Why would you “answer” them? This is not a “reductionism is bad” argument, and I would find it oddly religious if you felt the need to insist that reductionism was unique among all methodologies in not imposing a bias.
Conversational implicature suggests that when you give a list of 33 ways in which reductionists can be biased, you are claiming that reductionists are exceptionally biased. It is logically possible that you are merely saying they are biased like everyone else, but actual human communication doesn’t work that way.
Conversational implicature suggests that when you give a list of 33 ways in which reductionists can be biased, you are claiming that reductionists are exceptionally biased.
I don’t really get that feeling. But if some people do maybe it would make sense for Phil to add a clarifying remark that that’s not intended.
Why would you “answer” them? This is not a “reductionism is bad” argument, and I would find it oddly religious if you felt the need to insist that reductionism was unique among all methodologies in not imposing a bias.
“This is not a “reductionism is bad” argument”
Conversational implicature suggests that when you give a list of 33 ways in which reductionists can be biased, you are claiming that reductionists are exceptionally biased. It is logically possible that you are merely saying they are biased like everyone else, but actual human communication doesn’t work that way.
I don’t really get that feeling. But if some people do maybe it would make sense for Phil to add a clarifying remark that that’s not intended.