The historical assessment of Appendix B as simply 'faulty' risks conflating a local inferential error with a wholesale refutation of the predicativist research program it initiated.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Conflating: Conflating means mixing together or treating two different things as if they were the same thing, when they're actually distinct. It's a logical error where someone blurs important differences between concepts, ideas, or situations to make an argument seem stronger than it is. For example, conflating "being critical of a policy" with "being disloyal to your country" wrongly equates two separate things.
Faulty(as used to describe ignorance that doesn't meet proper standards): Flawed or defective in a way that makes something unreliable or wrong, even if unintentionally.
Historical assessment(referring to how philosophers have judged Appendix B): The practice of evaluating something from the past by looking at how scholars and thinkers have understood it over time.
Local inferential error(a narrow, limited logical mistake): A mistake in one specific logical step or argument, rather than a problem with the entire method.

Based on where you are in your exploration