I don't have the time at the moment to unpack all of his points; many of them are valid concerns, but I don't find any two of them especially convincing enough to abandon the objectively ( :) ) superior actor model.
I don't know, to me he presents at least one pretty compelling point indicating that point. The species which exhibit the exaggerated facial features could not even form a fist with which to fight.
It does, unfortunately, have a bit of an "Old man yells at cloud" tone to it. And I don't see any solid evidence for his arguments beyond appeal-to-authority in that essay.
No. I don't like it either. I really had two points, my personal disbelief in his line of reasoning AND The guardian taking a both sides approach. I undersold that side,a point you make better.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but can you just mention specifically what you didn't like about his analysis (and I'm using the term 'analysis' very loosely)?
Refuting an authors point with a fairly lengthy reply that doesn't address a single specific point of his is just as useless, albeit not as dangerous, as a over-generalized analysis piece.
Which makes me question the validity of his work. If he's so concerned about an adversary, IMHO it appears as though he believes his work will not stand up to scrutiny.
reply