> We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.
All fine and good, but the authors need to specifically say what topics good faith disagreement can be had on or this is just special pleading on behalf of their particular point on the ideological spectrum.
Don't you have that backward? If they had to specify the topics, then that would be special pleading. As it is, they're making a case for the default position; "general pleading" so to speak.
Comments
> We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.
All fine and good, but the authors need to specifically say what topics good faith disagreement can be had on or this is just special pleading on behalf of their particular point on the ideological spectrum.
Don't you have that backward? If they had to specify the topics, then that would be special pleading. As it is, they're making a case for the default position; "general pleading" so to speak.