This guy named Donald Davidson makes what I think is a very interesting point in an essay entitled "The Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme." He suggests that we actually do a lot of "charitable" interpretation--that is, we presume that we understand what the other person holds for beliefs, etc. when they say things. We then engage in a give and take that allows us to reach some consensus position of understanding. I think that is what happened in the Squad threads.
It seems that a little less charity is being expressed in the various threads about Boyd, OODA, MW, etc. My take on this is that the acrimony in a debate varies inversely to the stakes/outcome of the debate. IOW, lots of folks have a lot of "skin" invested in the expanatory power of Boyd, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, etc, but the cash value of that "skin" is actually quite small. On a day-to-day, non-academic basis, having one of them be more right really doesn't amount to much in how successfully we get along in the world of prosecuting warfare at the tactical level.
Bookmarks