Do I understand you correctly, you believe that the following (copied from the comment you’re replying to) are acceptable practices in the type of an essay Toby Ord published?
He [Toby Ord] describes the academic literature incorrectly in a way that benefits his case. He writes that “A thorough going Negative Utilitarian would support the destruction of the world (even by violent means)” without mentioning that for many years, a published objection to his favoured view (classical utilitarianism) is that it implies that one should kill everyone and replace us, if one could thereby maximize the sum of well-being (see my paper The World Destruction Argument).
I believe that describing academic literature incorrectly in a way that benefits your case is unacceptable. I’m honestly surprised I need to spell this out explicitly, given that your About page says:
I care passionately about the truth, not just at work as a scientist but in all aspects of my life.
Is it really a matter of incorrectness or just that you think that argument is really important and he didn’t include it? There are plenty of innocent reasons he might not have included that argument or many others. He might have thought it was a weak argument or maybe didn’t include it because it wasn’t relevant to his personal objections to NU.
Do I understand you correctly, you believe that the following (copied from the comment you’re replying to) are acceptable practices in the type of an essay Toby Ord published?
What’s unacceptable about this in your opinion, anon account?
I believe that describing academic literature incorrectly in a way that benefits your case is unacceptable. I’m honestly surprised I need to spell this out explicitly, given that your About page says:
Is it really a matter of incorrectness or just that you think that argument is really important and he didn’t include it? There are plenty of innocent reasons he might not have included that argument or many others. He might have thought it was a weak argument or maybe didn’t include it because it wasn’t relevant to his personal objections to NU.