Disagree with the advice at the end! I think that your bar for publishing should be pretty low. Being interesting is generally more important than always being right and you’ll never publish anything if your bar is too high
Hah, I figured! Generally I agree with Richard that most philosophers are too risk-averse in their writing, and with you that people should focus on getting things out there rather than being perfect. But I think if there are equations in your substack post, you should scrutinize your work a little more than the average writer should. The more you use specialist knowledge, the more unfamiliar readers are trusting you to get the details right.
However, I agree it's *very* important not to overcorrect! So I'll happily take your encouragement :)
Disagree with the advice at the end! I think that your bar for publishing should be pretty low. Being interesting is generally more important than always being right and you’ll never publish anything if your bar is too high
Hah, I figured! Generally I agree with Richard that most philosophers are too risk-averse in their writing, and with you that people should focus on getting things out there rather than being perfect. But I think if there are equations in your substack post, you should scrutinize your work a little more than the average writer should. The more you use specialist knowledge, the more unfamiliar readers are trusting you to get the details right.
However, I agree it's *very* important not to overcorrect! So I'll happily take your encouragement :)