academic commentary

António Pedro Marques · 30 Nov 2010, 12:38 · from 2010-November.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 12:38:31 +0000
Subject: (urth) academic commentary
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikt_fnrdZS8CUPjeT3P9HRXwPfC-2BHXpjNbRvp at mail.gmail.com>
References: <SNT123-W90C362128623D2A57C5AACF240 at phx.gbl>	<964735.56099.qm at web37604.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<4CF3D13D.1020405 at verizon.net>
	<4CF3D50C.20400 at gmail.com>	<4CF3ED73.2020900 at verizon.net>	<AANLkTikbgXyJTts_02R7sw7sa3f1jd07tMqW-KwdEa+8 at mail.gmail.com>	<4CF4297A.9090302 at verizon.net>
	<4CF437C9.6000707 at gmail.com>
	<AANLkTikt_fnrdZS8CUPjeT3P9HRXwPfC-2BHXpjNbRvp at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF4F047.7090504 at gmail.com>

Thomas Bitterman wrote (30-11-2010 02:22):

> Another way of looking at it.  The question is "How did Wright miss/not
> include an obvious (and likely superior) interpretation that any careful
>  reader would read?".  The answer is "Because it made him feel
> uncomfortable".  This looks like a clear case of arguing against the
> author rather than the thesis.

But is it more complimenting to answer "Because it's above his league?"? I
certainly don't think that's the case.

> Allow me to explain my reasoning.  On the non-fiction side of things
> (which is where I think Wright's thesis is meant to be) a researcher who
> is unwilling to follow the evidence wherever it leads is considered a
> poor researcher.  It is akin to intellectual dishonesty.

Not necessarily. Where the evidence leads is always subject to
interpretation. If anything, it would be dishonest to tamper with the
evidence in order that the public wouldn't follow it into disliked
territory. But Wright doesn't do that at all. So my view is that he doesn't
find the obvious, likely superior interpretation that obvious and likely
superior. And not to mention it at all suggests he finds it unhelpful. He 
doesn't close the path either, he just leaves it for the public to follow on 
their own.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net