argument, you just find the argument “bogus” and suggest that the author doesn’t know what he’s talking about, without actually making a counterpoint of your own? I felt the first point was particularly valid… FAI is, after all, a really hard problem, and it is a fair point to ask why any group thinks it has the capacity to solve it perfectly on the first try, or to know that it’s solution would work short of testing it. The second, on the other hand, is an interesting technical question that hasn’t been much expounded upon; it may very well prove to be a viable avenue of research, or at least a stepping stone along the way.
To dismiss such arguments as “bogus” speaks worse of you then the arguments themselves.
What, really? You don’t have anything specific or technical to say about the argument, you just find the argument “bogus” and suggest that the author doesn’t know what he’s talking about, without actually making a counterpoint of your own? I felt the first point was particularly valid… FAI is, after all, a really hard problem, and it is a fair point to ask why any group thinks it has the capacity to solve it perfectly on the first try, or to know that it’s solution would work short of testing it. The second, on the other hand, is an interesting technical question that hasn’t been much expounded upon; it may very well prove to be a viable avenue of research, or at least a stepping stone along the way.
To dismiss such arguments as “bogus” speaks worse of you then the arguments themselves.
In fact, I did previously post some more specific criticisms here.
This is the rather-obvious rebuttal to point 1.
It is often a useful contribution for someone to assess an argument without necessarily countering its points.
Not really.