Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Well this is very interesting!I think you make a lot of good points, and you are very clear, good writing!Personally , i find your article a bit long compared to the original article.

But this is personal taste, as your thorough analysis can explain the length of your reply. 

This was a lot of fun to read, very interesting, that Gödel reference is intriguing!I might pick it up.

I personally would balance for Holmes view, but only slightly, you definitely got me wondering.

I would love to debate these matters with you.I am not sure "if there's enough interest in the topic to continue spending time on it."

I can't estimate the audience for this kind of things, i liked it though. Is it not finished? almost looks like it.

Posted

Thanks for spending the time, and thank you for the compliments!  I was worried the Gödel reference was awkward, so I'm glad to hear it was effective.

 

I think I'm about 90% finished developing the ideas. I would like the final draft to be much shorter, though.  I think it would be effective to further develop the part on the a priori element of Holmes' arguments.  Is there anything you thought could be more concise, or eliminated?

 

I would be glad to set up a debate on this topic!  That may help me find how my arguments can be improved.

 

Thanks again!

Posted

I also think that the Godel reference (even if it sounds interesting) is a bit too much.

The mathematics analogy is too hard to grasp i think, and because it is toward the end, it hits like a hammer.I would take it off personnaly. I would also shorten the intro, and get faster in your first part. 

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.