system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
The principle of charity

How seriously is this principle taken within academic philosophy? One thing that's very easy to see within more popular/non\-academic forms of communication is an almost wilful determination to think the worst of people who disagree with you, or think you're wrong, to the point where they aren't just wrong, but also morally disgusting, repugnant, and vile. Even when doing my PhD in Psychology, it was not uncommon to see very uncharitable interpretations of statistics, theories, hypotheses etc., within academic journals.  

On the rare occasion when you see a philosopher comment on something in more popular media \(I'm thinking of Dennet's response to Sam Harris' book on free will, as one example\) it's astounding how well\-mannered the complete disagreement can be. Is this style of discourse the norm, or the majority? Is it common \(for instance\) to dismiss an objection simply because it violates this idea to some degree?
gpt
>How seriously is this principle taken within academic philosophy? 

Very.

>Is this style of discourse the norm, or the majority?

Yes.

>Is it common (for instance) to dismiss an objection simply because it violates this idea to some degree?

Yes.