On 8/1/06, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
I guess I rather prefer "critic" to those,
at least in the cases I have
in mind. For example, in many scientific fields, someone will propose
an approach, and others will sometimes criticize it. Sometimes camps
develop, and you have for example, "Bayesians" and "critics of the
Bayesian approach". Or in philosophy, you have "critics of
cognitivism". In many cases critics are a bit stronger than skeptics,
but not in such an all-out ideological disagreement that they ought to
be called "opponents". Essentially they're skeptics who have put forth
some arguments.
Perhaps this varies by field, but it's the terminology I usually see
(and use myself) in academic papers, especially in the stock phrase
"critics of this approach".
I suppose that seems reasonable in academia. However the phrase seems
to get employed outside of academic pursuits leading to:
- Critics of "The Family Guy" argue that...
- Critics of top-posting point out that...
Some genuine examples follow:
- Critics of private health insurance claim that... [[Health insurance]]
- Critics of the term have argued that its proponents are
"neo-snobs"... [[Chav]]
- Advocates of nonviolence have argued that many critics of
nonviolence focus their critique on the moral justifications for
nonviolence while neglecting to...[[nonviolence]]
- Critics of the invasion claimed that it would kill thousands of
American soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and civilians...[[Opposition to
the Iraq War]]
- Critics of the record industry today have compared it to the buggy
whip industry, fighting the disruptive technology of file sharing by
all possible means. [[record industry]]
- Critics of their income-tax policies point out that the Irish
economy was already growing at 9% before they came to power in
1997...[[Progressive Democrats]]
- Supporters and critics of nuclear power agreed that the promotional
and regulatory duties of the AEC should be assigned to different
agencies
Ok, so how does this stack up against your use of the term? Perhaps it
comes down to good faith - we can assume that generally academics
start out fairly open minded and if they come to disagree with a
theory, it's probably because they've studied the field for a long
time and have good reasons for their beliefs.
On the other hand, a "critic of the Progressive Democrats' tax policy"
is probably a Republican.
The last example "supporters and critics" is even clearer - the
"critic" isn't someone who is academically arguing against it, it's
just someone who opposes it. With, or without a valid reason.
Hmm.
Steve