Thanks for the detailed response! I wanted to quickly point out something you did here that I think is good practice, and wish more people did:
“Access via size” and “Independence via many funders” were not part of our reasoning.
Marking which parts of someone’s argument you think are relevant and which you think aren’t—and, relatedly, which branches of a disjunction you accept and which you reject—are an important part of how arguments can lead to shared models. A lot of people neglect this sort of thing, because it’s not a clear way to score points for their side. You took care to address it here. Thanks.
(More to follow when I’ve had time to take this in.)
Thanks for the detailed response! I wanted to quickly point out something you did here that I think is good practice, and wish more people did:
Marking which parts of someone’s argument you think are relevant and which you think aren’t—and, relatedly, which branches of a disjunction you accept and which you reject—are an important part of how arguments can lead to shared models. A lot of people neglect this sort of thing, because it’s not a clear way to score points for their side. You took care to address it here. Thanks.
(More to follow when I’ve had time to take this in.)