paper here: www.jstor.org/stable/20123...

see pp. 531-2:

the principle of charity by that name was (likely) introduced by neil wilson in his paper ``substances without substrata'' published in 1959; this predates the earliest davidson piece the authors cite by eight years, and quine (in ``ontological relativity'') credits wilson with coining

this creates disincentives to referee papers of course, so you'd need to counterbalance this with more incentives to referee for journals with this policy (i do realize the issues with that believe me but if we don't tamp down on this we're in deep crap)

don't know*

i don't what the exhaustive necessary and sufficient conditions for this should be but it seems to me that a sufficient condition should be: did a paper you refereed get retracted because of bad data interpretation issues/fraud/obvious llm use? if so, you get de-anonymized

i mean wouldn't you

bet you anything that was copy-pasted into google translate from italian

and it came out obscenely well holy shit

It Is Finished

It Continues

my ongoing reaction to this whole cursed saga

if anything *more* should be mandatory

the one and only comment i'm leaving on the essay

yes ``unwottingly'' is a word, look it up

people sometimes think that becoming a philosopher messed me up and i have to break it to them that what got me into philosophy (unwottingly at the time) was reading the book of romans at about 8 or 9 so i've really always been Like This

(that may guy looks like an asshole)