Comments on: Political science and skepticism: Politics needs critical thought

By: ty

ty — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:32:32 +0000

Jason, regarding “Take a popular concept like, ‘Tighter gun control and government intervention in the market has historically lead to communism.’ This can be spoken right into a camera, and will be blindly believed by thousands or millions. While there is no evidence I’ve read to support this claim, many people believe it.”

You should then read evidence that supports these two claims and tell me what you think. I’d like to debate this article with you, or at least these two points.

I agree with you that real info and news is covered up and we are fed something else. eg NPR?. What do you think of the “false left/right paradigm” argument put forth by Alex Jones, Bob Chapman, or Ron Paul?

By: ty

ty — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 16:36:46 +0000

English Major alert, everyone to their stations immediately.

By: DB Skeptic

DB Skeptic — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:09:51 +0000

Hi Annie,

Ouch! A harsh critic! Fair enough, but you blow your own credibility by criticizing without offering any specific recommendations.

If you just insult the site, then that’s your right. If you give specifics, I might actually follow them and IMPROVE, hopefully sooner than your 5-year prediction.

As to your question about editing, “yes”. Every article usually goes through a multi-stage editing process. It would be very helpful if you could list the 10-15 grammatical mistakes.

try choosing more interesting title for your sub-headings and utilizing a more appropriate layout – one that actually take a form that is able to prove an argument.

Can you give an example specific to this article? I’m not trying to be difficult, I just honestly don’t know what you mean.

Andy

By: Rob Steenwyk

Rob Steenwyk — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:14:51 +0000

Annie, I find your criticism of this article a bit harsh. Would mind pointing out some of the ten or fifteen grammatical errors?

As for your constructive criticism, these essays and posts are not meant to be Digg bait. They are meant to be well thought out and researched articles about their subject matter. What do you think would be a more appropriate layout? What layout would effectively prove an argument?

By: Annie

Annie — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 07:58:07 +0000

I have this general rule that if an essay contains more than say ten to fifteen (depending on length) grammatical mistakes, then it cannot accurately convey any message.
Did you even bother trying to edit this?

Some constructive criticism for next time, try choosing more interesting title for your sub-headings and utilizing a more appropriate layout – one that actually take a form that is able to prove an argument.

I look forward to seeing your work in say five years.