[PREV - CREDENTIALS_AND_IN_CONCLUSION_SORT_OF]    [TOP]

CREDENTIALS_AN_APPENDIX_ON_METHOD

                                             November 6, 2015

A couple of words about what you might call "my methodology"
here, though that probably dignifies it a bit more than it
deserves.

I'm working in something like an "inductive" fashion here,
considering different examples of thinkers, taking a look at
their credentials (with a lot of emphasis on their academic
background), checking what they get right and wrong, and using
that to try to come up with rules of thumb for how credentials
should inform our opinions of people.

Part of this "method" is that I'm presuming that I can judge
when someone is getting something right or wrong. Using my own
opinion about things as an infallible guide is no doubt
irritating to the reader, who might not agree, but it's not as
though I'm <i>assuming</i> I'm infallible, it's just that this
is all long and rambling enough already without also engaging in
presenting evidence that I've called something right. That has
to be handled elsewhere, on a "when I get to it" basis.

--------
[NEXT - CREDENTIALS_ONWARD]