academic commentary

António Pedro Marques · 01 Dec 2010, 19:05 · from 2010-December.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: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 19:05:56 +0000
Subject: (urth) academic commentary
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=KbyHRi7K-oB_E11SMEsNQXyuTgn50JXWMd1yf 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>	<4CF4F047.7090504 at gmail.com>	<AANLkTimq1Fp_PviFQjq6y=GgB7jzVW_K0-1UxQP_NCyZ at mail.gmail.com>	<4CF54F7D.7050205 at gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=KbyHRi7K-oB_E11SMEsNQXyuTgn50JXWMd1yf at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF69C94.8020602 at gmail.com>

Thomas Bitterman wrote (01-12-2010 02:30):
> 2010/11/30 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com
> <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>>
>
>     Thomas Bitterman wrote (30-11-2010 18:55):
>
>         2010/11/30 Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com
>         <mailto:entonio at gmail.com>
>         <mailto:entonio at gmail.com <mailto:entonio 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.
>
>         That is a false dichotomy.  There are other ways to answer which
>         do not
>         involve speculation on Wright's personal properties.  I would even
>         suggest that the question itself is not helpful/applicable to
>         understanding a non-fiction thesis.
>
>     At the end of the day the fact remains that Wright left a certain
>     path unexplored and that demands an explanation. And that is
>     lacking. It should have been made explicit from the onset.
>
> Wright's thesis stands or falls on its internal logic and ability to
> shed light on the material.  It is not dependent on what he didn't do
> except in so far as a different theory might be better, and that is a
> separate argument.  It certainly doesn't depend upon any imagined
> reasons for why he did/didn't come to different conclusions.

I don't think this is getting anywhere. The issue here is that there is a 
dimension to the work that Wright hasn't explored in his 
generally-applicable scheme. That simply and definitely demands an 
explanation. It's as if you were solving a murder mystery, you explained to 
the public how first appearances could be deceiving, and then sold off 
second appearances as the ultimate truth. The question isn't why didn't he 
address further readings. The question is why didn't he address further 
readings when he's precisely been showing the importance of further readings 
(if nothing else, to disavow them!). To use your terminology, his thesis may 
fall on not applying its internal logic to its full consequences.

Of course everything serves the purpose of the Increate, so even a failed 
thesis may shed some (or even much) light on things.

>     Of course if one views speculation over a person's choices as
>     speculation over the person, then any answer will look like just that.
>
> When the speculation takes the form of "Person X made bad choice Y
> because they have property Z" then sure, it looks like that.

Of course, and since it's you who inserted the 'bad' and the 'they have', I 
have nothing to do with that.

>         Craig Brewer has a good post on another thread with the same name
>         describing how he sees Wright's method.  I agree with him.
>
>     Craig's view(s) fall within what I consider(ed) 'inconvenien[ce]' -
>     the 'third' interpretation is not interesting (in an epistemological
>     sense) from the point of view of Wright's method. Craig may have
>     nailed it, but that doesn't mean questions aren't justified.
>
> If Wright came on the list and said "Yup, I didn't pursue the 3rd level
> of interpretation because it made me uncomfortable as an atheist", would

You seem to be hung on some interpretation of my original remark as 
belittling atheists. Neither was that my intention nor do I think the issue 
is atheism - though it might be -, I rather think it's methodological 
prejudice. Maybe I should have said 'methodologically 
uncomfortable/inconvenient' and we wouldn't be having this conversation 
(though going by what you say there's no difference).

Of course, no such standards are applied when evaluating anyone else. People 
mention all the time why authors avoided this, ignored that and choked there.

> that be enough?  If not, what would be?  If so, how does that affect the
> truth of his thesis?  Trying to figure out why he did or didn't make a
> particular argument based on a personal property is idle speculation.

Take up that issue with all the people who wonder why he didn't develop his 
thesis all the way up, not me - I think I know why, I've explained it 
perhaps thrice now, and I don't think I can add any more the discussion.

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