(urth) Academic commentary

[Andrew Mason]

>James Wynn wrote:
>
>> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote-
>> Thus, while your first statement is necessary it is not sufficient: it
>> is legitimate, and perhaps even necessary, to ask why<critic>  chooses
>> the methodology s/he does and not some other methodology. The answer
>> to that question is going to be rooted in<critic>'s ideology and
>> metaphysics.
>
> Analyzing an argument by the supposed motives of the arguer can quickly
> go off the rails.

If I understand this discussion correctly, no one is proposing to
analyse an argument by the supposed motives of the arguer.  What is
happening is that people, having decided, by whatever methods are
thought appropriate, that an argument is not a good one, are in
addition speculating about what led the arguer to put it forward.
>