I really appreciate Lydia, and even when I strongly disagree with her conclusions (which I don’t in this case), I can respect her epistemological method.I think there's a small grammatical problem with the linked article:"It’s not a trivial thing to conclude two groups are referring to the same entity when there’s plenty of reason otherwise."I believe the words "to think" need to be inserted in between the bolded words above.
Yes, that looks like an error that crept in when they reset and somewhat revised the article. In the usual way of editors and blog writers, there was no proof stage where I got to see whether errors had been introduced. The original sentence in the document sent to them was, "It is not a trivial matter to conclude that this is a case where the two groups are really referring to the same entity, and there is plenty of reason to think the contrary." As you can see, rather a different sentence, though the _gist_ is the same.Come to think of it, the previous sentence has been revised as well in a strange way, and I just realized it. I wrote, "In some cases radically different ideas will not mean that two people aren't referring to the same being, but in other cases they do." The sentence actually published makes it sound like radically different ideas can somehow _mean_ that people are referring to the same being, but that makes no sense. It is simply that sometimes radically different ideas are _compatible_ with a situation in which people are referring to the same being.Oh, well. Such is life when one agrees to publish a blog post at a site where one does not control the editorial tinkering.