IMO, Desmet's professional mistake was a type of self-debunking. If someone is a narcissist and charlatan, I need to know that. Otherwise, we could read a study on digitalis at face value, not knowing or caring about the context, that the correct dose was determined by murdering prisoners in concentration camps.
IMO, Desmet's professional mistake was a type of self-debunking. If someone is a narcissist and charlatan, I need to know that. Otherwise, we could read a study on digitalis at face value, not knowing or caring about the context, that the correct dose was determined by murdering prisoners in concentration camps.
OTOH, a text itself often contains its own markers for bad faith. But why not make it easier and include context and biographical details, to make it easier for people who aren't able to figure it out? Our lives are at stake. We aren't in freshman comp.
IMO, Desmet's professional mistake was a type of self-debunking. If someone is a narcissist and charlatan, I need to know that. Otherwise, we could read a study on digitalis at face value, not knowing or caring about the context, that the correct dose was determined by murdering prisoners in concentration camps.
OTOH, a text itself often contains its own markers for bad faith. But why not make it easier and include context and biographical details, to make it easier for people who aren't able to figure it out? Our lives are at stake. We aren't in freshman comp.
the "angel of mercy" thing is outrageous (and telling...)
as is the fake "heart" surgery story