Ah. Can I suggest you re-write that section to make it clearer? I admit I wasn’t reading closely, but I assumed that a two-line statement before a quote from a paper was going to be the conclusion of the section.
Also, given that the evidence there is far from unidirectional, I’d rather you didn’t cite it as the first piece of supporting evidence for the “gaining information” hypothesis. I expect an argument to start with its strongest pieces of evidence first.
P.S. I’m not sure I agree with your argument, but thanks for putting this together!
I already modified it; hopefully the new version is clearer.
Also, given that the evidence there is far from unidirectional, I’d rather you didn’t cite it as the first piece of supporting evidence for the “gaining information” hypothesis. I expect an argument to start with its strongest pieces of evidence first.
I was going in what I thought was logical implication order of the learning hypothesis.
Ah. Can I suggest you re-write that section to make it clearer? I admit I wasn’t reading closely, but I assumed that a two-line statement before a quote from a paper was going to be the conclusion of the section.
Also, given that the evidence there is far from unidirectional, I’d rather you didn’t cite it as the first piece of supporting evidence for the “gaining information” hypothesis. I expect an argument to start with its strongest pieces of evidence first.
P.S. I’m not sure I agree with your argument, but thanks for putting this together!
I already modified it; hopefully the new version is clearer.
I was going in what I thought was logical implication order of the learning hypothesis.