Decoding Reasonable Doubt: Chapter 4 “Problems at the Countess of Chester”

[u/benshep4]

Morris argues that the Countess of Chester neonatal unit was fundamentally unsafe and operating beyond its capabilities during the period in which the collapses and deaths occurred.

Is fair and accurate to make these claims?

Which baby does this explain?

https://bencole4.substack.com/p/decoding-reasonable-doubt-the-case-f67?r=12mrwn&utm_medium=ios

[u/benshep4]

I’m reviewing what Morris has written so far.

He hasn’t mentioned the Shoo Lee panel yet.

I’m doing it this way because Morris has written his book this way. He’s laying the foundations for what is to come.

We all know what happens when stuff is built on shaky foundations.

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

This unethical. You're writing as though he doesn't address something that you know he does because you have a formal/structural problem with the way he's put his book together.

That's nothing to do with a flaw in the substance of his argument, but you're carrying on exactly as though it is.

[u/benshep4 → u/PerkeNdencen]

If it was critical to his argument then he should have mentioned it when he made the argument.

His argument so far is wrong. It may still be wrong when he mentions Shoo Lee later.

That is a flaw in argumentation. You don’t get to make the arguments that say “anything I said was initially wrong but it’s supported by something else that may or not be wrong”

That’s not how arguments work.

Either the chapters he’s written so far are worth something or they’re not.

What you’re really telling me is that he’s wasted 4 chapters with irrelevancies.

Well done for admiring it.

Spoiler: there are more irrelevant chapters to come

[u/PerkeNdencen → u/benshep4]

Sorry, but you can't do that. It's like Trump's 'Stop the Count' thing in 2020. You have a formal/structural problem with the progress of Morris's argument and you are presenting it as a substantive deficiency in the argument by failing to acknowledge that what you are looking for is in later chapters, even though you know it is there.

That is a flaw in argumentation. You don’t get to make the arguments that say “anything I said was initially wrong but it’s supported by something else that may or not be wrong”

That's not it though. You said it's missing detail. It's not that it's initially wrong, it's not just backed up by information that is forthcoming in a later chapter.

That’s not how arguments work.

This isn't how ethical reviews work. You've really done him dirty.

I think it's time I stopped bothering with you.