I think there are kernels of truth in what you wrote here, but I also think the original statement at the top can be fleshed out / tweaked / corrected into something that’s defensible.
You opened with “this sentence is wrong in three ways”. But then in part III, you don’t explain why that part of the sentence is incorrect as written; on the contrary, you seem to agree with the authors that it is not only true that humans don’t explicitly pursue IGF, but really obviously true. So, the original sentence is not in fact wrong in three ways, but only two ways, right? (Maybe you’ll say that you were objecting to the word “surprisingly”, in which case I think you’re misunderstanding how the authors were using that word in context. More likely, I’m guessing that your belief is “this part is obviously true but it doesn’t imply what the authors think it implies”, in which case, I think you should have said that.)
Anyway, again, this is an interesting topic of discussion, but given the level of snark and sloppiness on display here, I sure don’t want to have that discussion with you-in-particular. This comment thread is kinda related.
I think there are kernels of truth in what you wrote here, but I also think the original statement at the top can be fleshed out / tweaked / corrected into something that’s defensible.
You opened with “this sentence is wrong in three ways”. But then in part III, you don’t explain why that part of the sentence is incorrect as written; on the contrary, you seem to agree with the authors that it is not only true that humans don’t explicitly pursue IGF, but really obviously true. So, the original sentence is not in fact wrong in three ways, but only two ways, right? (Maybe you’ll say that you were objecting to the word “surprisingly”, in which case I think you’re misunderstanding how the authors were using that word in context. More likely, I’m guessing that your belief is “this part is obviously true but it doesn’t imply what the authors think it implies”, in which case, I think you should have said that.)
Anyway, again, this is an interesting topic of discussion, but given the level of snark and sloppiness on display here, I sure don’t want to have that discussion with you-in-particular. This comment thread is kinda related.