Actually, the SAT reading comprehension questions are not that simple and trip people up. Which is really my point of analogy. They're the kind of questions where you either got the right answer or not, but explaining it to the person who got it wrong can be non trivial.
There is none; the people who keep promulgating this falsehood about Stallman say that because of one paragraph that anyone who can pass the SAT reading comprehension tests, parse standard English, or understand the basics of logical reasoning, would have understood that it is simply a wrong interpretation at the level of how 1+1 = 3 is wrong.
It is much better to accuse Stallman in that instance that he was mansplaining and contributing to workplace toxicity, and/or to accuse Stallman of a historical pattern of objectifying women. Those are better because they are closer to the truth. But people like simpler narratives, that he said this one horrible thing, when it is not even that far fetched to show using the exact same quote that he was actually arguing quite an opposite, or orthogonal, point.
The other thing about this is that people ignore the context of the speaker; in this case Stallman was talking about media abuse of terminology. To complain about media manipulation is a very standard, leftist position. So like the above, to implicitly suggest that he was using this position as a cover for his personal misogyny, has merit, but nobody cares about this angle, because again it's too complicated to sort through.
I find this approach strangely condescending. For example the author says:
> Understanding the value attributed to X, Y, and Z in that particular text requires assessment of the rhetorical strategies of the author(s).
They could've just said, if you want to know why the author thinks XYZ are important, you need to look at what they are saying about it.
I'm a hardcore postmodern leftist, but I don't see how writing in such a contorted way helps practicing scientists. In fact I would argue that this kind of listing obscures a politics of its own; it is so busy prescribing citation practices that it won't examine its own politics.
That said, it's the first time I've seen this guide so maybe I need to read up on the issues; a list of do's / don'ts isn't the best way to introduce and help people understand the issues.
> Too many of the people I meet are ground down, sliding by, holding on, grappling with their identity and place in the world, somewhere on the scale of mildly scarred to full blown post traumatic, anxiety ridden, and/or profoundly lost.
How do you diagnose this? Is there a checklist of signs you look for? Do they eventually tell you, etc.?
Just curious, because I don't get to meet than many people all the time, so I can't collect sociological samples and reach conclusions in the way you seem to be doing.
I think it's clearer to understand the Church-Turing thesis as two theses, not one. Turing's thesis was that (intuitive) computability equals (formalizable) Turing computability.
So you could completely ignore the recursive functions part (and so, Church's Thesis) and there would still be the same sort of lay confusion about the computability thesis.
The Mackenzie book chapter discusses both the Fetzer and DeMillo Lipton Perlis controversies.
It's really interesting that the debate got into the questions like, can one formally verify a bridge?