It would be educational for me if you can point out where I should have used ‘might’ and other modal verbs of hedging. Explaining what I see as a logical flaw in a piece of work does not require modal verbs. I’ve read and re-read my analysis and do not see any rudeness, any extreme position, or any logical flaw. I don’t know the entire field so all I have is the article that you posted. On the basis of what was written there, I made my comments. Furthermore, this discussion board (not an academic paper) is the venue for stating our state of knowledge and opinions. This further reduces the necessity for modal verbs in this style of discourse.
By cautioning me to be ‘careful and mindful of scholarly experience’ is an argument to authority. I feel that this breaks the spirit of what we’re trying to achieve here. If you think that my brief analysis of Bredo is inaccurate, as the tutor, you can point out either those inaccuracies or point me in the direct of why they may be wrong.
What you can’t do at this level is simply reprimand me for not bowing to an 1) established scholar, 2) full professor, 3) top university, and 4) in the world. I could list 100 articles written by scholars in similar positions that you don’t agree with. The underlying principle at stake here is that at this course’s level, we’re expected to engage critically with the texts. Usually, we see the value in them, but when we don’t, we’re expected to articulate that.
But this time it’s personal.
I was aware before I posted yesterday that you found Bredo’s argument convincing. I was therefore interested in how you would react to an opposing opinion. I had hoped that you’d engage with me intellectually as is your remit as a tutor.