Sometimes people's claims make one assertion and then they actually end up
making a different assertion through out their writing.
So you want to have alignment there.
Contestable is a good word, but
I really want to couch it carefully, because I'll tell you what I don't mean.
What I don't mean is that you don't have to have a claim that other people can
argue against, I'm not talking about that contestability.
It's more, are there other readers, or other scholars who are out there.
Who could make some kind of reasonable caveat to your claim?
Or who could take it in a different direction of some kind?
So is it, kind of the yes, but, right?
Could you imagine sort of readers reading your argument and saying yes, but?
And maybe that but is something they already know about, right?
Yes, but what about this?
Or maybe it's a new area of inquiry for them.
Yes, But how about if we apply it to this situation?
What would happen?
So, is it contestable in that way.
You want to try as a writer to qualify, What you say,
rather than presenting an argument that applies to every
single situation in every possible possibility of life.
You probably want to qualify your arguments in a way that makes them more
contestable in this kind of positive way.
Complex.
That means, not obvious or simple.
And we talked about this with coil, right,
the concept that many of us might have heard before we even read coil.
That practice makes perfect.
So how is it that coil was trying to make his argument more complex right,
to build beyond.
The idea that practice makes perfect.
What was he saying that was different?
And I think what he was saying that was different was his concept of mistakes, and
that was how he made his argument more complex.